Obama Bouncing Back
In less than a week, President Obama will give his State Of The Union speech to Congress and the nation. Sitting presidents usually get a bump in the polls immediately afterwards, since it is always the most-watched political speech of the entire year. But what's interesting to note, one week out, is that Obama is already enjoying somewhat of a bounce in his job approval polling. What's more, Obama seems poised to rise even higher in public approval, since the next issue teed up for a major political battle is one where Obama's stance is a lot more popular than the Republican position: immigration reform. All in all, ever since his forceful response to the midterm elections, Obama seems to be getting more and more popular.
In absolute numbers, of course, Obama still has a long way to go. Today, Real Clear Politics charted Obama's daily averages at a better mark than he saw in all of 2014. If his numbers hold until the end of the month, January will show the biggest monthly improvement in Obama's job approval for his entire second term, in fact. That all sounds pretty impressive, but what isn't so impressive was the hole he had to climb out of. Obama is close to a milestone in his polling numbers because his job approval is approaching 45 percent and his job disapproval is just above 50 percent. That's still "underwater" -- more people disapprove of the job he's doing than approve. But in relative terms, Obama is indeed improving his standing. He spent all of 2014 below 45 percent approval, by comparison, and his numbers even flirted with a drop below 40 percent at times. But -- again, by way of comparison -- George W. Bush's numbers at this point in his second term were below 35 percent approval and above 60 percent disapproval. So things could always have been worse.
There are likely many factors influencing Obama's recent bump in the polls. The biggest one may be a background issue that causes Americans to either feel better or worse about the economy as a whole: gas prices. Gas prices are way down, which can easily translate into better job approval for any sitting president (it's a political fact of life, fair or not). But added to cheap gas is an overview of an economy finally getting better for millions. Unemployment is down to 5.6 percent. Some workers are feeling confident enough in the job market to quit in search of better wages -- a trend that could improve wages across the board. In general, public opinion about the economy lags behind how the economy is really doing, but that bodes well for the next few months for Obama, as more and more people start to see improvements in their own lives.
The spike upwards this particular month may have been influenced by Obama's newfound boldness in pursuing his own policies and introducing some new initiatives. "Free community college for all" is a pretty simple concept to get behind, for instance. We'll likely get a few more of these big ideas in next week's speech. Most will likely become nothing more than preparing the ground for Democrats in the next election (at least, those issues that have to go through Congress), and most will likely be easy for Democratic candidates to fully support. Most will likely also be wildly popular with the public at large, which again bodes pretty well for Obama's public approval.
Of course, there is one big voting bloc that has shifted dramatically over the past few months. Latinos overwhelmingly support Obama's recent moves on immigration and deportation reform, and the improvement among this demographic is likely the largest single identifiable influence on Obama's recent bounce in the polls. This, again, bodes pretty well for the immediate future, as Republicans are already trying to outdo each other over how many people they want to see deported.
The House Republicans just passed a bill which takes an extremely hard line on immigration and deportation. Not only does this bill defund Obama's recent announced deportation deferment program, it reaches back and wipes out the DREAM kids' status as well. If Harry Reid really wanted to help Obama (and the Democratic Party at large), he'd announce that Senate Democrats would not be filibustering the bill, and would instead let the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans fight it out over the issue. My guess is that even without Democratic interference, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell would have a tough time passing any bill through both their houses, due to their own internal battle over how hard a line to take. Added into this mix will be all the Republicans who have plans to run for president next year. They'll all be desperately trying to outflank each other on the right, which is almost guaranteed to produce some seriously offensive off-the-cuff language from at least one of them. This fight, it should be noted, is going to consume the next month, since Congress set a self-imposed deadline of February to deal with it.
President Obama has risen in the polls ever since the midterm elections, by taking bold stances on several issues simultaneously. In the next few months, he's going to be vetoing lots of bills and standing firm as Republicans try to force him to accept their agenda. This will be a new situation for Obama, since he's only used his veto pen twice in six years, but it's a fair guess that standing up for what he believes in will also help improve his job approval with the public.
Obama's resurgence is nothing short of astounding, given how badly Democrats were beaten in the midterms last year. It was a defeat of historic proportions, and yet nobody is now asking (as they did of Bill Clinton, at exactly the same point in his presidency) whether Obama is "still relevant or not." Not only is Obama still relevant, he is actually doing a much better job promoting his political agenda right now than the Republicans. Republicans are moving what they can through Congress, but by doing so they're staking out some very unpopular positions with the public.
Obama's job approval is still pretty low, by historic standards. But it is currently improving at a rapid pace. This could all be just a momentary spike, and his numbers may deflate after nothing more than one temporary bounce. Still, the indicators for the next few months look pretty good for Obama. If he gets a further bump upwards from next week's speech, he will enter February (and the big immigration fight) with the wind at his back. All in all, Obama's in a pretty good position, one week out from the biggest political stage of the year.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
i maintain that the president will be judged by history as exceptional in terms of the cultural change he represented but very average in terms of what he has actually done - neither particularly good nor particularly bad. his numbers have been on the low end for quite awhile, but i think he'll eventually end up right back at around the 47.5% line
JL
"Gas prices are way down"
I saw it for under $2 for the first time just yesterday.
The Republicans seem to have decided that it's time to go after people on SSDI. They've demonized people on disability for years and now they're ready to move in for the kill. Here's what Rant Paul said yesterday:
“Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club. Who doesn’t get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts? Everyone over 40 has a back pain.”
That's some seriously callous talk about people with chronic, incapacitating back pain. Democrats should be making every effort to spotlight this GOP cruelty.
He also said: "everybody in this room knows somebody who’s gaming the system".
This is interesting because I don't know anybody who is. I must hang out with a different crowd than the senator.
We're down to $2.09 in our area....
Tampa has it around $1.98...
If you would have told me 6 months ago that I would be seeing gas below $3, I would have told you that you were nutz....
Michale
He also said: "everybody in this room knows somebody who’s gaming the system".
Yea... The Party who is minting millions of fresh new Democrat voters...
Michale
It's actually kinda hilarious..
Obama's big jump in the poll numbers are caused by the ONE thing that he actually hasn't even done!!! :D
The one thing we ALL agree he has no control over...
Gas prices...
And what makes it doubly hilarious is that the low gas prices are IN SPITE of Obama's actions, not because of them...
We would be seeing gas under a buck if Obama had actually released federal lands for drilling...
Democrats laughed and scoffed and "DRILL BABY DRILL" and yet.... Look what happens when we DO drill baby... :D
Michale
"Free community college for all" is a pretty simple concept to get behind, for instance.
And it's about as much bullshit as "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage."
What a sad commentary on those Americans who would support the guy who gives them the most free stuff and wouldn't care about anything else..
Like competence... Like integrity...
"We don't care about how badly you frak up or how much you lie to us or how badly you run this country's reputation into the dirt!! Just give us free Obamaphones and FoodStamps and do our thinking for us and we will vote for you!!"
The Bought Generation.... :^(
Sad....
Michale
A reality check on the conventional wisdom of gasoline and politics:
Issac Wood E-published a nice analysis of pump prices vs presidential popularity at Sabato's Chrystal ball.
Over a period spanning 1977-2010 (Carter to Obama)a simple regression of popularity against inflation adjusted can account for 26% of the variation in popularity polls.
Wood goes one step further than this by looking at outliers in the data, that is, unusually high or low gas prices. When inflation adjusted prices are low, they explain only 0.2% of popularity. As Wood puts it:
"While the president is punished in the court of public opinion whenever gas is expensive, he receives no reward for presiding over times of cheap gas."
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/ITW2011042801/
History suggests something other than gasoline is driving Obama's uptick. My gut feeling is a lot of somethings.
TS,
What would gas prices be if oil fell to $20 a barrel??
History suggests something other than gasoline is driving Obama's uptick.
Yet, during the Bush years, it was all about how Bush was such a bad POTUS and the Left pointed to high gas prices as "proof"... I can provide the documentation if ya doubt the connection. :D
The problem is, government in the here and now have unilaterally pushed the perpetual handout in lieu of the occasional hand up...
Nothing like economically enslaving the population to insure voter loyalty...
Michale
m -
If oil fell to $20 per barrel????
What am I - a gypsy fortune teller? :)
But, if you want to take a stab at it, Google
pump price vs barrel price equation
Among the listings you'll find various linear regression based swags - but be forewarned, they are basically BS. Among the problems of this approach is that $20 per barrel is very far from the recent historical mean. The farther you get from the mean, the less confidence you have in a regression based prediction. That's just for starters, I could go on at some length....
Among the Google cherries you'll find some simple "price pump calculators." There isn't close agreement among 'em.
What would drive oil to $20/ barrel? Then ask yourself, what's the dif between micro and macro economics and why does it matter?
Yet, during the Bush years, it was all about how Bush was such a bad POTUS and the Left pointed to high gas prices as "proof"... I can provide the documentation if ya doubt the connection. :D
Ahem - punished for high gas prices, no reward for cheap gas.
What would drive oil to $20/ barrel? Then ask yourself, what's the dif between micro and macro economics and why does it matter?
Saudi Oil Minister is quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia will not alter output even if oil drops to $20 a barrel..
I was just wondering what that would translate to in Price Per Gallon..
Remember that old show QUANTUM LEAP??
Beckett leaped into the body of an executive secretary for a big auto guy in the early 60s.. During a meeting Sam asked "What about miles per gallon??" and was scoffed at...
Every time we talk about gas prices, I think back to that show.. :D
Michale
http://gascalc.appspot.com/
Oil @ $20 a barrel equals gas at $0.66 a gallon!!!!!
HOLY TESTICLE TUESDAY!!!
Michale
Here's a link to a fascinating graph showing both nominal price at the pump and price at the pump in 2013 dollars. Years 1918 - 2012
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Adjusting for inflation, current gas at under 2 bucks a gallon is actually cheaper than when I was a little kid and the service attendant was filling our station wagon tank for 30 cents a gallon!!!!! If that car was doing 18 mpg I'd be astonished. In terms of fuel cost per mile, consumers have probably never had it better.
I would not have expected that!
"While the president is punished in the court of public opinion whenever gas is expensive, he receives no reward for presiding over times of cheap gas."
That makes sense because, when the price is high, people want Big Government to do something about it.
Here's a conspiracy theory for everyone to mull.
I actually heard this espoused by one of those Middle East experts, being interviewed on a news show. This was 2-3 months ago, even. Can't remember any more details than that, sorry.
He suggested that the US basically convinced the Saudis to flood the market with oil. The reason is geopolitical, although it does have some nice side-effects in domestic politics (which wasn't even discussed by the expert).
Think about it: who is hurting most by cheap oil? Number one on that list is Russia, where an astounding percent of their GDP is fossil-fuel based. Their economy is in the process of collapsing. This is also the purpose of the sanctions the US laid on them after the Ukraine and Crimea situation.
Other countries affected badly by cheap oil: Iran and Venezuela. Not buddies of the US by any stretch, and with Iran they also have a muliplier effect with our sanctions on them.
So, like I said, just a random theory... did the US and the Saudis collude to bottom out the oil market? Not saying there's any proof, but it certainly struck me as within the "believable" category. What does everyone else think?
-CW
"What does everyone else think?"
I think that that is almost certainly true. In exchange, the Saudis don't really have to defend themselves against their very own Frankenstein's monster (ISIL).
Oh, and we probably won't make a stink about that guy getting a thousand lashes for supposedly insulting Islam although it's more likely the Saudi royal family that was feeling insulted.
We are Charlie.
Does that count as chess?
Chris,
I agree with JFC on this one.
Je suis Charlie ... seriously. I just ordered my one-year subscription of Charlie Hebdo, to put my money where my mouth is, as it were. It felt good.
Here's a conspiracy theory for everyone to mull. ...
Wait, that's a conspiracy theory? I thought that was the null hypothesis.
We are Charlie.
Sounds as though we should move the Dieudonné discussion to this thread. Here's what JFC said in the other one. Unless I bungle the HTML and cut it off.
[173]
I was just listening to ATC on NPR and they interviewed an attorney from Paris who specializes in freedom of speech cases and, according to him, Dieudonne tweeted: "I am Charlie Coulibaly.", although I've read online that it was "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly."
Maybe this is just a difference in translation to English, but the first one does seem more likely.
[174]
BTW - neither of those translations seems to convey an especially clear meaning to me. What exactly was he saying? They say he's a comedian, so I suspect that their case against him is probably weak, but who knows? Charlie Hebdo was unsuccessfully prosecuted under the same law.
So, like I said, just a random theory... did the US and the Saudis collude to bottom out the oil market? Not saying there's any proof, but it certainly struck me as within the "believable" category. What does everyone else think?
I have heard that theory as well..
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if that's how it went down.
If this is proven to be true??
GOOD JOB, OBAMA!! :D
dsws,
Sounds as though we should move the Dieudonné discussion to this thread. Here's what JFC said in the other one. Unless I bungle the HTML and cut it off.
Hokay, I am game for that...
Aside to CW... This doesn't count cuz someone else did it!!! :D
But we're all Charlie, no?
Apparently Phil "Duck Commander" Robertson wasn't Charlie..
Nor was that Florida Nutjob (redundant :D) who wanted to burn korans..
If you want to talk about people who try and censor and shut down other people's free speech, there is a LOT more blood on Democrat's hands than Republicans...
Liz,
Je suis Charlie ... seriously. I just ordered my one-year subscription of Charlie Hebdo, to put my money where my mouth is, as it were. It felt good.
That is an AWESOME idea!!!
I would like to as well.. Got a link??
Michale
Michale,
Yes, I do!
http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html
You can choose the English version after clicking on the 'Recevoir Charlie Hebdo' thingy.
And, here is another great link that I happened upon the other day ...
http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/
No conspiracy is needed to explain the drop in oil prices.
From the Economist, Dec. of 2014:
"Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground."
The United States government sees the geopolitical situation largely as the Saudis do. The US and Saudi viewpoints diverge completely over the question of market share. The US domestic oil industry has taken on a lot debt in anticipation of high oil prices. Low prices can bankrupt the weaker players. That takes a lot of the shine off any (presumed) political benefits of cheap gasoline.
Is the conspiracy theory even plausible? Do the Saudis have enough power to engineer the dramatic fall of prices?
Saudi Arabia controls about 13% of world oil production. As best as I can determine, their oil production has only fluctuated by about 5% during 2014. Is it plausible to believe that a .7% blip in world production is going to have a dramatic impact on oil prices. I would say NO.
Another gambit for the Saudis is to simply sell their oil for less. They are doing that in the US market, but the US doesn't import all that much oil these days. On the other hand, the Saudis have raised their prices in Asian markets. I don't see pricing changes as a credible explanation for such a dramatic reduction in the cost of oil.
"Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground."
That's just what they WANT you to think... :D
Michale
Speaking of the Economist. Did you know Indonesia is at a crossroads? It is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KJSnd8VzQw
Gas went from $1.95 to $2.29 this afternoon. Is there anything other than gouging that could explain this? I just checked and the price of oil is down again today.
LizM,
Thanks for that understanding Charlie link. It validates my gut feeling about CH (which I referred to in my Archie Bunker comment on that other thread). Those cartoons are brilliant! They have layers of meaning and nitwits just don't get it.
Gas went from $1.95 to $2.29 this afternoon. Is there anything other than gouging that could explain this? I just checked and the price of oil is down again today.
Probably your Democrats adding more taxes to screw over the middle class and make fossil fuels more expensive...
Michale
JFC,
Thanks for that understanding Charlie link.
You're very welcome.
Nitwits, to be sure ... but, I think that describing the cartoons as rude or gratuitously offensive or even racist provides many in the media and blogosphere with a convenient way out of publishing cartoons ... CARTOONS!, mind you, for God's sake! ... that many Muslims do, indeed, find offensive.
It boils down to a cop-out - laced with more than the usual level of cowardice, by a long shot. Because, in the wake of the vicious murders of journalists and cartoonists ... CARTOONISTS!, for crying out loud ... if the media and blogosphere can't stand up, unambiguously and unequivocally, in support of the freedom of expression under THESE horrible circumstances by reprinting at least one of the CH cartoons on their front pages, then when will they ever stand up for the rights and freedoms they hold so dear?
Actually, allow me to answer that ... they have and will stand up for these democratic rights and freedoms under decidedly more self-serving circumstances. And, that's just pathetic. I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here!
Liz-
A late breaking thanks for the Understanding Charlie link. I have a passing familiarity with Charlie H, but my understanding of idiomatic French is way too limited to fully appreciate these cartoons without a lot of help!
The closest American equivalent I can think of are the faux political cartoons from The Onion political page.
You're very welcome, TS.
I have become thoroughly discouraged since the vicious attack on Charlie Hebdo, a magazine I had never heard of before then or, if I did, paid it no attention, by how pathetic the response to this attack has been by the new outlets and blogs that I do pay attention to.
I am now convinced that they have no idea what the freedom of expression means unless it involves some self-serving scenario. When journalists and cartoonists are brutally murdered in a vicious effort to silence their voices, in particular, and to extinguish democratic rights, in general, is this not the time for all those who call themselves journalists and bloggers to muster up a bit of courage and support those rights and freedoms they say they cherish by publishing a Charlie Hebdo cartoon on all of their precious front pages in a concerted and strong message of unity of spirit in opposition to the violent Islamist extremists?
Of course it is! And by not showing this support, these news outlets say a lot about themselves and none of it is good!
The understanding Charlie link is so important because so many of these cowardly news outlets are hiding behind the falsehood that they themselves are creating by saying - explicitly or, even more cowardly, by implication - that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are more abhorrent than anti-Semitism and gratuitously insulting of an entire religion.
It is this sort of thing that really boils my blood!
TS,
Has the Onion been publishing any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in the wake of the tragedy in Paris?
Liz
The Onion adheres to a hyper-realisitic absurdist humor packaged as a newspaper with style and values somewhere between USA Today and a small town newspaper. Most "articles" gravely dissect some mundane event (Man Reserving Judgment On Best Actress Nominees Until Looking At All 5 Pictures) in an obviously impossible quest to find meaning in it.
The Onion can elevate itself to an International Level now and then:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/
The Onion rarely pulls punches, but they declined, on the basis of good taste, to publish a post 911 article dealing with reports from "The Quadragon." Probably a good call at the time.
TS,
The cowardice and incompetence on display throughout the Western media in their collective reaction to the attempt to silence voices and stamp out the freedom of expression, the freedom of religion and the freedom of the damn press, for God's sake! surprises even me.
I expect this kind of behavior from the English Canadian press but not from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
This whole episode truly disgusts me.
Liz -
I share your disgust with mainstream media timidity, but the internet makes genuine censorship of Charlie cartoons nearly impossible. The curious will find them.
To see the close resemblance between
Onion cartoons and the Charlie brand, Google:
The onion editorial cartoons
and select images.
TS,
The onion editorial cartoons and select images.
I'll do that when I have the time ...
But, I don't care if the curious find them somewhere on the internet. That's not the point.
What should have been a strong global message of unity in support of democratic rights and freedoms by the Western media would have been directed at none other than the violently deranged Islamist extremists and all those who would support their barbaric tactics.