Ominous Signs For Obama In 2012
AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
Updated 3 p.m. ET
Barack Obama captured the White House in 2008 on the strength of his personal magnetism, optimism that he could lift a sinking economy, an energized party base -- and by winning key battleground states. The results of the 2010 midterm elections revealed considerable erosion in these assets, which proved so vital to his winning coalition.
National Exit Poll
Full Election Results
Unless Mr. Obama can reverse these trends then he will become the fourth incumbent president to lose in the last four decades, following the path of Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H. W. Bush in 1992.
Falling Popularity
One week after Mr. Obama took office, the non-partisan Gallup Poll found 66 percent of Americans approved of him, including 88 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents. Even 38 percent of Republicans gave him positive evaluations.
The 2010 exit polls showed that support for the president has fallen considerably from this high water mark. Overall, 45 percent of midterm voters approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling his job as president. Only 40 percent of independent voters and 10 percent of Republican voters give the president positive approval ratings. Support among Democrats is 84 percent.
Obama will have to substantially improve his approval rating, and quickly, if he expects to win again in 2012. Of the nine presidents who have sought re-election since Gallup began measuring presidential approval in forties, five of them had approval ratings below 50 percent after their first two years in office. However, none of the nine won a second term when less than half of the public approved of their performance twelve months before the general election.
Why Democrats Lost the House to Republicans
How Boxer Bucked a National Trend in California
Why Key Midwest Swing States Flipped to the GOP
Harry Reid Wins: How He Did It
Who Are the Tea Party Supporters?
Growing Skepticism about his Economic Plans
At the time of the 2008 presidential election, the recession was well under way. Unemployment had risen from 4.7 percent in October 2007 to 6.6 percent in October 2008. Election Day found an overwhelming number of voters (93 percent) rating the economy negatively, including 44 percent of the electorate who judged the economy as poor. Worse, a majority of voters (53 percent) thought the economy would not get any better in the next year.
Mr. Obama was the clear choice of voters concerned with the economy. Voters who rated the economy as poor cast 66 percent of their ballots for Mr. Obama. Of those voters who did think economy would get better in the next year, 61 percent voted for Mr. Obama. 
The New Leaders of the House
Since the president has taken office, though, the economy has not improved. It has instead continued to slide. The most recent unemployment figures show that the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent in September 2010.
Despite the recession commencing well before he took office, the exit polls show that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are now bearing some of the responsibility for the struggling economy. Twenty-three percent of voters believe that Mr. Obama is more to blame for the economic problems in this country than Wall Street bankers or George W. Bush. Sixty-five percent think the Obama Administration's economic stimulus plan has hurt the economy or made no difference.
If history is telling, than the economy will need to improve considerably over the next two years for Mr. Obama to be re-elected. Of the last nine presidents to seek re-election, none succeeded when the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent of greater in September of the year they sought re-election. The September unemployment rate in the year Jimmy Carter lost was 7.5 percent, while it was 7.6 percent for both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.
An Eroding Base of Support
AP
The 2010 midterm elections showed that such judgments were premature as turnout amongst a number of these groups fell considerably. Young people between the ages of 18 and 29 comprised 18 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 11 percent of the electorate in 2010. Union voters comprised 23 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 17 percent in 2010. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 10 percent of the electorate in 2010.
If these groups are not re-energized and head to the polls in 2012, it will likely spell defeat for Obama in his bid for re-election.
Battleground States Swinging Back
Mr. Obama won the 2008 presidential election by converting nine key states from the Republican column to the Democratic column. Majorities in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia voted for Obama after backing George W. Bush four years earlier. If Mr. Obama had not won these states he would have lost to Sen. John McCain 285 to 253 in the Electoral College, rather than winning by a 365 to 173 electoral vote margin.
The 2010 midterm elections show that Mr. Obama has his work cut out for him if he hopes to retain these key states in the 2012 election. Of the House seats that changed from Democrat to Republican, nearly a third flipped in these nine swing states. On the Senate side, Republican candidates won races in Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, and North Carolina by double-digit margins.
There Is Still Hope
Charles Dharapak
At the 1982 midterm, Mr. Reagan's approval rating was only 43 percent. The unemployment rate hovered over 10 percent. Republican base groups turned out in lower numbers. As a result, the Republicans lost 29 seats in the House, including several in key battleground states such as Florida, California and North Carolina.
By the start of the 1984 general election, the unemployment rate had dropped precipitously to 7.2 percent. Mr. Reagan's approval rating had improved with the economy, reaching 56 percent. The Republican based was energized and Mr. Reagan rolled to a landslide victory in his re-election bid - a win that seemed quite unlikely just two years earlier.
Barack Obama faces a much different political landscape in 2010 than the one encountered by Mr. Reagan in 1984. The structure of the U.S. economy has changed, posing different challenges for job creation. Public officials are far more polarized, making the passage of legislation that much more difficult. Voters also appear more fickle, as evidenced by the degree of turnover in recent elections.
Only time will tell whether Barack Obama can turn the tide like Ronald Reagan -- or be swept away by it like Jimmy Carter. Either way, he is on the clock.
The CBS News exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Results are based on 16,982 voters interviewed either after exiting the polls across the nation or by telephone if they voted early. They have a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.
Samuel J. Best is an associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut and the former director of the Center for Survey Research and Analysis. He is the author of numerous books and articles on public opinion and survey methods. He holds a Ph. D. in political science from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use 143 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story"
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 533 Comments
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- GOP Sen. Murkowski backs same-sex marriage
- Obama renews push for a nuclear disarmament legacy
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 80 Comments
Secondly he has surrounded himself with other liberal left wingers.
Lasly as the CEO he needs to react to the nations needs not his ideaolgy.
While I would much prefer a significant reduction in government spending, I'll take gridlock if that's what it takes to prevent trillions more wasted next year.
Also, I hadn't heard the news that CBS had joined the "military-industrial behemoth" (as what? it's publicist?) nor that President Obama had cut the deficit. I'm sure glad my liberal grandchildren (once they're born) won't have to pay this generation's bills.
Obama's done. Thanks to his influence, the Democratic party is basically destroyed in southern states. That will become quite evident in next year's redistricting.
He's cooked. I'll be surprised if he runs again.
"PT Barnum" here and, if you'll re-read my first post without already having your response in mind, you'll see I never once mentioned taxes, nor President Bush. No, my post was regarding government spending. (As long as you feel the need to mention the latter, however, I'll go on record that I was not a proponent of the increased spending under his administration, either.)
Nor did I come close to suggesting a pure laissez-faire economy was more desirable than any other economic system. Again, my post was regarding government spending. In fact, since laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, such an economy could exist, theoretically at least, at any level of government spending.
As you appear to believe there is some direct connection between regulations and government spending, I would simply point out that an overly burdensome regulatory environment should not be required to punish the likes of BP, should they plead guilty to wrongdoings or be found guilty in a court of law. In any event, sufficient regulations to punish can hardly be argued to automatically equate to a requirement for excessive government spending.
While I certainly do believe that limits to government spending improve the general business climate, again, should you re-read my post, I never argued that it did. I also recognize how transportation infrastructure can improve the business climate, however, but I do not therefore automatically conclude that the government is the only, or best, means in which to fulfill such a need, should that need truly exist. Others do reach that conclusion, however, and I assume there are individuals and businesses who truly appreciate the convenience and utility, for example, of the John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but I am not one of those people.
Nor did I argue that government spending should be zero but I do not happen to believe that that the government should select exactly whose quality of life should be improved by spending funds collected from slightly more than half of the population of the country, nor by borrowing funds those same people will have to repay. When the government makes that selection, it is inevitably corrupted in some fashion. Were there truly a need, as expressed by some reasonably unbiased cost-benefit analysis, it is hard to argue that this particular airport would have been built - certainly not with private funds. Contrast that with the Fort Worth Alliance Airport, where the private sector determined a true need and moved forward, no doubt with some government support, I would be the first to admit. A huge difference in the two, in my opinion, however.
I simply do not believe in excessive government spending and I do not believe that it benefits anybody, including businessmen such as yourself. I believe that in too many, but certainly not all, situations where additional government spending is recommended there is no real business or economic case that can be made. Further, the objectives relevant to most "social needs" used to justify increased government spending are nearly always better achieved in a different fashion.
Whether you agree with my positions or not, it is hard to argue that any individual, business or government can continue to spend significantly more than they earn and continue to prosper.
To understand all this from somebody who was by far smarter than I am and can explain it much better than I, I will leave you with a quote from Mr. Friedman:
?There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you?re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I?m not so careful about the content of the present, but I?m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else?s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else?s money on myself, then I?m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else?s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else?s money on somebody else, I?m not concerned about how much it is, and I?m not concerned about what I get. And that?s government.?