Posted on 05/03/2012 10:50:28 AM PDT by xzins
If you combine the three types of incumbents — House, Senate, governor — they had a record of 66-17, which equates to a winning percentage of 80 percent. Depending on how you define the term, they may not have been “safe” for re-election — but certainly, most were favorites.
There is also not any particular evidence that, as Mr. Trende suggests, the majority of the undecided vote broke against the incumbents. On average, the incumbent candidates led by 8.1 points in the polls with 30 days to go; they won their elections by an average of 7.2 points. That’s not a huge difference, needless to say.
So, is there anything at all to the theory? A couple of qualifiers are in order:
First, as I stated above, if an incumbent is trailing in the polls, that’s a whole different matter. An incumbent is usually going to lose if he’s at 43 percent in the polls, and his opponent is at 48 percent. His problem, however, is less that he’s polling at 43 percent — and more that his opponent has a better number!
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com ...
If the incumbent is polling higher than the challenger, even if under 50%, the incumbent wins 80% of the time.
That's a whole lot different than the conventional wisdom being bandied about by Clinton insider turned Republican Trojan Horse, Dick Morris.
i think you really have to be soft in the head to think romney stands any chance of winning in november. he will get slammed harder than mccain did. the guy just isn’t likeable, he’s totally craven on conservative issues, and he doesn’t provide enough of a positive distinction between him and obama. romney’s campaign is doa. absolutely no one cares.
LOL. This is a “most people lie about sex” article by the NYT to reassure Obama’s supporters that he can still win.
They are the enemies of human rights, human dignity, self-determination, rational thought, and the quest for meaning in existence. They are the antithesis of intellectual, as they are blinded to learning and progressing by the delusions promulgated by their pathetic ideologies. They are hurtful, destructive, and mislead.
This piece by the NYT is designed to engender hope within the ranks of the left, who are demoralized by the fact that their ideology has been proved once again to be stupid and ineffective, and by the fact that their manufactured figurehead is polling poorly. Don't be deceived. Each and every time the left tries to demoralize you just remember that they are doing this because you are kicking their a**. The proper response is to kick harder - figuratively of course.
Wow. What a revelation. The guy who gets more votes wins. Amazing.
This is an old article if you look at the date. It far pre-dates this elections cycle.
The numbers, though, have nothing to do with anything other than those who were or were not polling below 50% prior to an election. It takes actual cases and adds them up.
Hah, this statistical chicanery is laughable even knowing that it’s the Slimes. Take a specific statistic, include seemingly-related results for what are really not related events, and use the now-inverted, wholly invalid results to refute the original specific statistic. Numbers don’t lie!
Translation: a 2nd term for Barack the Usurper is a fait accompli, and the NYT is damn sure going to do whatever they can to make it happen.
???
Did you read this article?
The NYT: Doing their daily level best to make sure no one can ever accuse them of being impartial or objective.
As there's no such thing as gerrymandering in House races, there's no possibility that an incumbent with low approval ratings would win anyway. Otherwise this data would be statistically suspect.
80% of incumbents leading their opponents, even if polling under 50%, won their re-election campaign.
That’s just a matter of adding up the numbers of those who fell in those categories.
It basically says that the leader wins and the follower loses.
That isn’t rocket science folks.
The notion that Dickie Morris, Clintoon’s sidekick, pushes is that losing in the polling should be ignored.
Which makes more sense? Really. That the loser is winning or that the loser is losing? Obviously, it’s #2.
If you’re losing then you damn sure better be worried about it, and not be off drinking kool aid with dickie morris.
Dick Morris is basically an idiot. He has some interesting insight once in awhile, but he is mostly just found a market for telling conservatives what they want to hear at this point. He is also the king of revisionist history. Dick makes incorrect predictions constantly and then goes back and qualifies his previous claims in order to say he wasn't wrong. I think BoR has won like a dozen steak dinners from Morris because of how often Dick is flat out wrong.
Obama plans to steal it!
The NYT spinning and whistling past the graveyard.
Romney sucks but IMO, Obama is a millsotne around the rats collective (ist) neck this Nov.
US House races, US Senate races, and United States Governors races: the results are not hard to find.
And we’re looking for those in which the incumbent was polling below 50% prior to the election. Again, not hard to find.
Adding and subtracting: not hard to do.
Result: like on a math test, what did the calculation say?
Hey....did you hear that?....We agreed on something!
(Someone should be throwing a party...LOL)
Presidents do not.
Presidents do not.
Except if your name is Al Franken.
Instead of beating on the NYT, we should beating on the GOP-e demanding to know why they mainlined this crappy candidate.
Before I saw that this was written in 2010, I assumed this was a kind of a propaganda piece for the 2012 election to show that President Obama could be assured of election because of statistics related to Senators, Representatives, and Governors.
But it was in fact a kind of a propaganda piece for the 2010 elections.
whatever it is that “presidents do not”, I can safely say that they “do not” do it twice. :>)
LOL ;) The reality is that we probably agree on 90% of the actual issues, its just the few areas we don’t get contentious now and again.
Cheers!
Graveyard, meet Whistle.
Badabing.
Wow. What a revelation. The guy who gets more votes wins. Amazing.
Except if your name is Al Franken...
Or you have a large “D” behind your name.
He who doubts victory has already lost the battle.
So you going to vote for obama again?
Find some Presidential, Senate, House and governors races where the incumbants were below 50%...and see how many of them won....REGARDLESS of whether they were ahead or not.
That should prove dick morris right or wrong.
A pox on them both. Dude, I am NEVER going to pass up an opportunity to bust on the commie NYT. If you want to bash the GOP-e, too, well I agree. Both of them want to take us away from the Constitutional order. Romney is just as statist as Obama, he just wants to take us to the Brave New World a little more slowly, that's all.
Wishful thinking from Nate Rust of the NY Slimes.
LOL. Written right before the massive shellacking the Democrat incumbents got in 2010, used to calm their fears about losing big.
They lost big.
Nothing is set in stone, but will be a close election in 2012, just going by the base of support on each side.
All we have to do to let Obama destroy our country with leftist policies? Not stop his re-election.
NB: This article was written in October 2010 just before the midterms. The MSM tried to discount the impact of the Tea Party or the fact that many Dem incumbents were running below 50% favorability. We know how the 2010 midterms turned out. I wonder how that affects the data in the article.
NB: This article was written in October 2010 just before the midterms. The MSM tried to discount the impact of the Tea Party or the fact that many Dem incumbents were running below 50% favorability. We know how the 2010 midterms turned out. I wonder how that affects the data in the article.
Welcome to FR. So, do you think all us conservatives should stay home on election day?
Thanks. I'll be here all week.
Too easy to check, SoFlo. Bush vs Kerry at exactly the same May time frame as now. Notice that Bush (who won) is polling under 50%, and in fact was polling just about where Obama is right now. Even at the time of the election, Bush polled 49% or lower in 10 of the last 12 polls. BUT, he was polling higher than Kerry. The article is shown to be correct in its research. Dick Morris is shown again to be a Trojan Horse (But FoxNews loves the man for some reason.)
So, the research in the article is right. This ONE example proves it for a presidential campaign. And, it's a recent presidential election.
Data is from the archives of Real Clear Politics
|
43%
|
43%
|
4%
|
TIE
|
||
|
46%
|
46%
|
4%
|
TIE
|
||
|
41%
|
47%
|
5%
|
Kerry +6
|
||
|
40%
|
40%
|
3%
|
TIE
|
||
|
TIPP/IBD
|
5/12-5/18
|
42%
|
41%
|
7%
|
Bush +1
|
|
42%
|
43%
|
5%
|
Kerry +1
|
||
|
45%
|
46%
|
6%
|
Kerry +1
|
||
|
42%
|
47%
|
3%
|
Kerry +5
|
||
|
44%
|
49%
|
6%
|
Kerry +5
|
||
|
47%
|
45%
|
5%
|
Bush +2
|
||
|
43%
|
46%
|
6%
|
Kerry +3
|
||
|
45%
|
41%
|
5%
|
Bush +4
|
||
|
|
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154037/obama-approval-average.aspx
Here it says: "President Obama's job approval rating averaged 45.9% during his 13th quarter in office...Although Obama's approval rating is improving, this is offset by the fact that it remains below the averages at the same point in time for presidents who were re-elected. All presidents since Eisenhower who were re-elected enjoyed average approval ratings above 50% during their 13th quarters in office.(emphasis added)
And from this site:
http://www.pollingreport.com/incumbent.htm
Here is an adequate quote:
An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing.
Checks on these sources show they look at the overall tendency for Presidential re-election, not a particular snapshot.
I knew this particular bit of propaganda was coming out soon as Obama languishes below 50 percent. And voila — here it is, right on schedule.
GW’s re-election numbers prove that any bold statement saying “presidents polling under 50% are losers in the upcoming election” is simply wrong.
It’s there in front of you, soflo.
It’s a free country and you are entitled to your opinion. The fact is, however, that polls show GW Bush polling in the low 40’s in the May before his win in November.
Yeah, you’re really sweet, yet ignorant of history. My posts merely pointed out the big sweep and trend of presidential elections, and yours cherry picked a moment in time.
Good luck with that. buh bye.
Yeah, you’re really sweet, yet ignorant of history. My posts merely pointed out the big sweep and trend of presidential elections, and yours cherry picked a moment in time.
Good luck with that. buh bye.
What I did was show an example that disproved the premise that presidents below 50% in the polls will lose.
In short, Obama is in no automatic trouble. Although under 50%, he leads Romney.
Bush was in no automatic trouble. Although under 50%, he led Kerry and eventually won.
As soon as I find a source of polling for all elections that have been a re-election, I’ll probably be giving you more info.
BTW, you realize, of course, that Clinton in his re-election polled less the 50% the entire way through.
So, the 2 most recent examples go against your premise.
The re-election campaign prior to Clinton was Bush 1 in 92 and prior to that would have been Reagan in 84. Correct?
You are correct. Obama can win this election, just as Bush won in 2004. Although those polls are media-biased to favor Kerry, it was a close run thing, and 2012 is as well.
All the more reason to work hard to defeat Obama, because he isnt just gong down on his own, and the results will be very consequential should he win.
Obama’s re-election will be a stunning affirmation of the destruction of the America as it was understood for 200 years, and its replacement with a Euro-socialist welfare state.It’s an affirmation that we approve of cradle-to-grave government intervention in our lives, his pro-abortion policies, his attacks on religious liberty and his undermining of traditional values.
“Old or not, the point is that Obama has had approval ratings below 50% for some time. No matter what the data show, the MSM will have you believe that Obama will be the exception to the rule whether it is high unemployment levels, unpopular policies, the country being on the good or wrong track, etc. As we get closer to election day, we will see more of the same. “
you are right. Obama is not that popular and any Republican with his record would be written off for sure.
But with enough media bias pumping up Obama, with enough conservative 3rd party types fragging Romney and tearing him down, with enough disorganization on our side and hyperorganization on theirs, and with enough Soros and Union money funding Obama’s campaign, Obama could get dragged across the finish line first.
With should neither be defeatist nor complacent. History hasnt been written yet on this election.
Thanks, WOSG. Although we disagree on Romney you are an honest human being.
Thanks for another Nate the Nut fantasy.
When Nate dies, physicists will be bidding on his head so they can perform experiments in a total vacuum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.