Nearly all the usual suspects that predict presidential elections point to a rough road ahead for Obama: His job approval rating, which has sunk to the low 40's; an economy with anemic growth, an unemployment rate stuck at 9 percent, and poor consumer confidence; horse-race polls in which Obama is struggling to beat a generic Republican and some flesh-and-blood opponents. Add to that a dispirited Democratic base plus a cocky Republican Party, and it would be easy to write off Obama as a one-term president. Yet there is one comfort that Obama can draw on right now: History is on his side. What kind of history?
Over the course of two centuries, American presidential elections have exhibited a distinct cycle. This is not the pattern associated with long-term partisan realignments that may last 30 years or so. It is a more short-term cycle that has escaped notice. Not as regular as the tides, it behaves more like sunspots and hurricanes. As an example, consider how the White House party has fared in successive elections during the last half century.
But what about George H.W. Bush in 1992? And Gerald Ford in 1976? Both went down to defeat after having served one (or even less than one) term as president. That is certainly true, but the prediction is about the presidential party. By 1992, the Republicans, with Reagan and Bush, had held the White House for three terms; by 1976, they had done so with Nixon and Ford for two terms. Neither Ford nor Bush (elder) got into office by sweeping out the other party. They did so more or less as designated successors of presidents with a considerable record. For better or worse, they were measured by the legacy of their predecessors, whom they served as vice presidents, rather than as genuine first-term presidents.
In contrast, a president who enters the White House by defeating the candidate of the incumbent party -- perhaps the sitting president himself -- starts out with a pledge of change: from Kennedy's "New Frontier" in 1960, through Reaganomics in 1980, to Obama's "Hope and Change" in 2008. The electorate has loudly registered the demand, "It's Time for a Change." But change will take time to be implemented. At such moments in history, one may suspect, the public is willing to show some patience with the efforts of the new administration to work its magic. But when two terms are up the public may no longer be inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. By then, of course, the two-term limit prevents a sitting president from running for another term, making the odds of retaining the White House even longer for the presidential party.
Whatever the explanation, the pattern illustrated for the last 50 years can be spotted in presidential elections all the way back to 1828, when popular voting took hold across the United States.
What is more, the electoral cycle lets us make a vote forecast for the 2012 presidential election, using the following equation1:
The resulting forecast gives Obama 51.8 percent of the two-party vote in 2012. It is not a landslide as some first-term presidents have scored: Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. It is more a narrow victory of the kind Bush achieved in 2004. In view of the error that attends any model estimates, what are the chances that Obama will win in 2012, given the forecast of 51.8? The answer is two in three. Yes, history is on Obama's side, but with less conviction than in the case of some other first-term presidents.
1 This type of model was proposed by G. U. Yule to mimic the periodic, albeit irregular, fluctuations of sunspot observations over a span of 175 years. See Yule, G.U. (1971). On a method of investigating periodicities in disturbed series with special reference to Wolfer's sunspot numbers. In A. Stuart and M. Kendall (Ed.), Statistical papers of George Udny Yule (pp. 389-420). New York: Hafner Press. (originally published in 1927)
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Hahahahahahaha, the notion that Obama has a 67% chance of being reelected is absolutely hilarious.
freshman Tea Party-affiliated Congressman's ethics issues "stem from his failure to pay child support and accurately disclose income and liabilities on his personal financial disclosure forms, and his campaign committee's inaccurate reporting of interest payment on his loans to his campaigns." These issues, according to the report, represent Walsh "act[ing] in a manner that does not reflect creditably on the House."The back child support allegations are not the only questionable financial practice allegations Walsh has faced. While he was campaigning last year, former campaign field director Richard Cape claimed he would "spend, spend, spend uncontrollably." His former campaign manager Keith Liscio eventually sued for $20,000 in nonpayment, and two other staffers who quit accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public, taking their grievances public. Walsh also bounced checks, including one to a Republican fundraiser. Liscio's case against Walsh has since been settled.
this is just one of the gems the TP put into office- and you have the nerve to talk about Obama
Now that the past 3 years have unmasked Obama of his real intentions of destroying wealth creation, impugning wealthy Americans and his recent speeches revealing the evident impact that Jermiah Wright's world view had on the President, you look the other way and apply Saul Alinsky-like assaults when you demonstrate zero solutions to the obvious problems in our nation.
What EXACTLY would Obama propose in a second term? Higher taxes? More regulation? More food stamps? More debt and more spending? Obamacare alone has 20...that's right, 20 new or higher taxes that will impact citizens who earn less than 250k.
The owner of the Washington Wizards, an Obama supporter and donor in '08, has turned on Obama for his despicable class warfare strategy. The CEO of Coca Cola says similar things, as does the founder of BET, Robert Johnson, a black man, who is utterly disappointed in Obama.
what about this gem: national Tea Party organizer, Top Conservatives on Twitter cofounder and TCOTReport.com publisher Michael P. Leahy has, over the past 16 years, amassed nearly $150,000 in state and federal tax liens, small claims court judgments and civil suits.
We all see precisely what Obama stands for, an all-powerful, centralized government and a US flag that instead of the 50 stars that we see, has one star, the Federal Government. In Obama's world, the US citizens are ruled by unaccountable, unelected, faceless bureaucrats who run Obamacare thru HHS, and the IPAB board.
The chances for structural reform of Obamacare in the future, if left unchallenged, are impossible. It will regulate businesses to death in many cases.
That's just one example of Obama's desire to construct a Command and Control economy, a tragic illusion of a just society when history has proven again and again, it does not work.
Now give us some history on the Gallup organization, wouldya'?
The TeaPublican Congress has a 13% approval rating for crying out loud.
I know there are Dems in Congress, but let's face it, when America thinks of Congress, they think of J.Boehner and E.Cantor and TEA TEA TEA
Who's really in worse shape here?
What we have in the White House now, with his recent angry speeches, is someone who sat in the pews of Jermiah Wright, an angry black man, to practically quote you above.
In reality, you can't defend the over-promising and under-delivering of Obama. His promises are many, his results are non-existent, certainly in economic terms. Not a surprise for a man whose never held a job in the private sector that required as much as a cardboard hat.
You can look backward at the GOP or label the eventual nominee. But the one who proposes less spending, less government and less regulation versus the one proposing bigger government, more taxes, more food stamps and more debt.
BTW, Obama in Feb 2009: "I will cut the deficit that we inherited in half by the end of my first term." --his words, not mine.
He has a record to defend this time, including the stimulus spending per job "created."
The 23 Senate Dems up for re-election must defend Obamacare, so they will stay far away from Obama in about 18 of those races. Not sure about the connection between nice guys and Obama...he can get mighty angry if a journalist asks a question that challenges Obama.
BTW, will Obama even have a press conference in the next year in which he doesn't control the questions or at least the journalists who might ask them? I mean, he's had maybe 2 in the past 2 years!
Here is how the economy will improve with Obama defeated. Obamacare will be voted down. The trillions of dollars that corporations and banks are hoarding because of their fear of promised Obama tax hikes and regulations will be released. Business will then create jobs and invest.
The tax rates that lie before us by doing nothing with medicare and medicaid are indescribable. But if that doesn't matter to the 50% of Americans who demand the money of those evil, hate-filled ultra rich, vote for Obama.
We can inch slowly toward a European-style socialistic democracy with 16% unemployment. Go get'em Tiger!