We are going to get “Trashed in 2012 Elections”

[Drunken Irishman]

60. You were right in 2010?

Really? Wow. And I can predict that tomorrow, somewhere, there will be a sunny day.

I hate to break it to you, but many people, the same people who are predicting an Obama victory, were saying 2010 was going to be a curb stomping. You don't get any extra points for being one of many who didn't drink the Kool-Aid when it came to the '10 elections. It doesn't make you anymore a soothsayer than the rest of us who knew the clouds on the horizon were devastatingly dark.

In the end, you're forgetting some simple facts that were there in 2010.

1) Congress had a record disapproval rating throughout much of 2010. Only the hard-line partisans or those who buried their heads in the sand couldn't see what was coming down the pike. Democrats, who held control of Congress, had low, low, low approval ratings - record lows.

That isn't a recipe for success and certainly something many saw as indication the Democrats were about to get their butts handed to them.

2) History was not on the side of the Democrats. Traditionally, the party that holds the White House loses seats in the midterms. Sure, the degree varies and some presidents were able to buck the trend, but history is history and we knew the potential was there. Couple that with record disapproval for Congress and you certainly can see why Nov. '10 happened.

3) A united opposition. The Republicans were unified in 2010. Democrats were not. In the end, Republicans went to the polls, Democrats stayed home and the Republicans won in a mid-term landslide.

So, knowing those three, let's look at it in comparison to the general election.

1) Obama does not have record disapproval. His approval rating today isn't much worse than the last three presidents who won reelection - Bush, Clinton and Reagan. It certainly could be better, but it's not at the low-level of either George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter.

It's remarkably shortsighted to suggest there is any comparison between the numbers seen from Congress in '10 to Obama's current polling in '11 - they're dramatically different, with Obama holding far more stability in his personal numbers than the Democrats were in Congress.

Moreover, Republicans saw a huge spike in their numbers heading into 2010. They were seen as the better alternative near-universally. That isn't the case today. The Republican name is more toxic, as poll after poll suggests, than that of Pres. Obama or even congressional Democrats.

2) History indicates the incumbent will win reelection. Only twice since the end of Hoover's administration has the incumbent president lost reelection: Carter in '80 and Bush in '92. Every other incumbent running for reelection (which discounts Johnson & Truman, who never officially ran for reelection and Ford, who hadn't been elected) since Roosevelt's second term has won reelection. FDR (three times), Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush - history suggests that the incumbent wins reelection far more times than he actually loses.

There is a reason for that. Presidents are almost always more popular than other Washington politicians. Americans don't always approve of the job a president is doing, but since he's just one man and not an entire party or an entire body of politicians, he has more wiggle room.

It's why a president can win nationally and have little, to any, coattails - as was the case for Clinton throughout the 90s. In '96, Clinton won in a landslide, yet Democrats only saw a net gain of two seats in the Senate and only 3.9 in the House - not monumental movement.

People vote differently at the presidential level than they do the congressional level. The comparison between the two is just not there.

3) There is more unification in a general, between parties, than what you get in a midterm election. Most Democrats and most liberals who voted for Obama in '08 will head to the polls in '12 and vote for him again.

Why? Because they'll spend the next year or so seeing the alternative and it's going to scare them shitless. Will all who voted for Obama in '08 head to the polls and vote for him in '12? Of course not. Will it be enough to cost him the election? It might - but, if I were a betting man, I would say it doesn't.

Which takes me to a new point: bets.

Intrade.com, which, like you, called the Republican massacre of 2010, has the odds of Obama winning reelection (based on party, since we know he'll be the nominee) at 51.5%. The Republicans? 46% - or a pretty comfortable margin.

The predictions suggest that, at the moment, Obama is the favorite.

Can that change? Sure. Will it?

Well, let's look at your link. We've been in an election cycle now for almost two years and out of those two years, Mitt Romney has led in only 25 polls - going all the way back to 2010. Obama has led in 25 polls...going back to just October.

There has not been a bump because his numbers have been generally consistent throughout the last two years.

This without truly campaigning - as Romney has been doing since, really, 2006.

Yes, the margin is narrow, yes, this election is no slam dunk - but nothing you say equates to a trashing. Obama has consistently defeated Romney not only in national polls, but holds solid enough leads against Romney in most swing states (http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/841714/electoralmap.html) - which, as we all know, decide the election.

This with an economy that, for the last year, has been up and down at best and was, until recently, thought to be heading straight for a recession.

This with the focus for the past year almost entirely being on the Republicans and their primary as they attack and attack Pres. Obama.

This, as you predicted so very well, on the heels of an embarrassing and ugly loss a year ago in the mid-terms.

What I do know is that Pres. Obama's personal ratings remain remarkably high. You might dismiss those numbers, but someone as acutely aware of politics as you claim to be would realize that personal favorability ratings are huge for candidates. It's something that dogged the losers in every past election and something that won't dog Obama in '12. Americans might not approve of everything he's doing, but they generally like him. Just like they liked Clinton and, whether people want to admit it or not, Reagan in the 80s.

They had reservations with guys like Kerry, Gore, Dole George H.W. Bush, Dukakis and Mondale.

What do you know, all lost in the general.

I also know that Obama isn't just running against the mood in the country. He's running against the ideas of the opposition party. As I mentioned, the Republican name brand is far less popular today than it was a year ago. They won't have the added advantage of Americans being on their side.

So, it also comes down to the opposition. Not every sports game is equal, right? Good teams wallop on bad teams all the time, even with their flaws.

Well a guy like Romney doesn't bring much to the table for the Republicans.

He's got a personality problem - Americans don't really like him. He's got an issues problem - Americans don't really think he stands for anything and he's got a base problem - Republicans don't trust him.

All three of those things make it that much more challenging for Romney and something that, ultimately, won't bog down Obama.

Obama doesn't have a personality problem. Americans generally like him.

He doesn't have an issues problem in the same sense, as most polls indicate Obama has been a fairly decisive leader.

And he doesn't have a base problem, as most polls of the Democratic base (Hispanics, Blacks, Liberals and Blue Collar voters) show them supporting his reelection and his presidency by solid numbers.

The problem with your overall post is that you're doing a lot of assuming and basing it off on little data. There is no evidence of what you speak, unlike in '10 when you made the outlandish (ha) prediction Democrats were about to get their asses kicked.

Will Obama beat Romney like he beat McCain? Maybe, maybe not. But to suggest anything you've stated in this post proves Obama and the Democrats are about to get trashed in '12 is absolutely, positively silly. So, I can only assume this post is mostly projection - a hope of what you want and not an argument based in reality.

Because, as most pundits will tell you, the same pundits who saw the writing on the wall a year ago and predicted a blowout Republican win, are saying, at worst, Obama is facing 50-50 odds to win reelection.

You can't spin that into a trashing - and that's probably the worst case scenario.

Especially when the polls you linked to, the ones you say prove your point, show Obama beating Romney.

So, do what you must. Make the predictions, feel your prediction in '10 somehow adds any value to this, but at least make a more substantial argument - one that has more evidence than polls that show Obama winning, when you then turn around and say he's going to get trashed. Okay?