2012 President

On Dec. 3, 2013, President Obama hit his low point in approval as president, at least according to RealClearPolitics’ aggregate average of approval polling. That day, Obama fell below 40% for the first time in RCP’s measure, sinking to 39.8%, though he has since rebounded slightly to 42.1%. Two days after Obama dropped under 40%, Gallup released a report on the president’s approval that showed how his support among different demographic groups had fallen over the past year, in some cases a great deal, with a particular focus on the decrease in approval among Hispanics. Needless to say, we can’t predict what will happen with Obama’s approval from here. Is the worst over for him? Will he dramatically fall off or bounce back up? Who knows? That said, it’s tempting to suggest that Obama might have an approval “floor” — basically, because of his strong support among nonwhites, he might not fall much below 40%. But is that true? Again, it’s impossible to say what events could impact the president’s approval, for better or for worse. But there’s little reason to think that Obama has a “floor” in approval that he can’t dip below. That evidence comes in part from

We’re pleased to feature a column by political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck about their excellent new book, The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. We heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to understand what did (and didn’t) matter in 2012 and what factors are worth noting as we look ahead to 2016. — The Editors At the end of the 2012 presidential campaign, Tim Murphy of Mother Jones magazine undertook what became a monumental task: to count all the “game-changers” in the campaign identified by journalists and commentators. In total, he counted 68. Some of those moments were noted in jest, like Lindsay Lohan’s apparent endorsement of Mitt Romney. Some were more plausible, like the killing of Osama bin Laden. Regardless, 68 is a big number — enough for nearly three game-changers a week between May and Election Day. If you can’t quite recall three game-changers a week, don’t worry. There’s nothing wrong with your memory. In our new book about the 2012 race, The Gamble, we show that almost all of the alleged game-changers were better described as “game-samers.” These events may have driven a few news cycles, but rarely did they move

“I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American.” — Daniel Webster While Daniel Webster died an American in 1852, his political legacy does not belong to just one state, but two: New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Born in New Hampshire, Webster represented the Granite State in the House of Representatives from 1813 to 1817. But he then moved to Massachusetts seeking to improve his legal career, only to wind up returning to the House as a Bay State congressman in 1823. (Republican ex-Sen. Scott Brown is currently pondering the reverse move.) Webster went on to have a lengthy stay in the Senate, becoming part of the upper chamber’s revered “Great Triumvirate” with Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. As a transplanted New Hampshirite representing Massachusetts, Webster’s individual case demonstrates how politics can be affected by the movement of Americans from state to state. In the aftermath of the 2012 election, the “demographics as destiny” discussion has dominated political analysis, with the latest data being provided by last week’s U.S. Census report on the 2012 electorate. But one demographic statistic hasn’t received much attention in the conversation: state nativity rates — that is, the percentage

One of the questions we asked prior to the 2012 election was whether or not state-level unemployment figures would matter much on Election Day. As it turned out, the answer was “probably not much.” Throughout the 2012 election cycle, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ monthly jobs report became a highly anticipated event. Politicians, journalists and election handicappers (the Crystal Ball included) waited eagerly every first Friday of the month, anticipating what the national unemployment number would say about President Obama’s reelection chances. Then, toward the end of each month, the BLS released the state-by-state numbers, sparking further debate about the relative importance of state numbers, particularly in the swing states. In hindsight, the relentless focus on jobs numbers, at least in the states, was overwrought. Political science research indicates that while the national economic situation influences presidential races, the state-by-state rates do not appear to affect the outcome all that much. That the states swung relatively uniformly in their election results from 2008 to 2012, regardless of the changes in employment numbers, gives even more credence to the argument that individual state-level employment data are relatively unimportant. Just look at the case of Nevada. As Chart 1 shows, Friday’s state

Despite a topsy-turvy, hurricane-interrupted election that looked closer a week ago than it actually was on Election Day, the Crystal Ball accurately projected Monday that President Barack Obama would comfortably win a second term in the White House. Our final projection had Obama winning 290 electoral votes. It now appears that he will do better than that, adding Virginia’s 13 electoral votes and probably Florida’s 29 to his column. Still, we’re glad we got 48 of 50 states, and we called some of the swing states long before the campaign’s conclusion. Bellwether Ohio is an example: We moved it to “leans Democratic” in late September and never wavered in that selection, even as the race tightened after the first presidential debate and some experts insisted it had become “too close to call.” As for the down-ticket races, we correctly projected 31 out of 33 Senate seats and, in all likelihood, 10 of 11 gubernatorial races and roughly 97% of the 435 House seats (some of the races have not been called yet). Our final projected House gain was Democrats +3 (after having been as high as +7), but the actual Democratic gain might actually tick up to +7 or +8

Almost everyone fervently hopes that the presidential election result is decisive, whichever way it goes. Few who went through the “overtime” election of 2000 would ever wish that on America again. But wishing may not make it so. Two politically experienced attorneys, Steven Okun and Thurgood Marshall, Jr., give us a glimpse of what might be Christmas future this year, if Tuesday night produces very close contests in key swing states. — The Editors In 2000, with one state’s election results being contested for weeks past Election Day, the images were not pretty. There were congressional staffers, party activists and lobbyists all making their way down south to protest how they were being disenfranchised. Antiquated voting machines, confusing ballot designs and voter intent derived from analysis of chad perforations dominated every news cycle. Now, fast forward 12 years. The country is much more partisan, and the United States’ reputational standing globally has been changed by all of the events post-9/11. A replay of such a protest could increase the country’s partisan divide and diminish the United States’ ability to highlight its democratic foundation when it is needed more than ever throughout the world as many countries begin their own transition

The conventional wisdom before the debate season was that President Obama would have the edge in a foreign policy debate, and the conventional wisdom was right. The president, through superior knowledge and having — after four years — a record that is defensible in the field, won the third debate on foreign policy. Incumbent presidents typically have the edge on foreign affairs, although Jimmy Carter is, as always, the exception. The question is, how big did Obama win? Not nearly as big as Romney in the first debate, obviously. But by a decent margin — more than debate two. Do two debate wins on points equal a giant win? No. And that’s Obama’s problem. Voters know him, and they didn’t know Romney — the first debate gave him a chance to make a first impression, and he nailed it. Obama isn’t going to deteriorate further because of this debate: If he goes down to defeat, it will be for other reasons. Meanwhile, it’s doubtful Romney did any real damage to himself, although his attempts to explain his position on the auto bailout — a key issue in vital Ohio — again fell flat. This debate won’t have the same viewership