And as much as I respect Nate’s analysis, he’s got serious problems here.
I’m not sure if Nate Silver is incorporating way too much beltway conventional wisdom into his analysis or if he’s just decided to move into Firebagger Country, but his latest 35,000 feet analysis of President Obama’s re-election is that he loses unless the economy improves and his chances are 50-50 overall.
The problem is with the input parameters on Nate’s model:
Obama does indeed have a “Jewish problem.” Polls find that his standing among Jews has deteriorated: only about 54 percent of them approved of his performance in the most recent Gallup survey. But this is to be expected when a president has a 40-something approval rating. He also has a Hispanic problem and a problem among the white working class. He has a problem in Ohio and a problem in Florida and a problem in New Hampshire. He even has, to a mild extent, an African-American problem: Obama’s approval ratings among black voters are still high, but down to about 80 percent from 90 percent.
All of these, however, are symptoms of Obama’s larger problems, a set of three fundamental misgivings shared by much of the American electorate.
• First, many of us understand that Barack Obama inherited a terrible predicament. We have a degree of sympathy for the man. But we have concerns, which have been growing over time, about whether he’s up to the job.
• Second, most of us are gravely concerned about the economy. We’re not certain what should be done about it, but we’re frustrated.
• Third, enough of us are prepared to vote against Obama that he could easily lose. It doesn’t mean we will, but we might if the Republican represents a credible alternative and fits within the broad political mainstream.
I’m trying to figure out where somebody so dependent on actual facts, objective figures, and numerical analysis gets such a flawed model to start with. I’ll give Nate the second point there, most of us really are frustrated over the economy are there are serious differences about what should be done about it (although I’ve been yelling about what to do for a couple of years now.) But his assumptions that “we” think President Obama isn’t “up to the job” is just Village idiocy if anyone was capable of measuring President Obama’s accomplishments in an objective manner…which if anyone is supposed to be able to up in Villageland, it’s Nate Silver.
The third point is hokum as well. Has Silver been paying actual attention to the debates, the laughable policy gimmicks, the absurdity of the sound bites coming from the GOP in the last few months, or the current head-shaking controversies? Who is an actual credible alternative that would survive the primaries and still end up in the “broad political mainstream” in the general election next fall? Surely Nate understands this.
Finally he goes on to basically say that unless the economy improves, the President will basically lose the election. In both of his scenarios where the economy is stagnant, the President has long odds against Rick Perry and nearly impossible odds against Mitt Romney. No mention, of course, that if he’s right the Republicans have every reason to continue to obstruct and sabotage the economy, and so far it’s been pretty effective in blocking every attempt by the Democrats to improve the economy.
And finally, FINALLY, Nate basically says that the polls this early that show President Obama winning against every specific Republican in the race are simply too far away from November 2012 to be of any use, but he does throw in this caveat:
Obama has gone from a modest favorite to win re-election to, probably, a slight underdog. Let’s not oversell this. A couple of months of solid jobs reports, or the selection of a poor Republican opponent, would suffice to make him the favorite again.
I’m going to say the selection of any single Republican makes him the favorite again, considering that’s exactly what the polls continue to say and have now for a while: in a head-to-head matchup, Obama wins.
So how is he the underdog anywhere except inside the Beltway?
Is Nate pimping for a job at Politico?
from that Gallup poll you linked:
Bottom Line
Although Obama’s approval rating among Jewish Americans has been declining, it has generally declined no more than it has among all Americans. This calls into question attempts to link a decline in Obama’s approval among Jews to his statements or policies on matters important to Jewish policymakers and lobbyists. These include his major “1967 borders” speech in mid-May and the apparent rebuke of the president in this week’s special congressional election in New York, which a Republican won in a heavily Jewish district. All in all, Obama continues to do better among Jews than among all Americans, and there has been little change in that pattern so far throughout the first 2 ½ years of his administration.
I’m sorry, but at the current moment he is the underdog and will be as long as the House is in GOP hands and the Senate requires 60 votes to even consider legislation. As Warren Buffett put it, the class war is over and the rich have won.
He’s not the underdog by much, to be sure – the ridiculous GOP nomination race has pretty much guaranteed that there *will* be an election and that it will be close. But he’s going to have to win re-election on the ground, voter by voter. Campaigning against Congress hasn’t produced a single outcome yet and isn’t likely to do so.
I totally agree. I disagree completely with Nate’s analysis and I usually agree with him
But if there’s no horserace, how will the media report the campaign? [/snark]
precisely.
It’s tough for the GOP to have a horse race when they only have the back half of the horses to work with. ;-)
http://tiny.cc/heyo
:)
I think the Article’s point is that the only real opponent Obama has is the economy. There isn’t a single GOP contender in the field who could touch him if unemployment were under 8%. Frankly, there’s a reason why the only serious GOP contender is Mitt Romney – the other GOP stars took a closer look at Obama and knew he’s far from a push-over. You don’t take out the royal family of the moderate Democratic Party and make them look like petty amateurs without serious skills. Obama is bloodied, but he’s far from out.
Its the economy stupid – but the problem is that too many people are too stupid about the economy. If anything, they’ll blame Obama for this mess (which was Bush) and will elect one fruitcakes over in the GOP. We did elect Red Ink Ronnie – twice.
But again, none of the Republicans are close the communicator of Ronald Reagan. Perry’s a moron, Cain has set Black politicos back 4 decades and the rest are even more pathetic.
This might be close, only because middle America is general stupid Fox News drones and the angry young militants who are now part of the Occupy Wall Street movement sat on their asses in 2010 and may just be dumb enough to sit on their asses in 2012. Obama will win because we’re a nation of impatient children not ready to take on serious problems or to actually pay attention.
Well I’m happy that many people are starting to realize that Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the economy just to get Obama out of the WH.
I think this will be like 1948 on steroids. If he runs against those nihilistic vandals he’ll be in great shape. We still need to worry about voting shenanigans and Firebag ratfuckery. A 1948 election replay we can win, a 2000 election replay will bring about hell on earth.
Nate ignores the fact that poll after poll after poll shows that the American voting public understands that Obama inherited this mess. Which is pretty fucking shocking for someone who’s supposed to be such a genius about polling.
Thanks a lot Nate you useless prick. When I vote for Obama next year I’ll think of you scumbag.
There is serious risk that PBO will lose. The economy is bad; the president is ‘weak’ ( that is, black); 45% vote GOP no matter what; etc.
Silver delivered a warning. The Party and PBO will have to come to the game prepared and ready to rock and roll. They will need to acquire their target and fire for effect.
It will be close. Most voters are low information and vote on emotion.
GOTV, people.
Loath as I am to admit it, there is always a risk.
Classical military thinking is that no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, and the Republicans are clearly the enemy. Not only are they the enemy of President Obama, they are the enemy of the United States.
Remember that.
And it’s better to prepare than to plan, for the reason I describe above. There is a distinction with a meaningful difference and it’s an important one.
Remember also that there is no such thing as a fair fight. The object of the game is to win.
The President’s brand rests on his supposed demonstrations that the fight can be fair, through his repeated pre-compromising and outright embracing of right wing frames.
But you are still correct: there is no such thing as a fair fight. To make sense of Obama’s claims to the contrary, one must be willing to consider that those the President truly wishes to take advantage of are not the elites of the other half of Washington’s shared monopoly but rather those least equipped to defend themselves from it.
You can take your “…outright embracing of right wing frames” and shove it. That’s not what he’d doing, and either you are flat-out ignorant or outright lying when you say so.
Get bent.
So you missed the austerity pivot, grand compromise, freezing fed wages, eat your peas, etc? Pretty interesting year we had there, you might want to look into it.
But do tell me: if there is no such thing as a fair fight, how should we interpret the President’s unswerving assertions to the contrary? If he’s deeply handicapped by delusions or ignorance, what’s the point of all this defensiveness on his behalf? If he’s playing a con, then who is his mark… who is losing something and who is gaining? We know the answer.
Did austerity occur? Did the grand compromise? This is now November 2011. Nothing happened in the end. Yeah, Bradley Manning and the catfood commission. Vote Nader and leave me alone already. You’re sooooo much smarter than me you can suck your own cock.
So better an ineffective right winger destroying the reputation of liberals than an earnest warrior for liberal policy? And better the former than an open right winger that we can unify against?
And to avoid any appearance of disrespect: would anyone mind if I combine the self-fellation with the getting bent?
WTF?
You can DIAF for all any of us would likely care.
So you missed the 2010 election, then? The one where the president warned America not to give the Republicans the keys back, and they did anyway?
“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,” he said. “Either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html?pagewanted=all
Clearly the obvious thing to do would be to cede all three branches of government to the GOP for a generation. True, he’s demonstrably accomplished more progressive goals in 3 years than Clinton and Carter combined in 12, but he didn’t give me a magic pony that shits 24 carat gold and fellates me 3 times a day, nor did he use his Magic Negro Magic to create a perfect Progressitopia replete with rainbows, frolicking unicorns, gumdrops, butterscotch waterfalls, lollipop trees, and a cute little mouse in footy pajamas on a toadstool. So, fuck you, Barack OHitlermba! That will teach you to break all the promises that I hallucinated you made to me!
And who needs a job anyways, right?
OK then. Perhaps you’d care to dispense a few pearls of your wisdom on achievable, workable methods to correct the abuses? Or are you just one of those classic poutragers who whine and complain but can’t be bothered to get off your ass and actually do something to improve things?
To this point, I have seen nothing from you other than grumbles and lies. Are you up to the task of proving otherwise?
Which lies would those be?
Non-responsive.
Typical.
i wish i shared some people’s confidence.
i’m not confident AT ALL.
the problem is, voters make stupid decisions and routinely vote against their interests. the media has a vested interest in “making it interesting” which is why the MSM will breathlessly report every poll from now until eternity.
also, voters may recognize that republicans are tanking the economy on purpose, but that doesn’t necessarily mean voters will punish republicans for it at the ballot box.
frankly, the whole business gives me heart burn.
I don’t have the expertise to debate with Silver over stats and probabilities. However, I think he pulled the statement – “But we have concerns, which have been growing over time, about whether he’s up to the job.” – out of his ass. WTF?
Three years into his presidency and Silver’s using a statement his opponents spouted during the 2008 campaign? What the hell does President Obama have to do to prove he’s up to the job?
He stopped another depression in its tracks; he healed our relationships with most of the world after President Bush trashed them; he has taken out more terrorists in 3 years than President Bush did in eight; and, the domestic issues he has delivered on are too numerous to recite.
Bryant Gumbel once said of his detractors, “If I walk on water, they’ll say I can’t swim.”
What do these two men have in common? Don’t think too much about that answer. It’s right on the surface.
Metric – you’re right, Obama did a lot despite GOP shenanigans. And so did Jimmy Carter and look how the Firebaggers of his day (Ted Kennedy and a few other lefties) and the loons who elected Ronald Reagan hoodwinked everyone.
If we empirically look at his work, Obama is the most successful liberal President since LBJ, if not FDR. But, if you follow the logic of the Closet Klan Right and the Mau-Mau Left he’s the worst President since Warren G. Harding.
Why does the Hard Left and the Hard Right (along with the media) warp reality. Because reality would kick their teeth in. If the American people smarten up and see the deal (the Emo-Progs are only good for writing angry blogs and starting aimless protests, the Right have been putting their hands in their ears and razzing the President for three years instead of actually fixing the economy), Obama wins. And, if Obama wins a second term – they both lose. The GOP will be virtually powerless and probably won’t get the White House back for decades. And the Emo-Progs will eventually have to concede that they don’t have a clue and have screwed progressives for 30 years.
It is interesting that this piece is not posted at fivethirtyeight, but at the NY Times Opinion section.
Silver says: “Obama does indeed have a “Jewish problem.” Polls find that his standing among Jews has deteriorated: only about 54 percent of them approved of his performance in the most recent Gallup survey.”
While Orthodox Jews may have voted for a Republican Congressman and Brooklyn, we should not expand that to the population of Jews nationally. There is an aspect to the overall Jewish vote that Silver is ignoring. As a whole Jews are pretty damn liberal. I suggest that a good chunk of the 46% of Jews who disapprove are doing so because Obama is not liberal enough. The right will want us all to believe that all Jews care about is Israel, but that is not the case. Jewish voters are generally well informed and will see past the right’s Israel rhetoric. While Obama cannot ignore his base, I suggest much of the 46% of Jewish voters will come back to the Democrats.
I am seeing a metric shit-ton of generic anti-government nihilism from the ostensible left lately, well far and beyond from those who specifically marnate in Firebagger blogs 24/7. It seems like a lot of random people are just defaulting to “all politicians are corrupt puppets so it doesn’t really matter anyways” sentiments. This really concerns me because it’s one thing if you have a Firebagger or Greenbeck shithead cultist preaching that Obama=Hitler; those people are easy to spot and their numbers are relatively small, but when I hear this just general ennui from people that should know better, again it concerns me because it’s so broad and lazy and reductionist & may well manifest itself in enough nonvoters to result in ceding all 3 branches of government to the GOP for a generation. I know how to counter the diehard evangelical Firehadists (tell them to go fuck themselves and die in a fire), but I don’t know how to counter the general political burnouts who have never even heard of a Jane Hamsher or a Glenn Greenwald.