Incumbents Polling Below 50 Percent Often Win Re-Election, Despite Conventional Wisdom

NYT ^ | Oct 2010 | NATE SILVER

[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!

[SoFloFreeper]

Wow, one example from a particular election. Here is something else easy to check on Gallup's poll:

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.

[WashingtonSource]

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.

[xzins]

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.

[SoFloFreeper]

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.

[SoFloFreeper]

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.

[xzins]

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?

[WOSG]

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.

[WOSG]

“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.

[xzins]

Thanks, WOSG. Although we disagree on Romney you are an honest human being.

[sergeantdave]

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.

[xzins]

see post #40

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[KeyLargo]

POLITICS
Updated May 3, 2012, 7:58 p.m. ET

Math Challenge for Romney

more in Politics & Policy »
BY NEIL KING JR. AND LAURA MECKLER

Mitt Romney’s campaign says it has many routes to the 270 votes needed for victory in the Electoral College this fall. But almost all of them rely on a difficult feat: Winning at least six states that went for President Barack Obama in 2008.

Spot Mr. Romney the five biggest swing states the Democrat won four years ago—Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana—and the Republican still wouldn’t be guaranteed the White House. To win, he would need to also carry at least one other state that went to Mr. Obama four years ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576595461977407434.html?mod=WSJ_Election_MIDDLETopStories

[KeyLargo]

Laugh for the today.

Sadly though it’s over now for us.

Obama will gain control over the Supreme Court sometime late in his next term with new appointments.

May 03, 2012
Bachmann: Romney can restore freedom

By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
Updated 17h 50m ago

Rep. Michele Bachmann formally endorsed ex-rival Mitt Romney for president today, saying the “only option” for conservatives, independents and “disaffected Democrats” is to get behind the presumptive GOP nominee.

[xzins]

I’ll be willing to spot Romney Indiana only.

After that, Virginia and North Carolina are his next best bets, but the demographics have changed considerably in those states, and considering them automatic is a mistake.

I’ll not spot Ohio or Florida to Romney. Ohio has gone democratic three out of the last five elections. Florida is also not automatic. It went bush, clinton, bush, bush, obama in the last 5 elections.

I believe that’s 4/5 x 4/5 x 4/5 x 2/5 x 3/5 = .8 x .8 x .8 x .4 x .6 = .12 For all of them with no exceptions to come out republican, based on their prior voting, there’s a 12% chance. That’s not anything I’d take to the bank.

At the same time, I don’t think that’s a valid statistical model. It would say the same for a very strong republican candidate or a very weak one.

I think it would be true for a Dole, worrisome with a GWBush, and ignorable with a Reagan.

Is Mitt Romney more a Dole, Bush, or Reagan?

It also depends on who the Democrats run. It makes a differce if you’re running against a Dukakis, a Gore, or a Clinton. Is Obama more a weak campaigner or more a Clinton?

I think Romney vs Obama is more Dole vs Gore. I also think Dole loses to Gore. In short, we’re running McCain again.

[KeyLargo]

"In short, we’re running McCain again." pAgree. Enough said.

Except I had to read through all of your gobelly gook to get to it........sarc

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Wide scale enthusiasm hasn't built for either Obama or Romney that I can see. And I haven't detected any charisma in Romney to build it. McCain had Palin for that - Romney doesn't have anyone yet.