If Jeb Bush doesn't run, I think Rubio will be the republican nominee. I think Biden or Clinton will be the democratic nominee.

If Arne Duncan didn't have such a weird lisp in his voice, he would be a good candidate.

Nobody mentioned outside of Biden or Clinton feels like a winner at this point.  Look, sound, and act are the three keys to a good candidate.  All of the rest miss the mark in some way.  

Cuomo has the look and the sound, but it is not clear that he is in line with the Democratic platform--he's basically the Democratic Mitt Romney.  He'll get attacked from the left in the primaries and there's little hope he can recover his image to win.  

O'Malley has the look and the act, but sounds like a boring dork.

I cannot picture Schweitzer or Hickenlooper as a President of the United States.

Michael Bennet? Maybe.

Cory Booker surging to the national forefront and staying there is probably the Democrats best chance at a "new face" winning, but I don't think he's ready.  Kirsten Gillibrand is also interesting.  So are Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, but both are 2020/24 material more than 2016.

I agree with you about Clinton and Biden. They're the only democratic candidates I can see winning in 2016.

It was also similar to 1936, but without the huge landslide.

2004, except not as close.

The campaign itself has been badly run, but not as terribly as the McCain/Palin campaign.

Romney has the following things going for him:

1) He's obviously very intelligent, unlike the last GOP president.

2) He looks like a stereotypical US president. This gives him a subliminal cognitive advantage.

3) He's got business credentials. Not bad in an economic crisis.

4) The economy is bad. Bad news for any incumbent.

5) The electorate is incredibly divided. 2008 was in effect a landslide election, yet Obama still only won by 7 points. We are unlikely to see anybody win by larger margins than that in this political climate. The GOP could run a reincarnation of Adolph Hitler and he would probably still crack at least 43% just because he isn't a "liberal, socialist, muslim".

So unless Romney tonight reveals that his fiscal plan is to sell America to China for 18 trillion dollars (he gets to keep 10%), then he won't lose by more than 7 points tops and he'll keep all the states McCain won as well as Indiana.

I agree with some of that. Romney looks presidential, but isn't charismatic/exciting. He doesn't have a clear message, either.

The economy is a lot better than it was. Usually in elections, it's more about the trend.

I can't imagine Obama not winning Ohio anymore. If he wins Ohio, he's probably won the election.

If Romney keeps making mistakes: Obama: 347

Things mostly stay the same: Obama: 332

Jobs reports get much worse/Obama making mistakes: It's going to be really close. Like 2004 and maybe even 2000.

Democrats keep the senate. Republicans keep the house.

Gonna go out of the box and say Ohio. Obama's been doing significantly better there than his national average, but the state generally tilts slightly Republican, the economy here is doing poorly, Obama only did a couple points better than John Kerry in '04 (and Ohio shifted several points to McCain in the RCP average over the last week) and he's not the sort of candidate who overperforms here. Maybe Romney won't win, but I have a hunch Ohio will be closer than expected.

More mainstream, 2012 seems to be a good Republican year in Nevada; Governor Sandoval is popular and the Democratic legislature isn't (rather the reverse of Minnesota), and I think Republicans could emerge victorious there (picking up the state Senate, 3-1 congressional delegation, Heller reelected), but it's still difficult for me to imagine Romney winning Nevada but not the election as a whole.

Actually Ohio's economy is a whole lot better than it was. It's now around 7.2%.

Another thing being ignored: The effect of Ted Kennedy's primary challenge, which probably explains much of Carter's troubles in the summertime. Kennedy did not give up until the day of his convention speech.

Take away the Ted Kennedy factor, and Reagan probably would have trailed the entire year until the debate.

So, you're talking about a 1980 what-if. LoL. What TL did you read before posting this? Some that had Carter unopposed in the dem primary, or what?

Oh, and 1980 =/= 2012. We have internet, mobile phones... they had libertarians and democrats for Reagan. Carter was an unispiring candidate, Obama isn't. Reagan was a man the conservative base loved, Romney isn't. That year they had Anderson, now we have Goode and Johson. And something you are forgetting to mention. Obama is still leading in key swing states, and his lead is not exactly dropping. At this time, in 1980, the race was leaning Reagan.

Right on.

The comparisons don't really make sense.

It's a totally different election, when you really compare the two.

Also, for the candidates: Romney is not nearly the politician Reagan was.  

If you're unbiased, you know Obama isn't nearly as bad as Carter was.

Even if Obama loses, he's still not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.

Unemployment is slightly worse now, though inflation was much worse then.

In many ways, this election might be similar to 1980.  I've actually been making the case that 2012 could look a lot like 1980, since 1/31/08.  http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

Aa far as the economy goes: The recession was much fresher in 1980. In 2012, it's a slow recovery. It's a lot better than it was. It's more about the trend. Not quite on the same level, but similar to 1936 and 1984.

It's not 1980. Plus, the candidates are very different.

The comparisons don't really make sense.

It's a totally different election, when you really compare the two.

Also, for the candidates: Romney is not nearly the politician Reagan was.  

If you're unbiased, you know Obama isn't nearly as bad as Carter was.

Even if Obama loses, he's still not Carter, and Romney is not Reagan.

Mild landslides still happen, but true landslides don't exist anymore.

The 1980 comparisons don't really make sense. Different world, different election, different candidates.

Romney can study Clinton's 1992 campaign all he wants, but he's not going to be as exciting as Bill Clinton was. Plus, this is a different election. In 1992, the recession was still pretty fresh. in 2012, this isn't a recession, but a slow recovery. It's not booming, but it's far better than it was.

If it continutes to get a little better throughout the year, Obama can play up the whole "We're better off than we were, and Romney would take us back to the failed policies that got us into this mess". Obama is more likeable and charismatic than Romney, too. That certainly helps in presidential elections.

If the economy holds up/gains a little speed throughout the year. If Obama runs a fantastic campiagn.

Obama could lose, but he's getting more than 191.

 The way the electoral map is nowadays. Plus, the fact Romney is not that great of a candidate, and Obama is not Carter/Hoover, no matter how much some people wishes he was.

I think the RNC has a winner with their "Hype and Blame" schtick. That's really gonna empower the base and resonate with disillusioned Independents.

I don't see it picking up much steam early on. But once Obama enters full campaign mode and people start to see how he diverts attention from his record... that's when it'll resonate. Especially with bad summer jobs numbers.

So bottom line: I think the themes of Hype and Blame will become pretty prominent. Obama will be typical Obama with flashy speeches and excitable crowds--in the end, that could undermine him.

Is the economy the only thing that counts a record? Even so, although it's far from booming, it's a lot better than it was, the past 2-3 years. The job growth may or may not pick up, the rest of the year.

As for Romney, what does he really have going for him? He was a fairly unpopular one-term governor.  He's not boring, but he doesn't have much vision, excitement, or likeability. He will have a lot of negative ads, though.

If job growth continues to decline, the rate may not matter. If it picks up steam, Obama has a better chance.

I see the Democrats are making predictions like it's May, 1980.

Obama could lose, but this is nothing like 1980. The world is different, the election issues are way different. Romney is not Reagan, Obama is not Carter.

Kind of mixed. It's not moving fast enough. At the same time, a few months ago, I never would've imagined the unemployment rate being 8.1 in May.

Key 12 is really subjective. In my view, Obama is not as charsmatic as he was in 2008, but he is still charismatic.

Where does this stand now?

A romney win isn't out of the question, but it's going to be hard. He's has to flip a lot of swing states. I don't know if someone as standard/average as him can do it. Plus, Obama is a great campaigner. If the economy dips again, Romney has a bigger chance.

I don't think hispanics are really going to go for republicans, even if with Rubio/Martinez on the ticket.

Also, Obama doesn't really need a new slogan. He just needs to be better than Romney.

Yeah, there probably isn't a magic number. It's more the perception of the economy, and who the candidates are.