I don’t think Chris Cilizza knows what “directly correlates” means.
Absolutely zero. It’ll be a tough map. I’m not too worried though. If the Republicans do a good job in Congress and the Presidential nominee wins, then the GOP probably holds the Senate pretty easily. If they screw it up, then they’ll lose everything. Remember after the shutdown some polling showed they were even at risk of losing the House.
I’m not sure where you disagree. It’s not exactly in dispute that Presidential approval ratings affect midterm elections.
I actually get a kick out of you saying approval ratings don’t matter, because they do matter in 3 elections following the President’s election that he isn’t even on the ballot for: the 2 midterms and the Presidential election where he hopes to see his successor inaugurated.
I disagree that this chart is “news”. It’s not surprising in the least, and it’s incorrect for Cilizza to characterize it as a “direct correlation”.
Correlation does not imply causation. Low approval ratings don’t “cause” anything – the factors that lead to low approval ratings also often lead to poor showings by that party in midterm elections.
That chart doesn’t tell us anything new.
Day to day approval ratings don’t matter and don’t tell us much. The late trend of Obama’s approval rating tells us that the Democrats will struggle to hold onto the Senate for this year’s elections. We already knew this. But this tells us nothing for 2016. Obama’s approval in November 2016 might tell us a little about the conditions the Democratic candidate is fighting for/against.
So again you have mischaracterized my argument.
Not likely, considering that it’s not actually true.
What was remarkable about Elvis’ post was not just that he made a blatantly false statement, which is pretty much par for the course, but that he did it about something that was linked right there and which anyone could click on and see for themselves, and further, after the facts had been explicitly asserted, which should have made him a bit more cautious. And yet, there he was, smug confidence undiminished, brazenly declaring that the link didn’t contain what it very obviously contained. That’s a step up from the usual, even considering the source and his history.
Now by contrast, your statement that I “seem to be constantly surprised and amazed on the Dope” is also bogus. But it’s about something that is much vaguer and more difficult to pin down, so it’s something that certain people can get away with tossing off, without worrying too much about whether it’s actually true or anything else beyond how it comes off as a rhetorical gambit. So a lot less surprising.
It’s quite possible that Obama’s approval could be much higher in 2016, but I doubt it. Does he give you the impression that he’s working hard to turn his administration around, or does it seem to you that he’s thrown in the towel?
IMO if the Republicans take the Senate, it could help Obama’s popularity a lot. Because presidents who face opposition control of congress frequently counter this by focusing on popular parts of their agenda, which they hope to rally public opinion behind in order to push through congress, and generally by setting themselves up as foils to congress. Worked a lot for Clinton. By contrast, when presidents have congressional support, they tend to use this to get parts of their true agenda through, which is frequently unpopular with the public and hurts their popularity. (The ACA would be an example of this.)
As long as Obama (and Democrats) are blocked, I don’t really care how popular they are.
I think you’re right that it CAN work out that way, but doesn’t always. Bush only continued to grow less popular after the Democrats took Congress. Mainly because as a lame duck, the dead enders who continued to support him through thick and thin realized that a) he couldn’t do anything for them anymore, and b) it was time to pick a successor. If Republicans win the Senate, it’s very likely that Democrats will simply start looking ahead to 2016, which as another thread demonstrates, they are very confident about.
If Republicans act stupid and immature that will boost Obama’s popularity. And you can never rule that out with those guys. But if they are smart, or even simply not stupid, then Obama won’t be able to use them as a foil. Congress passes the laws, so his agenda won’t matter anymore. He’ll get bills on his desk and he’ll either sign them or veto them. Whenever he makes a veto, Hillary Clinton will be asked if she would have done the same thing. That’s fraught with peril if they are passing popular bills, like border security.
But if indeed Obama decides to focus on the more popular parts of his agenda, then the Republicans would be put in a position of having to either go along to some extent or have Obama rebound in popularity and then have the Democrats re-win the presidency and win back the Senate (possibly even the House) in 2016. So it’s not so simple to assume that Obama and the Democrats are blocked, and even if they are it could be for the short term only.
Of course, Obama could also get bogged down in fights over overreaching executive orders and so on and foreign policy misadventures, but what I’ve suggested is also eminently possible.
Bush was killed by the economy tanking and (to a lesser extent) by ongoing turmoil in Iraq. If the economy tanks in 2016, then no power on earth can save Obama either. But the timing of the economic cycle is a crapshoot
That’s what you may have learned in civics class, but that’s not how it works in reality and certainly in the public imagination (on which popularity is based). The president doesn’t just wait around for congress to deliver bills to his desk. He proposes laws and the public looks for him to do so. If the president focuses on popular proposed laws and publically presses for them, it could be hard for congress to resist, and if they do, then the president gets to build up his popularity by campaigning about how congress is blocking his work for the American People.
Talking about the Republicans acting stupid of immature misses the current political dynamic. Motivations of politicians are always a mixture of political gain and ideological beliefs. But even within “political gain” there’s sometimes a misalignment between the political gain of the party as a whole and the political gain of an individual politician. So if a politician can take a stance which will hurt the party as a whole but will help his own national profile and/or electoral chances, it can be rational for him to do it - especially if it also aligns with his ideology - even if it might seem “stupid and immature” when looked at from the perspective of the national party.
And it’s because of unthinking partisanship like that, that the amount of human misery in the world is much higher than it needs to be.
I object to Democrat agenda and goals. That’s not “partisanship”. That’s common sense.
You probably have a skewed impression of what that agenda actually entails. But that’s neither her nor there. Start another thread if you wanna debate it.
I was just saying that the rote partisanship you were demonstrating causes actual human beings to suffer because valuing inaction over action ignores problems instead of treating them.
Snark is held to much lower standards. I’m okay with this – the more snark the merrier, IMO.
I think he’s doing what he can. The main difference between now-Obama and early-Obama, in my view, is that he no longer sees the Republicans in Congress as legitimate partners in most areas.
You guys keep forgetting about how Republicans are motivated by loyalty and patriotism, and always, always! rally around the Commander in Chief during times of crisis. Any minute, now…
He’s still doing what he can on the domestic politics front, but on international affairs and the day to day management of his administration, the word “complacent” still applies.
Disagree.
It’s complacent to gather an international coalition to battle ISIS?
Whatever he does or doesn’t do, it’s just wrong, okay? :rolleyes: