The most recent New York Times/CBS poll (which John and Jonathan write about) has President Obama’s approval rating down to a record low of 41 percent. If you are a supporter of the president, the internal numbers are downright depressing. The judgment of the Times seems about right to me: “President Obama is heading into the general election season on treacherous political ground.”
In addition, yesterday’s Washington Post/ABC News poll (which Alana wrote about) found that President Obama’s approval rating is at 46 percent — even with a sampling advantage that favors Democrats by too much. Fully 59 percent of Americans give Obama negative ratings on the economy, up from early last month, with 50 percent giving the president intensely low marks, the most yet in a Post/ABC News poll. And among independents, 57 percent now disapprove of Obama; and among white people without college degrees, disapproval now tops approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.
No president will win re-election with an Election Day approval rating of 41 or 46 percent.
I wonder whether, in light of these polls, George Will might begin to reconsider his column from earlier this month, in which he suggested that we might well be reaching a point in which conservatives, in “taking stock of reality” and in order to “economize” their energies, should “turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than, and not much less important than, electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.”
As it happens, the goal of winning control of the Senate is harder to reach than many people assumed just a few months ago. And it’s not at all clear to me how abandoning the top of the ticket will help down-ballot races.
In any event, and more importantly, Will’s counsel — which edges right up to the line of conceding the election to Obama eight months before a single vote has been cast — strikes me as ill-considered and oddly anti-empirical. Anti-empirical because perhaps the most persistent political fact of the last year is that Barack Obama is a vulnerable incumbent. No president since Jimmy Carter has begun an election year in more precarious shape.
I will repeat here what I have said a dozen or more times before: This does not guarantee Obama will lose or that the GOP nominee will win. But it does mean the political stars are not well aligned for the president. The temper of the country, its voting disposition, is to make Obama a one-term president. And whatever weaknesses Mitt Romney might have, at this point he’s got a reasonable – and probably better than even – chance to win the presidency. That’s not a bad position to be in during what may well be the nadir/near nadir of the campaign for Romney (who has been embroiled in an intense and nasty primary battle for the past two-and-a-half months).
It’s not a state secret that George Will is no great fan of Mitt Romney. But that shouldn’t cloud his judgment about the enduring weakness of America’s 44th president. Helping to oversee a Lost Decade is not usually a recipe for re-election.
George Will is ancient history. I don't know any self respecting conservative that reads his columns or takes his opinion into account. He has been supplanted by the likes of Charles Krauthammer, Bill O'Reilly and- gasp!- Rush Limbaugh. Maybe his irrelevance is why he tried to re-appear on the political scene with his outrageous claim.
Oh stop it. That is just silly. George Will has justifiable reasons to be less than enthusiastic about the two leading contenders, neither of whom woudl amount to any serious challenge were Obama not so weak. And thank goodness he is. Nothign in these polls suggests the public is overwhelmed by either Republican candidate. Rather, the public is disgusted with Obama.
Wehner's is a god analysis, fair and balanced, as someone once said. And its sober and clear commentary makes George Will's predicition and counsel look all the more needlessy foolish. n nWhat is it with public pontificators who feel the need to make calls that are impossibly premature? n n It's as though they delusionally affirm themselves to themselves by their assertion of certitudes that in irony are foolish in proportion to their certainty. n nNo one can say who will win come November. The best one can do is note the trending data and make cautious judgments for the time being based on it with all due allowance for the unknown and contingency. One equivalent for that in language is something "It now looks like but…"
It's not a very cogent analysis. If the President's approval rating is 46 percent, and Mitt Romney's is 35 percent, the President will have no trouble winning. Though elections like these are often referenda on the incumbents, the cynicism that pervades the American polity plays an important role. Obama's 46 percent approval is actually strikingly high in a country where the people generally hate the politicians these days.
His bad numbers are still better than his competitors. His favorability rating is higher than that of each Republican candidate. n nAdditionally, polling orgs cited didn’t make top 3 on list compiled by Fordham following 2008 election. Rasmussen and Pew are reliable, these, not so much. n nIt isn’t that it’s impossible for a Republican to win it’s that current candidates are nowhere near a sure bet. Even considering the President’s awful, dreadful, soon to reveal sweet confidence in our side numbers. n nA 50.5% win is still a win. If President Bush considered a popular vote loss a mandate, ditto for a tight win by President Obama. n nThe reason Will’s “anti-empiricism” is anything but is that while only 37% of the electorate shares PO’s views and 53% agree w/one of the Republicans, that breaks down to less than 20% for each top-tier Republican candidate. n nSo Will probably justifiably concluded that while Republicans could win, they would have to run all four candidates as one against President Obama. n nFor all of his weakness, Republicans still can't make decent gains.
Whether the Republicans will win this fall is certainly open to question. Whether the pollsters mentioned are better or worse that Rasmussen/Gallup is also questionable. No one knows the future. The point of Peter Wehner's column was that George Will, possibly the best known and certainly oldest conservative pundit, was way premature in asserting that Obama would be re-elected. THAT opinion is laughable- especially in light of the fact that Obama has very weak numbers now. We'll see how this eleciton turns out, but George Will already looks like a fool.
When Bush ran against Gore we didn't know who won even after the election was over.
Will himself wrote a prescient and convincing article before the 2008 election, pointing to state elections in 2006 as boding ill for Republicans, specifically governorships. Only conservative sources point out the real shellacking Obama suffered in 2010, with the degree that Republicans defeated Democrats in governorships and state legislature. So, I find it astonishing that Will turned stupid on his own proven reasoning with this column he wrote. I also find it astonishing that Will is stupid on Romney- so he hates him. Does he actually love Santorum and Gingrich better?