balladofwindfishes said:
This is different.
Obama is different.
No other president, against his odds, has managed to maintain the approval rating he has kept. Any other incumbent president running with his approval rating would win. Obama remains popular even in the worst of times.
I wouldn't just call it a day because history has shown the economy is blamed on the president. Because history shows a lot of patterns, but there's always exceptions to those patterns.
Like Clinton. A roaring economy at its peak. Everyone should have instantly thought Clinton did it and bring Gore in with a landslide. But they didn't. They didn't vote based on the strength of the economy.
First, this is not different. Obama may be slightly exceeding expectations for his approval rating. But as the populace continually assigns more blame to Obama for the state of the economy, his performance is gradually returning to expectations. And by election day, for better or worse, he will be held responsible for the state of the economy.
Second, did I state that? I did not call it a day. I merely noted the public assigns responsibility to the president for the state of the economy. Moreover, as I have previously noted, there are other variables that influence voter behavior. Therefore, it would be premature to call it a day.
Third, that was not an exception. Gore actually won the popular vote. He benefited from a robust economy. Notwithstanding, Gore was unable to fully capitalize on the state of the economy. While the state of the economy explains much of the variance in presidential elections, other factors influence voter behavior. That exposes the error in your reasoning. Other factors partially negated his economic advantage. Your conclusion is erroneous.
