# Obama's is still a name to conjure by **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 30, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494 "2014-12-30T00:50:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/21 "2014-12-30T15:47:00Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Did you even bother to read the OP or just a few key words? Or bother to see the results of the last election? Most of those Democrats who distanced themselves from Obama didn’t win. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/22 "2014-12-30T16:34:27Z")
If there was a Democrat who didn’t and won in a competitive race, that might mean something. Liberals and conservatives alike tend to point out in losing elections that it was mainly the moderates who lost. Well yeah, the moderates are in the most competitive districts. The losing party will tend to have fewer moderates than the losing party. As of today, the Democrats have almost none left. That is NOT actually an endorsement of liberalism. A real moderate like Jon Manchin probably would have won in all of those southern races. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/23 "2014-12-30T16:54:22Z")
R or D, everyone with a mortgage would like it somehow lowered. There was some blabber a few years ago that Obama could (would? wanted to?) do just that. So an ad implying Obama could lower your mortgage just seems believable. I’ve never clicked on the ad but I’ll bet it’s something like, “IF you do this and IF you qualify for that and If your current mortgage is such and such,and IF you sign up with us, we’ll charge you and look for you another mortgage.” ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/24 "2014-12-30T17:00:36Z")
I should add that I don’t actually think Obama actually said, “Hey, I want to lower mortgages” just that he made noise about helping bailout the homeowner too. So an ad like this would seem believable to even Republicans, who tho they complain about freebies and handouts, are first in line for scooters and social security. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/25 "2014-12-30T17:17:49Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Did Bush get these kinds of ads, too? If he did, I don’t remember it. Note that the ads may be particularly trailing you because your browsing history suggests Democratic inclinations. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/26 "2014-12-30T17:35:39Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > I dunno. You guys were highlighting the polls which show him lower than Nixon. The most recent polls show an increase in Obama’s popularity. Deal with it. Or cry about it, I don’t care. Well, the increase in Obama’s popularity sure looks like bad news for the Romney campaign, that’s certain. As for what else it means I don’t know, but I do know that nobody needs to deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/27 "2014-12-30T20:50:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So, we keep on hearing about how massively unpopular Obama is, and how this is going to torpedo Democrats’ chances, and so on. Mostly we heard about how it did that, not how it’s going to do that. Obama isn’t on the ballot next time, and congresscritters don’t need to campaign about how they will or will not support his policies going forward. > [@](#): > > But I noticed something interesting the other day: You know all of those ads that say “Obama encourages homeowners to refinance their mortgage”, or the like? They’re still running. I’ve never seen one. Can you tell us how often they run and where? > [@](#): > > Advertisers still think that being seen on the same side as Obama is a winning move. At whom are all of these ads aimed, if the country hates Obama so? Why don’t they ever feature any other prominent politician? And how is this reconciled with the approval ratings the polls tell us? Or, maybe they just have these commercials form years ago when Obama was more popular and they don’t want to spend money on new ads. At any rate, without more info about these ads, I’d say it’s hard to say anything one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/28 "2014-12-30T22:16:09Z")
It’s possible for someone to be cool but unpopular at the same time. Take Justin Bieber, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/29 "2014-12-31T01:06:53Z")
Huh, so I’m really the only person who gets these ads? They show up pretty much everywhere that has ads. And let the record show that Republicans in this thread are arguing that politicians know better than the free market. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/30 "2014-12-31T01:22:41Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Did Bush get these kinds of ads, too? If he did, I don’t remember it. You probably don’t because there were no programs started under Bush to help the average homeowner. And the people who were helped by Bush initiatives don’t need to be told about them, they’re the ones whose lobbyists crafted the stuff in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/31 "2014-12-31T01:23:32Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Any president, no matter how unpopular, will still appeal to at least 30-35% of the populace. With caveats: popularity can vary widely. [This site claims](http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html) that G.W. Bush’s approval varied from 92% to 19%. I suppose you’d have to measure the mean of their popularity through their term. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/32 "2014-12-31T07:01:07Z")
The advertisers probably do it because the mere mention of “Obama” grabs peoples’ attention. Like they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/33 "2015-01-01T03:22:43Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Huge swathes of Democrat politicians did not agree with you in last months elections. These politicians are not dumb. If politicians know one thing it is how to best get re-elected. I trust their instincts on re-election more than I trust the commentariat, or some poster on an internet forum. Almost to a man/woman they distanced themselves from Obama. > > Im also of the opinion that there is a natural equilibrium in US politics. That a resurgent Republican House of Rep. and Senate almost automatically increases support for a Democratic President. It renergizes the base, it makes centrists more wary of an overly powerful Congress. Would you say the democrats up for reelection on this last election knew what they were doing? ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/34 "2015-01-01T03:49:27Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Nah, politicking is their job. I find it hard to believe that dozens of them made the exact same wrongheaded re-election decision. I trust their expertise on this matter more than any armchair expert. I also have to assume most of the election teams of these politicians backed the decision to run from Obama. That’s literally 1000’s of years of electoral expertise right their, all running away from him. But hey, if you think you know best then why dont you just go along and apply for a strategists job with the DNC. While I understand how you trust the people paid massive amounts of money more than the internet, you can’t deny that many, if not most, of the Democrat candidates who went out of their way to distance themselves from Obama lost. This is kind of like watching hundreds of consecutive NASA rockets explode in launch, then saying “Yeah, but look at all the college these astrophysicists went through - they’ve _got_ to be right.” With that said, what’s possible is that the Democrats in the red and purple states were screwed no matter what they did, and if they’d associated themselves with Obama, they would have lost by an even bigger margin. > [@Chronos](#): > > Huh, so I’m really the only person who gets these ads? They show up pretty much everywhere that has ads. No, I get them constantly as well. Partly I think it’s just because Obama is a recognizable, powerful name - tons of ads say the same things, just replace Obama with “Warren Buffet” or “This Stock Market Billionaire”. **adaher** ’s Prisoner Dilemma theory is also possible - no single candidate could have struck out on their own, but they could have had a more positive result if they all did. The strategies for individual web browsers (many of whom don’t vote or know anything about politics and just recognize “Obama”) is very different to large-scale elections. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/35 "2015-01-05T00:38:59Z")
Fred Thompson thinks you should get a reverse mortgage. ---
**Author:** ![Nothar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nothar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nothar)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/36 "2015-01-05T01:13:29Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You probably don’t because there were no programs started under Bush to help the average homeowner. And the people who were helped by Bush initiatives don’t need to be told about them, they’re the ones whose lobbyists crafted the stuff in the first place. That is factually untrue. I, and many others, benefited from the first-time homebuyer credit of $7,500 when i bought a home in 2008 and that legislation was passed during the Bush administration. The credit was marketed to all potential homebuyers as a way to save money on a home purchase. During the Bush administration, they also passed legislation enabling borrowers to deduct mortgage insurance premiums as an itemized deduction in addition to mortgage interest. This helped many borrowers that did not put down 20% on the purchase of their home recoup some of the costs associated with the mortgage insurance. Whether these programs were as beneficial as HARP, the homeowner affordable refinance program passed after the mortgage crisis during the Obama administration, which are what the ads that the OP mentioned are referring to is up for debate, but it is incorrect to state that the Bush administration did not have any initiatives targeted to help the average homebuyer or homeowner. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/37 "2015-01-05T05:49:53Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > **Obama’s is still a name to conjure by** You do realize that that thread title evokes an image with certain unfortunate implications . . . ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/38 "2015-01-05T17:42:29Z")
I’m not aware of those implications… The reference is to magic spells, where supposedly reciting the name of a powerful being could add some of that being’s power to the spell. Which is, basically, what these advertisers are doing, minus the supernatural elements. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/39 "2015-01-05T23:04:57Z")
I don’t take the same significance away from the ads mentioned in the OP–they don’t necessarily turn on approval of Obama, indeed, the ads for many could be effective by evoking _spite_, “time to take advantage of whatever that idiot’s doing to make homes too easy to buy.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494/40 "2015-01-05T23:09:49Z")
The spike in his popularity is definitely looking real now, if still small: he’s up to 43.7% in the RCP average. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obamas-is-still-a-name-to-conjure-by/708494.md?page=3)