Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

"Originally Posted by Lady Vagina View Post
You have what?

But according to your website and wiki page and tyour postings, you often drop the fact that your daddy was a big player for JFK. I did not know that JFK recruited top tier diplomats from the ghettos and trailer parks.

I hope for your return."

By referring to living in a 3-bedroom house and going to public school as living in "a ghetto or trailer park", Lady V. has marked herself as a child of such privilege that all three are equally a sign of lower-class poverty.

And from her direct quote, it's obvious that she's been so surrounded by and steeped in the neo-feudal aristocratic viewpoint, that the notion of someone of rank recruiting from the lower orders is not only unthinkable, but can only be a transparent lie, because in her world, people of that class recruit only from others of their own class, oh, dear me,yes.

Then why is she crying over the poor oppressed victims like the "genocided" Indians? The quotes being because there are plenty of Indians still around, though I sincerely doubt she'd like the redskinned rednecks we have a lot of out here. I do, but then, I'm of the lower orders myself. Public school, one car in the family, shared a bedroom with my sister, oh, my, how can one endure such squalor?

Well, I won't try to read the good lady's mind. But historically, while the nobility have said some nasty things about the peasantry, the arrival of the middle classes on the scene triggered quite a bond between the lords and the good, salt-of-the-earth peasants who knew their place in the social order and shared many of the same values. Charming, innocent natives often fell into the same category -- "You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din" -- as did lions and tigers and bears and other exotica. And besides, the people committing the genocide were those nasty old middle-class and trailer trash emigrants to our virgin shores. Vulgar beasts that they were.

At any rate, I'm sure Her Ladyship won't want to hear the crass, crude spouting of an old lower-middle-class former office rat. Now, if only we'd vanish off the face of the earth and reduce the surplus population....

Grey Badger. Your sense of iromy is off as well. Kaiser is claiming humble origins. I doubt it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Lady Vagina is safely on my ignore list, but I saw that last one because it was quoted. She's full of it.

My Wikipedia page was a birthday present some years back from my younger son, and it simply begins by referring to me as "the son of a diplomat." (He wrote it.) Kennedy appointed my father Ambassador to Senegal in 1961 where he served for three years. I actually don't think I've mentioned that on my blog very often. 1961-3 was the only time I lived overseas with my family.

My father at the time of his appointment was teaching at American University's school of foreign service and we lived in suburban Maryland. The house was as I described. Setting the record straight in re Kennedy, he appointed at least a dozen ambassadors who were not wealthy contributors or foreign service officers, but whom he thought would do a good job of representing the US especially in newly independent nations. My father was one of them.

Kaiser. An average three bedroom house in Washington DC takes you a little past humble origins, no?

If you think otherwise, then you are the one who is out of touch.

btw, you mentioned your daddy not too long ago several times. If you had not I probbaly would not have read it.

Originally Posted by Odin

People like LadyV are exactly who the term "Latte Liberals" was made for, they are the modern day Xer and Millie version of the pampered upper-middle class suburbanite Silents and Boomers that carried around Mao's Little Red Book

You do not seem to know what you are taliking about.

Mao's Little Red Book? Better than Mein Kamf or the Bible.

So this debt ceiling issue now is going to inconvenience me (in a small way) and others (in a bigger way).

I live close to the Mitchell airport which is undergoing modernizing which means a route I take every so often is closed and I must take a detour. Well..its been put on hold. Obviously a detour lasting longer is small inconvenience. The workers on the project who presumably will go unpaid for the duration will be a bit more inconvenienced.:

http://news.yahoo.com/dozens-airport...W9ucw--;_ylv=3

Dozens of airport construction projects halted

By JOAN LOWY - Associated Press | AP – 17 mins ago




WASHINGTON (AP) — Obama administration officials say contractors have been told to stop work on airport modernization projects across the country because Congress has failed to pass legislation necessary for the work to continue.
Officials said Monday that dozens of stop-work orders have been issued for major projects designed to build and modernize control towers and other airport projects.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said construction workers and communities will suffer "the longer this goes on." He called on Congress to move forward on a bill to extend the Federal Aviation Administration's operating authority, which expired at midnight Friday.
The House and Senate are at a stalemate over air service subsidies for rural communities and a Republican proposal that would make it more difficult for airline workers to unionize, among other issues.

Completely unrelated but LV finally gets an ignore. Trolling can occasionally be amusing. Spamming and harassment isn't.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Completely unrelated but LV finally gets an ignore. Trolling can occasionally be amusing. Spamming and harassment isn't.

What spamming? Wuat harrassment?

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Completely unrelated but LV finally gets an ignore. Trolling can occasionally be amusing. Spamming and harassment isn't.

Amidst so much disagreement about so many things here, glad most of us seem to agree on this one....

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Amidst so much disagreement about so many things here, glad most of us seem to agree on this one....

There's nothing quite like a troll to unite people

Obama's Gallup poll rating has him at 40%, his lowest EVER. Rasmussen has him at 44%. Yestedays GDP numbers were abysmal and portend to a continued lackluster economy with high unemployment. Obama's window is rapidly closing for re-election. Still, a year is a long time so he has some hope.

In a 4T, a lot of conventional wisdom about elections doesn't hold true. One bit of conventional wisdom is that a president can't be reelected if the economy is doing poorly. Another is that a president can't be reelected if his approval rating is below 50%. That the first doesn't hold true in a 4T we may see by reference to the 1936 and 1940 elections. For the second, we have no such reference point, but when the president's approval rating is below 50% and that of any of his possible opponents is below 30%, what would you expect as an outcome? That may well be what we see, particularly if Ms. Bachmann wins the nomination.

(Now, if our ballots had a "none of the above" option things might be different . . .)

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In a 4T, a lot of conventional wisdom about elections doesn't hold true. One bit of conventional wisdom is that a president can't be reelected if the economy is doing poorly. Another is that a president can't be reelected if his approval rating is below 50%. That the first doesn't hold true in a 4T we may see by reference to the 1936 and 1940 elections. For the second, we have no such reference point, but when the president's approval rating is below 50% and that of any of his possible opponents is below 30%, what would you expect as an outcome? That may well be what we see, particularly if Ms. Bachmann wins the nomination.

(Now, if our ballots had a "none of the above" option things might be different . . .)

I agree that Obama is the likely winner. I also am coming to believe your prediction that the extreme right wing is vulnerable. On the other hand, I think you are too quick to dismiss the polling data that JPT has recently posted about millineals. It is very fluid. I would not rule out some blockbuster event that changes everything. This is the 4T after all.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I agree that Obama is the likely winner. I also am coming to believe your prediction that the extreme right wing is vulnerable. On the other hand, I think you are too quick to dismiss the polling data that JPT has recently posted about millineals. It is very fluid. I would not rule out some blockbuster event that changes everything. This is the 4T after all.

James50

I'm curious as to why exactly you think "Obama is the likely winner". Every indicator is heavily against that outcome right now. Despite how hard the media has tried to paint the Republicans in a negative light over the debt ceiling, the polls show quite clearly that the public is much closer to their point of view than the Democrats'. As I posted in the other thread, Obama's approval rating has dropped dramatically during this debate, and the Republicans have retaken the lead on the generic congressional ballot.

Do you think the economy is going to improve dramatically in the next year? If so, what do you base that on? If not, what in the world makes you think that a president who has failed this miserably will be re-elected?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm curious as to why exactly you think "Obama is the likely winner". Every indicator is heavily against that outcome right now. Despite how hard the media has tried to paint the Republicans in a negative light over the debt ceiling, the polls show quite clearly that the public is much closer to their point of view than the Democrats'. As I posted in the other thread, Obama's approval rating has dropped dramatically during this debate, and the Republicans have retaken the lead on the generic congressional ballot.

Do you think the economy is going to improve dramatically in the next year? If so, what do you base that on? If not, what in the world makes you think that a president who has failed this miserably will be re-elected?

I think the Republicans are still being dragged down by the experience of the late years of GWB. Even at this late date, it will be in the back of people's minds, particularly the wars. Also, incumbency is powerful, not just because of the money advantage, but because the President has the bully pulpit. I would not rule out an Obama defeat. It just doesn't feel likely right now.

I am feeling very unsure about predictions of the economy. I don't think it will get much worse, but as to whether it gets much better, the jury is still out.

If they are able to agree on a realistic deficit reduction plan, I think it would be a positive simply by removing uncertainty.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I think the Republicans are still being dragged down by the experience of the late years of GWB. Even at this late date, it will be in the back of people's minds, particularly the wars. Also, incumbency is powerful, not just because of the money advantage, but because the President has the bully pulpit. I would not rule out an Obama defeat. It just doesn't feel likely right now. I am feeling very unsure about predictions of the economy. I don't think it will get much worse, but as to whether it gets much better, the jury is still out. If they are able to agree on a realistic deficit reduction plan, I think it would be a positive simply by removing uncertainty. James50

There is no doubt that the strategy of the Democrats in 2012 will be to run a scorched-earth negative campaign against the Republican nominee, and continue to blame Bush for Obama's failures. Maybe that would work with you, but I strongly doubt it's going to work with most people. When you have 4 years to bring about an improvement in the economy and you completely fail to move the dial one inch (at least for the overwhelming majority of Americans), you're not going to get 4 more years to figure it out. Indeed, Obama himself said early on that if he failed to get the economy moving, he would be a one term president. He was right.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

There is no doubt that the strategy of the Democrats in 2012 will be to run a scorched-earth negative campaign against the Republican nominee, and continue to blame Bush for Obama's failures. Maybe that would work with you, but I strongly doubt it's going to work with most people. When you have 4 years to bring about an improvement in the economy and you completely fail to move the dial one inch (at least for the overwhelming majority of Americans), you're not going to get 4 more years to figure it out. Indeed, Obama himself said early on that if he failed to get the economy moving, he would be a one term president. He was right.

No, he needs to be Harry Truman and campaign against the good-for-nothing, do-nothing congress that has hampered all his efforts.

Despite how hard the media has tried to paint the Republicans in a negative light over the debt ceiling, the polls show quite clearly that the public is much closer to their point of view than the Democrats'.

They may be willing to vote for congressional Republicans now, based on a generic poll. However, other polls show clearly that congressional Republicans and their policies have far less support than the president and his. Illogical, but that's where we are.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, he needs to be Harry Truman and campaign against the good-for-nothing, do-nothing congress that has hampered all his efforts.

The Republicans were sent there by the American people for the specific purpose of hampering his efforts.

They may be willing to vote for congressional Republicans now, based on a generic poll. However, other polls show clearly that congressional Republicans and their policies have far less support than the president and his. Illogical, but that's where we are.

Democrats love to create and manipulate polling data to pretend they have more support than they do. They skew samples and ask questions in a way designed to get the answers they want. They constantly use poll-tested language, to the point where their statements are often nonsensical and indecipherable. Sometimes it works, and it certainly did for Obama in 2008, to spout empty poll-tested platitudes that mask the their true intent. But they made their intentions known explicitly once in power from 2008-2010, and the American people recoiled in horror.

In any case, the polls do not show more support for Obama's policies. His approval rating on the economy is in the 20s and 30s depending on the poll. Something between a strong plurality and an overwhelming majority of Americans opposes raising the debt limit, period, depending on the poll. Washington as a whole, and the elite class as a whole, is completely out of touch with the American people, just as they were in 2010. They are in the middle of being corrected, because behavior that was tolerated when things were good is no longer going to be tolerated when people are out of work and suffering. Obama and the Democrats have intensified their political game-playing rather than reducing it. It is going to cost them.

And most of all, the proof is in the results. The Democrats got a chance to do whatever they wanted, and their policies failed. They're not going to get another chance. Even if Obama is somehow re-elected, which is highly unlikely as it stands now, there is no way the Democrats will get control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate like they had from 2008-2010. The chance of that happening is zero, especially in the Senate.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Republicans were sent there by the American people for the specific purpose of hampering his efforts.

Some wanted this, but many others just voted for the other party because the economy had not recovered enough. How could it, with so little stimulus?

Democrats love to create and manipulate polling data to pretend they have more support than they do. They skew samples and ask questions in a way designed to get the answers they want. They constantly use poll-tested language, to the point where their statements are often nonsensical and indecipherable. Sometimes it works, and it certainly did for Obama in 2008, to spout empty poll-tested platitudes that mask the their true intent. But they made their intentions known explicitly once in power from 2008-2010, and the American people recoiled in horror.

In any case, the polls do not show more support for Obama's policies. His approval rating on the economy is in the 20s and 30s depending on the poll. Something between a strong plurality and an overwhelming majority of Americans opposes raising the debt limit, period, depending on the poll. Washington as a whole, and the elite class as a whole, is completely out of touch with the American people, just as they were in 2010. They are in the middle of being corrected, because behavior that was tolerated when things were good is no longer going to be tolerated when people are out of work and suffering. Obama and the Democrats have intensified their political game-playing rather than reducing it. It is going to cost them.

And most of all, the proof is in the results. The Democrats got a chance to do whatever they wanted, and their policies failed. They're not going to get another chance. Even if Obama is somehow re-elected, which is highly unlikely as it stands now, there is no way the Democrats will get control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate like they had from 2008-2010. The chance of that happening is zero, especially in the Senate.

I've seen poll after poll that says the people don't agree with Republican policies, and that Obama's approval rating may be low, but for congressional Republicans it is lower. Another poll asked who they blame for the debt limit crisis. Obama got the highest vote, meaning they did not blame him. Congressional Democrats got the lowest blame. No poll shows the people support default over raising the debt limit. The Democrats had less than a year to "get whatever they wanted," and they still were hobbled by Liebermann and other non-Democrats like Nelson. The stimulus turned out to be largely Republican tax cuts.

They likely won't get more Democrats elected in the Senate, and may lose control. You guys have enough to hamper all efforts to improve the economy, or anything else; you are right. But the Tea Party is unpopular, so I think there's a chance Republicans could lose control of the House. You are dreaming to think Obama's reelection is "highly unlikely." In fact, even in the Real Clear Politics poll, Obama leads Romney right now by over 4 points. But I would never underestimate the stupidity of the American people, especially your half of it. So you might be right about congress.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Some wanted this, but many others just voted for the other party because the economy had not recovered enough. How could it, with so little stimulus?



I've seen poll after poll that says the people don't agree with Republican policies, and that Obama's approval rating may be low, but for congressional Republicans it is lower. Another poll asked who they blame for the debt limit crisis. Obama got the highest vote, meaning they did not blame him. Congressional Democrats got the lowest blame. No poll shows the people support default over raising the debt limit. The Democrats had less than a year to "get whatever they wanted," and they still were hobbled by Liebermann and other non-Democrats like Nelson. The stimulus turned out to be largely Republican tax cuts.

They likely won't get more Democrats elected in the Senate, and may lose control. You guys have enough to hamper all efforts to improve the economy, or anything else; you are right. But the Tea Party is unpopular, so I think there's a chance Republicans could lose control of the House. You are dreaming to think Obama's reelection is "highly unlikely." In fact, even in the Real Clear Politics poll, Obama leads Romney right now by over 4 points. But I would never underestimate the stupidity of the American people, especially your half of it. So you might be right about congress.

Head-to-head presidential matchup polls are meaningless until there is a nominee. Imagine that you are a Republican who does not support Mitt Romney for the nomination. You get a call from a pollster asking you who you would vote for between Romney and Obama. Do you say no, hoping that a weak showing in such a poll will prevent Romney from getting the nomination? Quite possibly. Or conversely, if you're a squishy moderate independent, would you take the same approach when asked about a more conservative Republican candidate? Quite possibly. The only polls that will matter in a specific matchup are the ones after the Republican convention. Until then, the most important number by far is Obama's job approval, which as of now is at 40% in Gallup's poll -- a number that will absolutely guarantee defeat if that's where he stands in November 2012. In fact, the only president in recent history with a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency was Jimmy Carter.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In a 4T, a lot of conventional wisdom about elections doesn't hold true. One bit of conventional wisdom is that a president can't be reelected if the economy is doing poorly. Another is that a president can't be reelected if his approval rating is below 50%. That the first doesn't hold true in a 4T we may see by reference to the 1936 and 1940 elections. For the second, we have no such reference point, but when the president's approval rating is below 50% and that of any of his possible opponents is below 30%, what would you expect as an outcome? That may well be what we see, particularly if Ms. Bachmann wins the nomination.

(Now, if our ballots had a "none of the above" option things might be different . . .)

This indeed is 4T. There are no easy solutions other than the wrong ones. What can work best is often counter-intuitive. Oh, do I miss the GI Generation, the last ones who knew from first-hand that expansive spending by the government brought about recovery, that collegial politics was necessary for workable compromises, and that big projects were good ways to turn unemployed people into full participants in the economy! But even before that, it would have been wise to heed the advice that the GIs of all points of the political spectrum offered until soon after the turn of the millennium -- that speculative booms that draw all the resources of a country invariably fail. Even with a GI father very much alive, Dubya was the President most antithetical to the knowledge that GIs had learned.

Barack Obama may have learned the GI lessons as well as anyone not a GI can know because he is an avid student of history, but at that he is comparatively alone, at least among our top elected officials. The Republicans have nobody except perhaps Jon Huntsman (who has no chance to be elected President) who comes close to a knowledge of history that the current President has. He has probably done more right than anyone else would. But that is not enough to get us from the aftermath of a 3T that we Americans handled as badly as we could given our resources, but the damage that occurred over 25 years won't be undone overnight.

Much of what the Republicans commonly offer 'solutions' that were demonstrably wrong in 1930 and would be no less wrong now.

For the sub-50% approvals... I wouldn't be concerned about them unless they slip into the low 40s. The average incumbent Senator or Governor gains an average of 6% from the approval rating to vote share, and this applies just the same for someone in trouble or someone doing very well. "Average" implies average competence of the challenger, competence as a campaigner, and effectiveness of a campaign apparatus. While governing or legislating one can't please all the people all the time; for example, one can rarely be both pro-labor and pro-business at the same time. To be sure, the effect is obviously muted at the top for the President as it isn't for a Governor or Senator because the President isn't going to have a 57% approval rating and get a 63% share of the vote because no President has gotten more than 62% of the popular vote. Also I expect the incumbent President to expend his political assets (appearances) and his campaign apparatus where they can do the most good for winning the more "iffy" of states. If his approval rating should be 40% in Indiana and 49% in Tennessee, then you know where he is going to make his appearances, where his campaign apparatus is going to buy advertising time, and in what states the get-out-the-vote (GOTV) will be funded lavishly.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...t-50-rule.html

But this applied before 2008, so it is not only a 4T phenomenon. Most of us, like him or not, recognize President Obama as one of the slickest campaigners ever and his campaign apparatus of 2008 to have been one of the most effective ever. Add to this he has had a veritable flurry of reforms that he legislated with the aid of a cooperative House and Senate and can promise much the same in 2012.

......

Now for the economy doing poorly -- if all that is possible is slow, steady improvement, then demagogues can offer wild promises of easy solutions that prove unfounded or unjust. FDR won re-election in 1936 and 1940 despite high rates of unemployment that people would never tolerate today -- if there seemed to be a just alternative. No, such a gimmick as requiring people to work at any job offered at any terms offered (as in Nazi Germany) would fail. Printing huge amounts of currency and handing it to anyone who wanted it would do more harm than good. Nationalizing productive industry would be a non-starter because of the conflict of interest between the government and private industry.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, he needs to be Harry Truman and campaign against the good-for-nothing, do-nothing congress that has hampered all his efforts.

Precisely -- and I predict that he will do precisely that so that he can be an effective President.

They may be willing to vote for congressional Republicans now, based on a generic poll. However, other polls show clearly that congressional Republicans and their policies have far less support than the president and his. Illogical, but that's where we are.

Wait till the democrats field candidates -- often the incumbents that Tea Party candidates defeated in 2010. Many of those Tea Party candidates posed as moderates and proved themselves extremists. Bait-and-switch is bad business -- and bad politics.

I am sure Obama will try to emulate Truman. Truman's victory was rather miraculous, however--it was one of the closest elections in history--he won several critical states by very narrow margins.

This will be a very dirty campaign. A lot of course depends on the Republican candidate, and a lot does depend on the economy. I do not agree that the Republican House was elected to undo the last century of our history, no. They were elected in protest against the economy. The trouble is it will almost surely get a little worse as a result of budget cuts and other factors.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Head-to-head presidential matchup polls are meaningless until there is a nominee.

Well then, ALL presidential matchup polls are meaningless until then.

Obama's job approval, which as of now is at 40% in Gallup's poll -- a number that will absolutely guarantee defeat if that's where he stands in November 2012. In fact, the only president in recent history with a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency was Jimmy Carter.

My crystal ball is better than yours. Absent that, you don't know how things will be in Nov.2012.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Well then, ALL presidential matchup polls are meaningless until then. My crystal ball is better than yours. Absent that, you don't know how things will be in Nov.2012.

I would agree that it is too early to tell.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Head-to-head presidential matchup polls are meaningless until there is a nominee.

That may be true of Congressional elections where complete unknowns enter the races and pull off surprise victories that depend upon the mood of the time. It is far easier to tailor a message to a congressional district than to the USA at large. But note well that anyone running for President will be learned about quickly. Except for Hero Generals (don't expect one until after the 4T is over) about everyone who runs for the Presidency has his record scrutinized carefully.

Imagine that you are a Republican who does not support Mitt Romney for the nomination. You get a call from a pollster asking you who you would vote for between Romney and Obama. Do you say no, hoping that a weak showing in such a poll will prevent Romney from getting the nomination? Quite possibly.

More likely from a Democrat or an independent. You can be sure (check the crosstabs, as on this sample of partisan affiliation and responses between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in Virginia, which I understand is close to the national average:

(General approval for the President)

Total Democrat Republican Independent/Other

Approve 47% 89% 5% 48%
Disapprove 48% 7% 93% 42%
Not sure 5% 4% 2% 11%

As you can see, Democrats firmly approve of this President and Republicans firmly disapprove of him. Democrats generally don't see President Obama as you see him, Republicans generally think that he is awful, and independents are split. Democrats seem happy enough with him that they can't imagine a Republican who would do better as President, and Republicans can't imagine the Republican who ran for County Assessor as less desirable than President Obama. People don't know until they pick up a phone that they are being polled, and they can't think fast enough to give opinions that might manipulate the polling.


Total Democrat Republican Independent/Other
Obama/Romney
Barack Obama 47% 91% 6% 44%
Mitt Romney 43% 6% 84% 36%
Undecided/no response 11% 3% 10% 20%

The polarization still shows.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p..._VA_726925.pdf

Or conversely, if you're a squishy moderate independent, would you take the same approach when asked about a more conservative Republican candidate? Quite possibly.

Maybe the other explanation is that the "more conservative Republican" has shown some fault (reckless disregard for truth and falsehood, contempt for civil liberties, holding economic positions that one finds abominable) that makes President Obama seem less troublesome. People end up voting for whatever candidate they find themselves more comfortable with as President -- sure, that is a truism, but it shows how George McGovern got roughly 40% of the popular vote in 1972.

You can't simply say that Barack Obama is so horrible that you can't imagine how anyone could vote for him. People did, and a big percentage of those who voted for him in 2008 will do so again. He's not exactly Charles Manson. Besides, I can imagine people who voted for John McCain in 2008 because they didn't feel comfortable about a black man as President will have their fears assuaged. Independents will decide the 2012 Presidential election just as they did in 2008, 2004, and 2000 (unless you wish to give credit or blame to Katherine Harris). If I can understand why many good people would vote against President Obama, then maybe you should contemplate the converse.

The only polls that will matter in a specific matchup are the ones after the Republican convention.

Wrong. The only polls that legally matter will be those at which votes are registered. I can't predict who will win the Republican nomination -- for a long time I thought it would be Mike Huckabee. But I can already see a pattern. Since Mike Huckabee dropped out of the running, Mitt Romney has consistently showed the ability to not only win more states in match-ups with the President, but also that nobody else wins or even ties the President in any state in which Mitt Romney appears likely to win. Person-to-person match-ups demonstrate at least these three things:

1. Name recognition
2. Perception of competence or incompetence
3. How well one fits the political culture of a state
4. Appropriateness of a candidate's appeals

Until then, the most important number by far is Obama's job approval, which as of now is at 40% in Gallup's poll -- a number that will absolutely guarantee defeat if that's where he stands in November 2012. In fact, the only president in recent history with a lower approval rating at this point in his presidency was Jimmy Carter.

Truism. But the budgetary process has become incredibly ugly in recent days, and as is shown in polling for State governors when the budgetary debate (effectively everything when it is going on because it shows the priorities of both sides of a political debate).

By the way -- Jimmy Carter really was one of the weakest Presidents that we have had in the last century. He may have been a good person, but his legislative achievements were few. He faced an unusually-adept challenger in Ronald Reagan, and as the election came by he had to make fresh promises of the achievements that he couldn't take credit for between 1977 and then. Carter had stagflation to deal with, and he wouldn't do the one thing necessary to stop it, which is what Ronald Reagan did -- use policy measures to transfer wealth to the richest people who would then make investments in plant and equipment instead of bidding up consumer goods. (What Reagan did would be an unmitigated disaster in the opposite sort of economic conditions, Keynes' liquidity trap in which aggregate demand is insufficient to support anything near full employment. It's like this if you are a diabetic -- if your blood sugar goes dangerously low you devour something rich in sugar, and if it goes too high you get a shot of insulin, and treating hypoglycemia with the appropriate measures for hyperglycemia or vice-versa are both potentially lethal). With the Iranian hostage situation in place, Ronald Reagan could offer a bellicose foreign policy that might have offended too many people in other times... and Jimmy Carter seemed a failure.

So far, President Obama shows the political skills of Ronald Reagan -- not Jimmy Carter. A dip during a messy squabble over the budget will not continue forever. Obviously he will not win re-election with 40% approval... but he has a record with Democratic majorities in both Houses, and Republicans will be in deep trouble except in very safe districts if they seem "extremist" or intransigent.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I would agree that it is too early to tell.

Sure -- but we can see patterns and analogues.