Historically, Obama Isn't in Strong Shape (Jay Cost)

WEEKLY STANDARD ^ | September 21, 2012 | Jay Cost

[neverdem]

Conservatives are growing worried, and Democrats gleeful, about Obama’s lead in the polls, basically for the same reason: it is late in the season (or so it seems), and the incumbent president has a lead. That is a good thing for Obama.

Perhaps, but three fundamental points need to be kept in mind.

First, Obama is weaker than previous incumbents who went on to victory. When we are looking through history, the only poll we can really utilize is Gallup if we want an apples-to-apples comparison. For better or worse, Gallup is the only polling organization consistently doing polling of registered voters since 1952. Even media outlets that have been polling a long time have changed pollsters over the years, so Gallup is the only game in town when we are investigating history.

Here is where Gallup has found incumbent presidents at this point, i.e. roughly mid-September, since 1956.

Through 2004 every incumbent who was above 50 percent at this point won, and every incumbent who was under 50 percent at this point lost. As of today, Obama is under 50 percent.

Additionally, most incumbents end up winning by a smaller margin (or losing by a larger one) than they are sporting in the Gallup poll at this point. The exceptions are Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, Gerald Ford in 1976 (who closed his rather large gap with Carter down to virtually nothing by Election Day), and George H.W. Bush in 1992 (whose position at this point was skewed by the temporary exit of Perot from the campaign). On average, the margin moves by 3.7 percent in favor of the challenger between the mid-September Gallup registered voter poll and the Election Day results.

The second point to keep in mind is that, yes, we are late in the season, but so was the Democratic National Convention. This president still appears to be enjoying a post-convention bounce. If you look at many of the polls in most of the RCP averages – both national and state – their survey dates began within one week of Obama’s speech. If we figure that a bounce period lasts for two weeks, then no polls have been conducted outside the bounce period.

To appreciate just how late the DNC was this year, consider it in relation to past incumbent conventions in the postwar era.

In fact, this year’s DNC was the latest incumbent convention in American history! That absolutely has to be taken into account when examining the president’s standing in the polls, and it means we would be wise to discount his margin by a little bit.

Third, Obama and Romney have basically been trading leads in the Gallup poll since May. The only postwar incumbent who did not pull away early in the registered voter poll and still won was George W. Bush, whose victory also happens to have been the narrowest margin for an incumbent since 1916. (Truman trailed in polls of national adults through the summer and fall of 1948.)

The bottom line: Historically speaking, this president is in weaker shape than any postwar incumbent who went on to victory, with the possible exception of Harry Truman; he is enjoying a convention bounce later in the cycle than any incumbent in the postwar era; and if he manages to win, it will probably be via a true squeaker, with plenty of twists and turns to come.

Democrats are celebrating and Republicans panicking prematurely. I’d wait until October 1 to see where the race is before I give anybody a decisive edge one way or the other.

Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.  

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Conservatives are growing worried, and Democrats gleeful, about Obama’s lead in the polls...

No mention of the ridiculous oversampling of Democrats.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“The bottom line: Historically speaking, this president is in weaker shape than any postwar incumbent who went on to victory, with the possible exception of Harry Truman; he is enjoying a convention bounce later in the cycle than any incumbent in the postwar era; and if he manages to win, it will probably be via a true squeaker, with plenty of twists and turns to come.”

I disagree with this, from an equally historically-based standpoint. Romney has a vicious electoral college disadvantage. Romney’s fate is essentially decided by how FL goes. He really has to win a huge majority of the single-digit states, too. Like it or not, 0bama has several ways to win.

[LibertarianLiz]

No mention of the ridiculous oversampling of Democrats.

Very true --- the polls are ridiculous at this point, and I don't trust any of them.

Regarding this article: I am glad that someone is pointing out that incumbency should be giving Obama a big boost; but, it isn't. For an incumbent to be where Obama is at in the polls at this point in the election cycle, tells me he is in deep trouble.

[I miss American Motors]

Will it not be so much fun to watch the uber liberal MSM and punditry defecate purple and pink if Romney does win?

Add to that the sheer number or suicides from DU types and it could be a joy to behold.

One can dream can't one.

On a sobering note if Romney does win he will have such a big bulls-eye and target on his back from the MSM and left stand point that there will be no stopping them from trying to destroy him and his administration at any and all cost's.

Of course sadly that is SOP for a Republican administration.

[Pollster1]

Let’s be honest here. No incumbent has lost with more than 42% support at this point; none have won with less than 52% support at this point. Obama is dead center in that uncharted zone. The analysis says nothing. As for the integrity of polls, that has gone down over time, but it’s not measurable at this point. We’ll see in November, and I’m convinced it will be an interesting surprise.

[Monorprise]

Let us hope that there is a chance for freedom to prevail in this election.

[FreedBird]

Why does the MSM worship Obama? Is it money for political advertisement? Is it because they believe he is a cool old dope smoker? Or is it race? Lots of people believe the MSM is incompetent along with their King Obama.

[springermt]

This is an unchartered election. there will be lots of “firsts” here. Among other things, both campaigns will set records for the amounts of money they are spending. The problem is that Obama just doesn’t get the that his vision of America is fundamentally at odds with personal liberty. He keeps wanted to give government more and more power over individuals lives and choices. As Steve Forbes explains in Freedom Manifesto (http://goo.gl/CKSUh) that is immoral, counter-productive, and downright dangerous.

[DemforBush]

“Romney has a vicious electoral college disadvantage.”

I have to agree. I absolutely believe Romney can still win at this point. But as you correctly point out, his path to 270 doesn’t allow much room for error.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

Scary, isn’t it? You/we/I can debate policy or wrongdoings or rightdoings and shoulds and shouldn’ts all we want to...Mitt has a very dangerous electoral vote problem. Very troubling.

[okie01]

Why does the MSM worship Obama? Is it money for political advertisement? Is it because they believe he is a cool old dope smoker? Or is it race?

Legitimate question that we no longer bother to ask. We're now at the point of assuming the media is teeming with partisan lefties...and simply accept it.

But it really should be asked. I'd love to hear an MSM-type attempt answer the question -- then justify his answer.

First, I'd suggest it's because, having been instrumental in Obama's winning both the primary and the general in 2008, the media is married to him. So, to some degree, it's in defense of a prior investment that causes them to double-down on his apparent incompetence.

But why did they make the investment in the first place? At the outset of the 2008 campaign, the media was squarely in Hillary's corner. Why did they abandon her and defect to Obama?

I suspect they probably recognized that they had been used mercilessly by the Clintons -- and they may have resented it.

Similarly, Soros appeared to support Clinton at the start of the cycle. But he switched to Obama at an early point -- for reasons that aren't entirely clear.

What was it that caused both the primary Democrat money man, George Soros, and the Democrat enablers in the media to change horses in mid-stream -- from Hillary to Obama,, en masse?

I submit that it probably wasn't "race" -- there's not a lot of difference between "first black" and "first woman". It wasn't "cool". Nor was it "electability" -- Hillary would've crushed the inept McCain, as well.

So, what was it that caused the media and George Soros to abandon Hillary, gang up on her and, uncritically, line up behind the rank amateur -- Barack Obama?

I suspect the answer is a more profound one than you might initially suspect.

[FreedBird]

Obama was weaker and more of a puppet for Soros. Everyone in the Media is weak and afraid to lose their jobs, if they go against a Democrat. The credibility is gone. The thrill is gone. Maybe Soros wants to destroy the MSM using Obama to do what he wants. It is propoganda. Obama likes to be used. The MSM does what it is told by the money people. The country falls apart.

[Mamzelle]

I'd love to linger deliciously on your fascinating question after the One lies defeated in a smoldering heap of golf cleats and enormous, long teeth.

However, if you really want to understand, go read lots df archived hillbuzz.com . These are politically passionate conservative gay guys in Chicago who were Hillary supporters and left the DNC after the 2008 primaries. It's some of the best political reading, ever.

[KTM rider]

For all of you that think Obama has not accomplished anything while he has been President, check out all of these firsts;

First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

First President to violate the War Powers Act.

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters (GM).

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

First President to terminate America 's ability to put a man in space.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory (Boeing Aircraft).

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 100 to date and climbing.

First President to hide his medical, educational, and travel records. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely NOTHING to earn it.

First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his rich friends and Hollywood cronies; paid for by the taxpayer.

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

First President to take a long 17 day vacation.

[WOSG]

Some of these are arguable or niggling or happened when he wasnt President, the remaining items are valid:

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters (GM).

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.

First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory (Boeing Aircraft).

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN). First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 100 to date and climbing.

First President to hide his medical, educational, and travel records.

First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his rich friends and Hollywood cronies; paid for by the taxpayer.

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

[PghBaldy]

True.

[ScottinVA]

Those are all great, salient points... but understanding them requires critical thinking skills. American voters have to have those points broken up into very small, slowly spoken, understandable bites with a personal consequence for each, e.g... “Gas costs more.. so will your beer,” or “Obama let more Mexicans in, so the wait for your tattoo is longer.” or “Obama says you can`t have that Big Super-Bubba Monster Two-Pound Quadruple Cheeseburger. Eat your peas.”