Political Animal
Blog
If you want a better understanding of the potential importance of today’s impressive January jobs report, check out a massive analysis Nate Silver posted (before the report was released, as it happens) on the relationship of election-year jobs gains and the electoral prospects of parties in power going back to 1948. You should read the whole thing if possible, since it is full of nuances and qualifiers. But here’s the nut graph:
If Mr. Obama has an approval rating of 52 percent by November, he will almost certainly win re-election. He’d also be a favorite if he’s at 50 percent. And 48 percent or 49 percent might also do the trick, since at that point Mr. Obama’s approval rating would likely exceed his disapproval rating.
But Mr. Obama is not quite there yet. The surest way for him to improve his approval rating will be to create jobs at a rate that exceeds the rate of population growth.
We can come up with an estimate of just how many jobs this might be if we put a president’s approval rating as of Feb. 1 and the payrolls numbers into a regression equation.
After some additional adjustments, Nate comes up with a figure of 151,000 as the average monthly jobs gains the president needs between now and November to put himself in a strong position for re-election, at least in terms of economic fundamentals. So the January figures (a net gain of 243,000 jobs) are a good start for 2012.
Facebook
Twitter
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 11:51 AM:
Nate's not quite right -- obviously, approval ratings count, but DISapproval ratings count more.
That is -- many people can LIKE a candidate, even an incumbent, and not vote for him. But very few people who actually dislike a candidate will vote for him, especially an incumbent.
karl on February 03, 2012 11:52 AM:
The "nut graph"? Really?
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 11:57 AM:
LOL -- yeah, journalism jargon is odd. Sorta like when an old salt tells a sailor to fetch 90 fathoms of chow line.
DAY on February 03, 2012 12:01 PM:
Americanist, your "logic" is suspicious:
One may dislike an incumbent, but when offered a choice between him and a GuanoNutz opponent, they will hold their nose, and vote for the incumbent. Happens all the time!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
On paper, the Patriots will win the superbowl.
Last night one of the cable Talking Heads said the election can be decided by the electoral votes of the states that has Obama above or below 50%. On paper, right now, ANY Republican will win the election.
Yesterday the groundhog said six more weeks of winter. We shall see. . .
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 12:19 PM:
(snicker) Day, kindly name, say, three examples of an incumbent with high unfavorability ratings who was re-elected anyway.
See -- I wasn't using logic. I was citing facts. As I keep noting 'round here, it helps to acquire them before you form opinions.
CJ on February 03, 2012 12:42 PM:
After some additional adjustments, Nate comes up with a figure of 151,000 as the average monthly jobs gains the president needs between now and November to put himself in a strong position for re-election,...
The GOP will do everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen: Bully the Fed into ignoring it's mandate, advocate austerity measures, attempt to prevent extending the payroll tax cut, block up-and-down votes on the components of the American Jobs Act...
Vokoban on February 03, 2012 1:00 PM:
Quite a couple of those who do not approve of Obama now come from the left. Most of them will vote Obama when confronted with the alternative.
And if the job market gets better at the current rate the approval numbers will go north of 50 by April.
No matter what the americatroll says.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 1:09 PM:
(patiently) Vokoban, strive to comprehend what you read. Take your time. Sound out the hard words.
I didn't say that Obama's approval #s wouldn't go up, even over 50%, as and if the economy improves.
I pointed out that this doesn't guarantee his re-election -- because it doesn't. Lots of people will LIKE a candidate, even an incumbent, but vote for the other guy -- or not vote at all.
It is true that the single most significant factor predicting an election is the economy, but it's not the only factor, and it doesn't always determine how people vote.
Going too fast for you?
When you look within the numbers (particularly if you look at what are called crosstabs), you find all kinds of important dynamics -- it shouldn't surprise people that a significant # of pro-choice folks won't support a pro-life candidate, regardless of their economic views.
(Since I've argued for what's called "theAmericanist rule", which is that you can measure the health of a democracy by how openly politicians can disagree with their employers, the voters, and STILL get re-elected, it's not like this has never come up before.)
What really counts in a close election (which this MIGHT not be) are the negative ratings for each candidate: the percentage of folks who would never, ever, vote for a candidate, no matter what.
Negatives are easier to drive up, and much harder to push down, than positives. I've said before, and I'll repeat the prediction now, that Ds could run the table in the fall: keeping the White House and Senate, and taking back the House.
But that won't be JUST because of the economy. It can only happen if Democrats in general, and Obama in particular keep his negatives relatively low.
Ron Byers on February 03, 2012 1:21 PM:
Of course these numbers don't guarantee an Obama win this fall. Lots of things can happen, but I have to tell you that if the favorable numbers are above 50% come this fall Obama will be almost impossible to beat. People don't like to change horses unless it is absolutely necessary. If more than 50% of Americans like the job the President is doing, and he does any kind of campaigning at all, he will be reelected, even if Romney also has high favorability numbers.
I will throw this back on you, show me any incumbent American election where a popular President (or any elected official) has been voted out of office. There are 9-10 months to go and the Supreme Court made the voices of billionaires more powerful than ever with Citizens United so anything can happen.
Ron Byers on February 03, 2012 1:24 PM:
Americanist I reread your post, and I think everybody is saying the same thing. If Obama keeps his positives high, his negatives will necessarily be low. What is the big woop.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 1:45 PM:
Keep it up there, Ron: Literacy is just around the corner. Can numeracy be far behind?
No, if he gets his positives high, that doesn't necessarily mean his negatives are low. Pollsters refer to someone or an issue with BOTH high positives and negatives as having "great cleavage" -- which just means that very few people are neutral.
If you're running for office for the first time, it's generally good that everybody has strong feelings about you.
But that's not Obama's weakness. His weakness is that people who don't like him, REALLY don't like him -- while the majority (a plurality, technically) that does like him, isn't that crazy about him anymore.
So it matters a great deal where his negatives are. It's not unheard of that an incumbent President with a relatively good economy loses re-election, even one who won a war: you don't even have to go back very far -- the first President Bush, who lost when the unemployment rate was 7.5%. (Granted, it was going up, not down, but my point is that it isn't all economics: Bush breaking his read my lips promise drove his negatives way, WAY up.)
Hedda Peraz on February 03, 2012 1:58 PM:
Americanist, bless your heart, it's not Obama we don't like, but his dusky hue.
And yet, America once again gave the Heisman Trophy to One of His kind. . .
Ron Byers on February 03, 2012 2:27 PM:
theAmericanist, I know you have a hard time keeping up, I know a lot of people who really don't like the President. If they don't like him they don't like him. They won't give him the benefit of any doubt. They won't tell a pollster that they like the job is doing. They aren't going to vote for him. There is nothing I can do about those people. I would remind you that despite dispite the intensity of their hatred for Obama and whatever you might hear on Fox News the people who don't like Obama only vote once. Just like the people who like him. At least that is the way it was the last election.
The key to any election is turnout. If people are positive about Obama they are very likely to turn out. If they are indifferent they aren't likely to show up.
max on February 03, 2012 2:49 PM:
Well, the GOP governors did their best to raise unemployment by firing their No. 1 threat to our economic security, our teachers. Better luck next time you free market genuises.
MCA1 on February 03, 2012 3:31 PM:
Ahh, theAmericanist. Setting new standards daily in unjustified condescension. Did we, poor idiots with our 5th-grade reading comprehension, miss the part where you showed some evidence of any of the following: correlation rate between individual polltaker disapproval answers and voting against an incumbent (or, contrarily, disapproving but pulling the lever for the sitting President nonetheless); such correlation rate being greater than the corresponding correlation between approval rating and actual votes; treatment of the fact that Romney's unfavorables are about equal to the President's; distinction amongst disapprovers between disappointed progressives and conservatives?
Or are you just assuming that everyone who would give the President a disapproval at the moment is, like you, so filled with venomous hatred for Obama that they'll be racing you to the voting booth to vote for Mittster Burns?
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 5:36 PM:
LOL -- nope: you guys justify something more than condescension on a regular basis.
Observe where I pointed out that approval ratings don't necessarily mean votes, but that disapproval ratings are pretty solid indications of votes lost. Psst -- this is the truth of the old fashioned observation: no, they can't BOTH lose.
I further pointed out that approval ratings tend to be more mobile than disapproval -- it's easier for the first to inflate, and harder to push down the latter.
There are lots of examples of this. I noted one -- Bush 41 had approval ratings in the 90s in 1991, and yet he lost in 1992, largely because his DISapproval ratings climbed, and never receded.
Going too fast for you?
Another example is 2000, when the DISapproval ratings for both parties, but especially for Ds, were exploited by Nader -- whose voters made the difference between Gore, and W.
Something about plain facts and clear reasoning confuses you? Perhaps you should work on your focus: I was explaining, as I said in my first post in this thread, that high approval doesn't necessarily mean you win, so it's important to watch your negatives.
MCA1 on February 03, 2012 6:08 PM:
@theAmericanist - wrong. You made a simple statement: "...approval ratings count, but disapproval ratings count more." You then implied in a subsequent post that even a president with generally decent approval ratings but disapproval ratings approaching parity with the approval is still likely to lose, because in general a "disapprove" response in a poll means a voter's more likely to vote, and vote for a challenger.
You've presented nothing in the way of facts to convince anyone that this is actually the case, or more importantly, that if that general rule is true, it applies to the election at hand. The logical points on the line are obvious, but there's no evidence they're more than fantasy.
In fact, your one factual example of GHWB does zero to advance your thesis. After mid-Feb. of '92, his approval rating never topped 42% and spent most of the time in the '30's. As his disapproval ratings soared, lo and behold, his approval ratings tanked. No! They're directly linked? There weren't plenty of people who still approved of him but were swamped by the more motivated equal numbers of people who were pissed and vowed never to vote for him?
Being a high-functioning cretin who runs around like a donkey and insulting the intelligence of everyone else is not a terribly effective way to advocate your positions.
theAmericanist on February 03, 2012 6:17 PM:
Um, MCA -- it's not like the relative difficulty of driving negatives down, and the bubble nature of favorables, are exactly obscure dynamics in politics.
You really know nothing about it? Perhaps you should approach this (and other subjects, methinks) with a bit more humility.
That's why I noted pretty much the biggest modern example -- as you said (as if this refuted me, which is odd), Bush 41 had extremely high favorables ... which acted just like a bubble.
From which you somehow concluded that I was wrong to... point it out.
If you were smarter, you'd notice the proper test is whether somebody, having accumulated high negatives, managed to drive them down such that they got re-elected -- or perhaps, simply managed to win an election DESPITE really high negatives.
Probably the biggest modern example is... gee, our current President? Or more precisely, his former primary opponent for the Democratic nomination, now our Secretary of State.
Four years ago, Clinton and Obama had favorables which were pretty much even -- but she had much higher negatives, which she never did manage to drive down.
She lost. (It was in all the papers. I sorta took it for granted you'd heard of it, but then...)
Got anything constructive to add to this discussion, or are you just showing up so I get to demonstrate how little you know?
reXteryalizer on February 05, 2012 2:47 AM:
Want to thank all of you, for your Powerfull stand against Oboma & His Corrupted political partners.
But there is so
much more we can do. Being aggressive and focusing on the facts and truth is only the first step.
We musT follow Up
with more details standing by our convictions and dont back down.
Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~! ~ THE
ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !....Was Barack Hussein Obama II.
HIMSELF
Barack Hussein Obama II (
Who hates American Values ) who is A " SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy" ~of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING
Americans.
oBOMAS Irresponsible & DRUG MAFIA and reckless supporters KNOW~ that Barack Hussein Obama II, WILL
FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT .{ FOR all of their UNCHECKED Vices and THRILLS/
{ All on YOU
| / At your COST & Sacrifice.\ ..
.This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE.
THESE ARE
OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. saying ......To his supporters.Saying “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your Fellow
Americans” – Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his Supporters. “I want all Americans to get in each others faces!– Obama
Demands !
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” –
THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. ANGER VIOLENCE
And more taxes..... THIS IS OBAMAS Change for america /“Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands ! *Obama on the
private sector: ~~ “We talk To these folks…~ / so I know whose a*$ to KICK.“ OBOMA wants to KICK your a*$ /```
Shouting THAT Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat” and HE IS EXPECTING people to be on Edge
and ON BORDERLINE killing MODE, `` VIOLENT / and STAND and STOMP and MOB for their immoral CAUSES and THIS IS
WHAT HE LIVES FOR ./ ./ ./ THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. !* Obama Tells democrats: “ I’m itching for a fight.” !
....PLEASE.... go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ ! Oboma *( Just like Adolf Hitler~~\oBOMA~~~ Demands ! -- [ THE FINAL
SOLUTION - for Un~Wanted Children
Barak Obama is A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE.
CLICK HERE http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/index.html
OBAMA TAKES a little NEW BORN innocent child, BORN ALIVE
sTabS it iN the head and SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.
This is just too wrong and horrible. Please stand for Loving Children
and the USA.
Respectfully and Thankfully Thank you ALL for your Time.
To see HORRIBLE HONOR Killings~` HATE
CRIMES ]`~ ! eXecuted by the CLINTON,RENO and ATF Media WHO COMMITTED H0NOR KILLINGs [
SLAUGHTERING }]
21 LITTLE Helpless Children at Waco.
Click Here http://obomlnation.webstarts.com/partly_born_totally_murdered.html