04-17-2017, 06:34 PM
Mostly posted in Leip's Election Atlas -- by me.
So long as we believe that President Trump will be running for re-election, this study by Nate Silver will remain relevant.
I used it to predict that when Obama had approval ratings in the middle-to-high 40s early in 2016 that he would win re-election so long as one recognized
(1) that he was a competent campaigner
(2) that he had legitimate achievements in his first term
(3) that he satisfied his core support
(4) and that he would not have some disaster of foreign policy, economic meltdown, or scandal involving himself or those around him.
One cannot govern as one campaigns. There are deals to make, and one does not get everything that one likes. People who vote for a candidate in one year may find themselves disappointed with the results but find things generally tolerable.
It was obvious that President Obama would have to campaign just to save his political life, but he could do it. I'm guessing that a politician typically loses about 6% of his support as a candidate while governing or legislating (politics is a dirty business) but can get it back with adept campaigning. Against the usual challenger he would win. Mitt Romney was still an unusually-good challenger, but Obama still won.
A hint: Mitt Romney would have won by a landslide against Hillary Clinton, and nobody would be questioning whether he pulled any bait-and-switch tricks upon Americans who later feel gulled.
As the Trump administration continues, more people are going to recognize Barack Obama as an excellent model of a politician -- a cautious and likable person who runs a tight ship. That is a tough standard, but you can see how that model works. The likable and cautious leader will attract much competition just to be at his side, and he will get the best and will get good results. The not-so-likable, more reckless leader will attract opportunists who seek to impose their ideological agendas and seek power for what it can do for the satisfaction of their egos and perhaps for their individual enrichment.
The model suggests that an incumbent Governor or Senator typically gains back about 6.5% of what he loses from winning an election to governing or legislating (and having to make some unpopular decisions) to returning to campaign mode. On the average, if he showed that he could win the last time, he probably wins the next time. But they can lose. Appointed pols almost invariably lose -- because they never showed that they could win election before running as an incumbent. Yes, competence, integrity, and general shifts of support can matter too.
What does the Presidency have in common with the Senate and a State governorship aside from being elected at the state level? The latter two have rather little in common except for a demand for a modicum of competent performance, and that one gets a record of achievements.
At this point I look at the model and suggest that the usual President who got 46% of the popular vote could reasonably get 40%-or-so in approval ratings and get stuck there. Unless something wild happens between now and the winter of 2019-2020, the approval ratings for President Trump will be around 40%. He will need to be an average campaigner against an average challenger just to get back to 46% of the vote again. If his opponent is a better campaigner than average or is a better strategist, then he (or she) will win.
Posted elsewhere (Leip's Election Atlas)
Donald Trump has lost almost all chance of cutting into liberal contempt for him; he gives them nothing but a vague tolerance. His level of support is almost good enough to allow him to win the same percentage of the vote in 2020 as in 2016 in a binary election -- but in an effectively-binary election that is about what Dukakis got in 1988 and McCain got in 2008. The Democratic nominee of 2020 will be a more adept campaigner than Hillary Clinton.
Here's the really bad news for his supporters -- his level of support is stabilizing. In a way this is worse than having his support bouncing around as it did for Obama; it will be difficult for him to get the approval rate around 44% necessary for winning a majority of the vote. If you are a Republican you might now regret that Donald Trump won your Party's nomination. Were it bouncing around between 35% and 45% he would have some chance based on the news cycle of the time. He has gotten no obvious bounce from the air strike in Syria, which can be understand as both inadequate and excessive.
So long as we believe that President Trump will be running for re-election, this study by Nate Silver will remain relevant.
I used it to predict that when Obama had approval ratings in the middle-to-high 40s early in 2016 that he would win re-election so long as one recognized
(1) that he was a competent campaigner
(2) that he had legitimate achievements in his first term
(3) that he satisfied his core support
(4) and that he would not have some disaster of foreign policy, economic meltdown, or scandal involving himself or those around him.
One cannot govern as one campaigns. There are deals to make, and one does not get everything that one likes. People who vote for a candidate in one year may find themselves disappointed with the results but find things generally tolerable.
It was obvious that President Obama would have to campaign just to save his political life, but he could do it. I'm guessing that a politician typically loses about 6% of his support as a candidate while governing or legislating (politics is a dirty business) but can get it back with adept campaigning. Against the usual challenger he would win. Mitt Romney was still an unusually-good challenger, but Obama still won.
A hint: Mitt Romney would have won by a landslide against Hillary Clinton, and nobody would be questioning whether he pulled any bait-and-switch tricks upon Americans who later feel gulled.
As the Trump administration continues, more people are going to recognize Barack Obama as an excellent model of a politician -- a cautious and likable person who runs a tight ship. That is a tough standard, but you can see how that model works. The likable and cautious leader will attract much competition just to be at his side, and he will get the best and will get good results. The not-so-likable, more reckless leader will attract opportunists who seek to impose their ideological agendas and seek power for what it can do for the satisfaction of their egos and perhaps for their individual enrichment.
The model suggests that an incumbent Governor or Senator typically gains back about 6.5% of what he loses from winning an election to governing or legislating (and having to make some unpopular decisions) to returning to campaign mode. On the average, if he showed that he could win the last time, he probably wins the next time. But they can lose. Appointed pols almost invariably lose -- because they never showed that they could win election before running as an incumbent. Yes, competence, integrity, and general shifts of support can matter too.
What does the Presidency have in common with the Senate and a State governorship aside from being elected at the state level? The latter two have rather little in common except for a demand for a modicum of competent performance, and that one gets a record of achievements.
At this point I look at the model and suggest that the usual President who got 46% of the popular vote could reasonably get 40%-or-so in approval ratings and get stuck there. Unless something wild happens between now and the winter of 2019-2020, the approval ratings for President Trump will be around 40%. He will need to be an average campaigner against an average challenger just to get back to 46% of the vote again. If his opponent is a better campaigner than average or is a better strategist, then he (or she) will win.
Posted elsewhere (Leip's Election Atlas)
Donald Trump has lost almost all chance of cutting into liberal contempt for him; he gives them nothing but a vague tolerance. His level of support is almost good enough to allow him to win the same percentage of the vote in 2020 as in 2016 in a binary election -- but in an effectively-binary election that is about what Dukakis got in 1988 and McCain got in 2008. The Democratic nominee of 2020 will be a more adept campaigner than Hillary Clinton.
Here's the really bad news for his supporters -- his level of support is stabilizing. In a way this is worse than having his support bouncing around as it did for Obama; it will be difficult for him to get the approval rate around 44% necessary for winning a majority of the vote. If you are a Republican you might now regret that Donald Trump won your Party's nomination. Were it bouncing around between 35% and 45% he would have some chance based on the news cycle of the time. He has gotten no obvious bounce from the air strike in Syria, which can be understand as both inadequate and excessive.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.