Obama is not (quite) on the ropes (yet…)

by Gene Giannotta


From Gallup, presidential approval for the past seven two-term presidents at comparable points in their second term:

 source: Gallup

Overall approval, according to Gallup for presidents in the 20th quarter of their administrations, stands at 46%. Obama is on par with George W. Bush and Harry Truman, slightly outpacing them. Nixon had plenty of problems to contend with after his landslide reelection, and in 1974, he would resign because of Watergate.

Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton all had approval ratings around 60% at this point in their presidencies, but none of those men had to contend with the same kind of polarized information environment that we have today.

Here’s a comparison of average approval ratings for each of the presidents since Gallup started tracking in the 1940s:

But as Gallup notes, approval often dips in the second term. They compare the averages:



Two exceptions to the rule:

Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are the only two out of seven previously re-elected post-World War II presidents who augmented their popularity over the course of their second stretch in office. Reagan and Clinton — who had identical 50% first-term approval averages — each entered office during a down economy and presided over muscular economic growth during their second term. As a result, their approval ratings moved upward; Reagan’s average rose to 55%, while Clinton’s soared to 61%.

That’s interesting given that both presidents faced serious scandals in their second terms - Iran-contra for Reagan and impeachment for Clinton.

(As an aside, I just want to note a big caveat for the Johnson numbers - LBJ’s first term lasted about fourteen months and those consisted of the immediate aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination and the election that he would have been running for reelection in, so that 74% average is probably skewed by that.)

One wrinkle in all this is personal popularity. Those numbers above are for job approval. But the public could cut a president some slack if they think he’s done a mediocre job but like the guy personally. This is a story that’s been common for Obama’s presidency - his approval numbers have largely floated right around the middle but his personal popularity has been quite high.

That, however, seems to be changing.

But is it really? Here’s a chart from the Washington Post last month that compares the likability + approval trends:



Except for the spike in job approval with the death of Osama bin Laden, the trend lines largely correlate, albeit with his favorability ratings slightly higher. That difference is pretty small throughout his presidency but seems to be getting even smaller, to the point of dipping into net negative territory.

Here are some numbers from a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, showing a similar trend:




Rather than just include the headline number for the current polling period, I thought it’d be instructive to look at what their results have shown dating back to 2011. Over 28 polls since January of that year, Obama’s average “very positive” rating was at about 29% of respondents, while the average “very negative” rating was at 27% of respondents. The latest results show him at five percentage points worse than the average in both categories. The margin of error of the current poll is +/- 3.46%, so it’s possible the true values (the actual percent of the population that feels that way) are closer to the averages than the numbers we see here (which are estimates of that actual percent).

In other words, while these numbers certainly aren’t great for Obama and the context in which the most recent polling has been done provides some cause for concern (left a mess, the Affordable Care Act rollout has the potential to undermine his popularity by any measure), they aren’t really shocking. They seem to fit both the broader trends of presidential history and Obama’s own experience.

Another point to make about these poll trends is the role of media coverage. When attention is focused on a particular person, people obviously become more aware of them, more knowledgeable about them, and more able to make  judgments. Presidents get a good deal of visibility, period, and when a major policy has come to bear your name it’s no surprise that can make a difference. If the ACA had never been known as “Obamacare” would Obama be saddled with as much of the blame as he has? Or would his response be seen as a popularly-accepted rebuke of government contracting run amok?

It’s impossible to answer those questions, but I can show how attention can help shift opinion. I’ll use two examples of potential presidential candidates and their own favorability ratings from that same NBC News/WSJ poll.

Here’s Hillary Clinton, with data back to 2011:


Like Obama above, she isn’t an unknown quantity - the “don’t know name/not sure” column at the far right has a range of 0-2%. She’s been in the public consciousness for two decades, so people know who she is and can make judgments accordingly. Interestingly, she’s also underperforming her averages despite having been out of the secretary of state job for most of this year. Let’s dig deeper and look at her numbers dating back to her taking office as a senator from New York in 2001:



Just from eyeballing it, what becomes obvious is that her best-performing poll trend was her tenure as secretary of state. Now that she’s mostly a topic of political discussion these days rather than a relatively quiet public servant, maybe opinion of her is defaulting to where it was before 2009. The type of coverage could matter here, and it would be interesting to look at that data to see if there’s a correlation. But for now, I just want to point out the general trends. Like Obama, she’s a well-known public figure. Movement in opinion about her, like that about the president, can be as much a function of factors that are highly-visible (i.e., “salient”) bringing more attention to her and thus “activating” existing biases, as it could be due to actual shifts.

Chris Christie’s favorability ratings offer another example of how greater visibility can make a difference. Back in June 2011, Chris Christie was just over a year into his first term as governor of New Jersey. His “very positive” and “very negative” ratings were about the same as today - 10% and 7% then, 9% and 7% now. But now only about a quarter of respondents said they don’t know who he is, versus 44% two years ago. 

The difference there is 18 points. Note that the number who say they have a “somewhat positive” view of him is now 11 percentage points greater than in 2011 and the proportion that says it has a “neutral” view is now 5 points higher. In 2011, almost fifty percent of respondents didn’t know who Christie was; today, almost half of respondents have either a “neutral” or “somewhat positive” view of him. Given the generally positive press attention he’s received over that time span, that’s probably not much of a surprise.

It’s true that Obama’s personal likability, or growing lack thereof, is a story to follow. But what isn’t clear is whether it’s a worrisome trend unique to Obama or a function of two variables he has little control over: historical tendencies of declining second-term popularity and the tone of media coverage.

He has to contend with both. And the debacle over HealthCare.gov and insurance policy cancellations has, for really the first time during his presidency, placed the questions of his managerial competence and honesty front and center in a very bipartisan way. Placed in that context, those declining numbers really aren’t all that surprising.

The GOP Micro-Targeting Lag

by Matt Sarge

The Obama campaign had an advantage in 2008 and 2012 over its GOP opponents on account of its successful investment in its technology strategy. Its utilization of data allowed for innovative micro-targeting and GOTV (Get-Out-The-Vote) field efforts. Though this tech advantage may not have swung the election, as I’ve discussed in an earlier piece on OFA, it certainly helped pad Obama’s victory margin and set off louder alarm bells within the GOP.

In the wake of the 2012 election, Republican elites not only had to concern themselves with an impending demographic barrier to the party’s future national success, but also with a tactical campaign disadvantage as well as far as the GOP’s ability to leverage technology in its campaigns. Though this realization must also have occurred after the success of the Obama team in 2008, the GOP’s performance, and particularly the Romney campaign’s, were reflect a failure to narrow the technology gap.  We’ll try to understand what happened.

Micro targeting: not all that new

Micro-targeting has been misunderstood by the media in recent years. While micro-targeting and ‘big data’ have attracted a lot of attention in the political world lately as being the ‘hot new thing,’ they are not actually new, but rather the further evolution of an age-old concept.

Voter targeting has long been central to campaigns. In the 19th century, targeting relied on the institutional knowledge of precinct captains and thereby strengthened the role of political parties, today’s targeting is much the same, only with smaller units of measurement. For much of our history, voter targeting was geographically based, initially at the precinct level with the eventual layering on of census demographic data to allow more precise targeting. While many demographic elements still remain central to voting behavior, ideology, and political motivations, voter’s views have become much more nuanced. Thankfully, our ability to understand these preference nuances and to look beyond basic demographic and geographical data to understand voters has markedly improved. We can now target individuals at a much more individual level. Sites like Votifi have taken to heart this new age of micro-targeting to understand that campaigns and companies can no longer cluster African-Americans living in DC together and assume similar preferences, nor can they assume that a group of people is either strictly liberal or conservative, but is instead likely to have variances issue to issue. Our historical ways of targeting groups are both no longer adequate as Americans’ preferences become less predictable on demographic or geographic bases, and no longer necessary given our enhanced ability to target at a deeper level.

Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab, provided some strong insights on the recent evolution of micro-targeting and the prospect for the GOP in 2016 in the area of campaign technology. In 2004, the Bush campaign had a big advantage on technology because of the Republican Party’s historical connection with the corporate world. While the level of targeting that Karl Rove and the Bush campaign utilized in that cycle were innovative in the political world, it was child’s play compared to the modeling and micro-targeting that insurance and financial firms had been using for years. These corporate connections to the GOP helped form the basis of their initial data advantage, but campaign technology has advanced to the point that OFA in 2012 was using more advanced targeting than most companies in the private sector, meaning that there is little room for advancement via these corporate avenues. However, Romney’s financial institution background may have been helpful in slightly closing the gap from 2008 to 2012, but not as much as was necessary or expected.

Romney’s Project ORCA, a voter-turnout system, failed on Election Day, further exacerbating the campaign’s technology disadvantage. While the Obama campaign had five years to build their campaign infrastructure and digital operation, the Romney campaign was forced to play catch-up, only beginning their efforts in earnest after the GOP primaries ended.

For both parties, the key to a successful digital operation will be to largely house it within the party infrastructure, rather than individual candidates’ campaigns. This will both allow these resources to be leveraged at the state and local levels and will allow for continuous building of a digital program and not simply piecing something together four months before Election Day.

Talent Problem?

Heading into 2016, the GOP has a talent problem. Largely, their talent problem is generational as the party has taken stances on issues like immigration, the environment, and gay marriage that are especially unpopular amongst young people. Without support from this generation, they have a decisive lack of support among those in the tech world who are essential to further campaign tech innovation.

Obama tech guru Harper Reed offered a different view in a talk at Tech Cocktail, citing the Obama team’s lack of diversity (Reed:“For the most part, we hired all white dudes”) and the GOP’s acquisition of former Facebook engineer Andy Barkett to serve as Chief Technology Officer as factors that will give Republicans a leg up in 2016. Barkett plans to address the talent gap by recruiting from Wall Street, as well as conservative-leaning organizations at Berkeley and Stanford near Silicon Valley.

Despite Reed’s comments, and the GOP’s signal of increased focus on technology in hiring Barkett, there still seem to be many factors working against them. In that vein, a major area of potential innovation in campaign micro-targeting is a connection with political science and academia. As we saw in some of the ‘experiments’ run by the Obama campaign, there is a lot of potential to fine-tune campaigns by quantifying what tactics actually work and how significant the effects are. However, liberals hold a major advantage amongst this demographic of academics. The GOP must make major inroads amongst these two groups that are likely drivers of campaign micro-targeting innovation if they are going to reverse the Democratic data and technology advantage in 2016.

The GOP has already made major strides since the 2012 election, with a focus on overhauling its data infrastructure. For example, Phil Musser and Alex Skatell of Media Group of America have developed a tool similar to OFA’s Narwhal that can cobble together different data sources about voters and preferences into a single platform. As RNC director Rience Priebus’s direction, they copied Obama’s move of opening a digital field office in San Francisco to capitalize on Silicon Valley technology talent. The RNC is building new technology tools to bridge the digital divide and is focusing on building up its social media presence to improve Republican appeal amongst those under 30.

The problem for the GOP is that their lagging digital operation in 2012 was a symptom of broader issues. While they stand to benefit from putting the same level of focus on micro-targeting and campaign technology that the Obama team did in 2008 and 2012, the fundamentals may still be lacking. As Obama digital strategist Joe Rospars notes, to build a robust internet presence, the GOP “would have to abandon opposition to issues with popular support” like background checks for guns and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. And while a long-term social media strategy will benefit the party for the next cycle, it is unlikely to be decisive in turning young people into reliable Republicans. The major takeaway for both parties coming out of 2012 should be that you cannot afford to wait until the general election has begun to begin assembling a digital operation – it’s much too important and complex to be left to an afterthought.

Ignore the Hispanic Vote at Your Own Peril

By Matt Sarge

There is often talk about how critical the Hispanic vote is, and the impact of this growing demographic really can not be overstated. Not only is the Latino demographic is America growing rapidly via immigration and higher birth rates, but it also has a slightly different average ideology than rest of the Democratic coalition. Though Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, helping secure an Obama victory in 2012, they are not (on average) overwhelmingly liberal. Setting aside the immigration issue, Hispanic voters are more religious and therefore, often, more socially conservative. If the GOP can neutralize the immigration issue, there is some potential for better performance amongst this young and growing voting bloc. Regardless, the unique blend of ideology in this demographic group provides a huge opportunity for effective micro-targeting. By delivering the right mix of messages, potentially a very different mix than to other parts of the electorate, either party could stand to benefit from a flood of new voters. Not only is the Hispanic vote big currently, but it is growing rapidly and is underrepresented in turnout. If either party wants to remain viable nationally, paying attention to the complex policy preference set of Hispanic voters, and targeting accordingly, is a must.

Compelling Stats and Infographics

Obama Campaign’s Data Tools: ‘Cool,’ But Perhaps Inconsequential

by Matt Sarge

In the months after 2012 election the details of the Obama campaign juggernaut have slowly come to light as some of the team’s insiders begin to share best practices and more detail about what they did.

imageWhile these insights tend to captivate those of us who are intrigued by the recent trends toward data use in campaigns for voter targeting, they still ought to be taken with a grain of salt. The ‘data guys’ on the Obama campaign team know that they are hot commodities, but the abundance of news stories about their innovative techniques is no coincidence. Some of campaign’s top minds have hired PR firms to raise their stock in the marketplace and are looking to leverage their success while they are still hot commodities – they are campaign professionals after all. This is all to say that, as fascinating as some of the techniques used by the Obama campaign are, we need to keep things in perspective and not assume that great technology alone is the lynchpin of a winning campaign.

Read More

President Obama sat down with CNN’s Chris Cuomo last week, and part of the interview touched on the NSA surveillance programs and the concerns that have been raised about oversight and legality.

In Trying To Appease Both Sides, Obama’s Budget Satisfies Neither

By Nick Davis

http://www.artsjournal.com/culturegrrl/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ObamaBudg.jpg

President Obama released his 2014 budget a few days before Tax Day, albeit about two months late from his required deadline. In an interesting role reversal, Democrats seem to be tearing into the budget more than their GOP counterparts.

Much of the commotion centers on Obama’s proposal to reduce the rate of growth of Social Security payments. He has suggested that payments be calculated using chained CPI, something Republicans have campaigned for in previous budget and fiscal cliff discussions. Chained CPI is a more accurate formula for calculating cost of living expenses and would initially reduce payments by about $2 a month for each person.


Another major point of contention in the President’s budget revolves around $400 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years. These cuts would come from pharmaceutical and hospital payments as well as trimming benefits and increasing out-of-pocket expenses for upper income seniors.

Republicans have mixed reactions to Obama’s modest entitlement reforms. Speaker John Boehner praised the reforms. “He does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget.” Others were less enthusiastic about the budget. As can be expected, Grover Norquist shot down the bill due to more than a trillion dollars in tax increases while Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon called it a “shocking attack on seniors.”

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the President’s budget is the sheer disgust shown by his own party. Democrats have long been the champion of social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid so any reforms to reign in their impact will be unwelcome by the left.  Arshad Hasan, the executive director of the liberal group Democracy For America, seemed to sum up Democratic sentiment best. “You cannot be a good Democrat and cut Social Security.”

Some have expressed concern that if this legislation were to pass, it would leave Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 midterms elections.  Representative Bill Pascrell of New York was one of many Democrats to demonstrate those concerns. "Seniors vote in even heavier numbers, proportionately, in off-year elections," he said. "So just looking at a political standpoint … I would think that this would be a damning blow to our chances of taking back the House next year."

I disagree. I don’t think Pascrell’s concerns are rooted in any sort of fact or logic. If the people are upset about cuts to entitlement programs, what makes them think that Republicans would be any different on the issue? In fact, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the GOP would cut them even more.  At this point, unless the budget actually gets passed without any major overhauls, which seems unlikely, any dissatisfaction with the budget lands on the shoulders of Obama, not his base. Progressive congressman Keith Ellison expressed this same sentiment. "They cannot lay that dead cat at our door," Ellison said Friday. "I don’t know how it’s going to affect the president’s brand, but it would be completely unfair to affect the House Democratic Caucus brand, because we had nothing to do with it and most of us are affirmatively and explicitly against it."

Could we be witnessing a shifting strategy from the President towards negotiations with Republicans? Or, has he been liberated to legislate as he pleases since he can’t be reelected? No matter what his motivations are, one has to wonder what Obama hoped to accomplish by releasing this budget. The President released his two months late and the House and Senate already released their budgets. Depending on how much of Obama’s budget is enacted, the only real thing he has accomplished is alienating his base, something that could and should be avoided as the Republicans are looking to unify themselves for 2016.

Budget Sequestration A Real Life Experiment For The President And Congress To See Who’s Right

By Nick Davis

Welcome to day 1 of sequestration. As President Barack Obama so eloquently put it the day after he signed Obamacare into law, “I looked around to see if there were any asteroids falling, some cracks opening up in the earth… turned out to be a pretty nice day.” That’s right. Unless you’re a public school official, have a child in primary or secondary school, civilian defense personnel, or live in a military community, you’re unlikely to feel the direct effects of the sequester.

Let me be clear, in no way am I trying to minimize the hardship that these groups face. It’s rather unfortunate that our lawmakers have allowed our children and military to take the brunt of the spending cuts. But, let’s take a moment to really analyze the amount that is being cut here. Of our $3.5 trillion budget, only $85 billion is being cut for this fiscal year, approximately 2% savings according to my own rough math, just a drop in the bucket as I alluded to in my fiscal cliff blog last month.

According to the President and congressional Democrats, this relatively small cut would be catastrophic for the economy. Meanwhile, John Boehner and Republicans want Obama to stop his supposed ‘fear mongering’ and make a concerted effort to make substantive cuts. This political theatre shouldn’t surprise you in the least though. After last week’s weeklong recess, it should be crystal clear that neither side was ever serious about striking a deal.

Obama vacationed in Florida to play a round of golf with Tiger Woods. Other than the fake Vacationgate scandal about how transparent his Administration was being in not allowing the press corps to vacation with him, there was not much news from the Obamas. Congressional leaders took the same break to head back to their districts and visit with their constituents.

So, significant budget cuts are looming that threaten to plunge the United States back into recession and our lawmakers take a vacation? Nothing exemplifies their unattached attitude than congresswoman Marsha Blackburn. She went on MSNBC and repeatedly defended herself and her colleagues stating that the recess was planned months in advance and it just happened to fall the week before sequestration was supposed to take place. Competent and concerned leadership would have scrapped those plans in order to get a deal in place.

I suspect both sides of playing the ‘wait and see’ game this time around. Both parties have a lot to gain if events play out the way they expect. Obama will have concrete evidence that Republicans are responsible for another downturn in the economy. If these cuts turn out to be nothing more than a blip on the radar, they’ll point to the Senate and President’s budget incompetence.

The reality of the situation is that our representatives in Washington have almost no skin in the game. None of them will struggle to feed their families at night. When I think of their role in this situation, I imagine two stuck up, whiny children standing off to the side driving their remote control cars right at each other to see who will flinch first.  If the cars crash, it’s the other side’s fault and they live another day, business as usual.

What the Media Reaction and Executive Response to the Drone Memo Should Tell Us

By Nick Davis

It’s been about a couple weeks since President Obama and the Justice Department released their legal memo with regards to the drone program only because a leaked memo recovered by NBC forced its hand. In fact, the government still doesn’t even acknowledge its existence and speaks in hypotheticals.  The issue that first arose back in 2011 when American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son, were targeted and killed by two separate drone strikes, has taken a tumultuous turn after the release of a memo that suggests it is perfectly legal for the United States government to kill an American citizen.

It’s certainly a valid question. The United States government would need a judge’s approval to wiretap Anwar Awlaki’s telephone. However, the president can unilaterally order the assassination of Anwar Awlaki, under the stipulations set forth in the white paper. (What is a white paper anyways?)

After taking a step back, weighing the arguments flying back and forth and observing Attorney General Eric Holder handle questions from the press, there are a couple things that I think deserve our attention and should shape our view of this memo.

In an increasingly divisive political landscape, it’s not often that media outlets Fox News and MSNBC agree. Each network has featured the drone memo as front-page news on both their nightly news as well as on their talk shows. Pundits on both channels have in one way or another roundly criticized the perceived overreach of power.

The conservative outlet Fox News veered off the conventional path of a strong national defense. This time it has become a staunch leader of traditional conservative values, due process, and constitutionalism. It frequently featured contributors criticizing the federal government for violating due process clauses of the constitution, including Judge Andrew Napolitano.  The judge has made it clear that the constitution doesn’t grant authority to the government to kill anyone without due process.

While Napolitano questioned the constitutional legality of the memo, Rachel Maddow approached the subject from a practical standpoint. In one of her opening monologues, Maddow acknowledged that everybody is in favor killing  ‘bad guys.’ But, how do you determine who is a bad guy? The words ‘imminent,’  ‘activities,’ and ‘senior US officials’ as it pertains to who can order a strike, are not defined and leave themselves to be easily manipulated. Even if someone knew that they were a suspect (which they don’t), how would they go about proving their innocence if no formal charges are filed and the government skips the trial and assumes guilt?

So, what should we make of this bipartisan reaction to the drone memo? It’s not often that there is a federal policy that is roundly disliked by both parties. Despite legal questions, public outrage itself should tell us about how the American people feel about the ethical implications involved. Let’s be clear. This memo authorizes the killing of American citizens without trial. If that doesn’t upset you, it should.

Additionally, the answers provided to questions over the drone memo by Holder indicate a mix of corruption and secrecy. The day after the memo was released, Holder fielded questions about the legal definitions and justifications to the wording and intent of the document. When asked what the difference between an ongoing and imminent threat is, the Attorney General responded, “We’ll have to look into that.” So he’s saying that he doesn’t know what’s in his own memo? Doubtful. He knows the white paper is heavily dependent on loose vocabulary.

To add to the secrecy, the congressional judiciary committees are the only entities outside of the Obama administration allowed to view the memos. The lawmakers are not allowed to take notes, make copies, or show their staffs. Wow.

Jay Carney tells us that the President takes his role ‘very seriously.’ I should hope so. Has he or his administration taken into account how these legal justifications could be used or interpreted in the future? The concern among many is that this memo could justify the killing of any American, not just a known terrorist. And frankly, it already has, al-Awlaki’s son Samir, was 16 when he was killed. He had no reputation as a terrorist and was never even accused as being such. He just had the unfortunate opportunity to have one as a parent. Everybody enjoys safety and security. This time however, it has crossed a line

Compromise Is The Best Way Forward For Obama and America

By Nick Davis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/12/17/Production/WashingtonPost/Images/Speaker_Boehner-00573-2501.jpg

What do you hear most when you’re having a discussion about the political culture of America? I know, I am just one person but I frequently hear, “I wish Republicans and Democrats, the President and Congress, could just get along!” Amen! And honestly, who doesn’t support such sentiment? I find it extremely hard to believe that either party has all the right answers for solving America’s challenges moving forward. Based on this notion, compromise should be an obvious and inevitable solution.

A major theme of President Obama’s reelection campaign was to follow through with the promises made back in 2008. Among those promises includes tackling immigration reform, addressing climate change and pushing forward with a renewed energy policy that relies less on oil and more on renewable resources.

Obama addressed all of these issues in his 2nd inaugural address. However, one thing that has been absent from this President’s mantra is the ‘Hope and Change’ that was proudly advocated in 2008. His image as the ‘great negotiator’ hasn’t materialized and according to his inaugural address, it doesn’t sound like we’ll see it this term either.

Now, I’m not completely blind to the fact that Republicans control the House, and at times, it seems the GOP appears more willing to block the President at every turn rather than find solutions and compromise. Mitch McConnell himself famously said that Republicans would make Obama a ‘one-term president.’ This type of attitude is shameful no doubt.

However, my esteemed counterpart Ian would have you believe the Republican Party is weak and vulnerable and without a strong leader and he would be correct to an extent. But, all this talk of the GOP being down is only temporary. They aren’t going anywhere and I haven’t heard a compelling argument yet as to why or how they will fade into a permanent minority.  America will never be a one party system and it serves both parties to work together.

Compromise is good for Americans, but the President should also see some individualized benefit from such actions.  At some point, Obama will have to take responsibility for the gridlock in Washington. After all, the buck does stop at his desk. You will see I do agree with Ian that Obama spent quite a bit of his political capital with various pieces of legislation including the landmark Affordable Care Act. That is the very reason he needs to compromise.

As much as people like to praise Obama’s potentially game changing inauguration speech, he still has to deal with a Republican House. The GOP can keep control through the 2014 midterm elections as long as they stay the course.  Unless, Obama plans on governing through executive order for the next four years, he must foster positive relationships with GOP leadership.