Could Obama pull off a landslide?

[DS0816]

^ In short, you're assuming Republican strength and pickup of the White House (hence, New Hampshire and Wisconsin).

Only if the GOP wins back the White House is the map somewhat accurate. Otherwise, gray in Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota. As well as Nebraska #01 and #02 (though I'm losing track with that state's Republicans).

No, I'm not assuming anyone will win with the above maps.  I'm just saying, in response to the thread's question of whether Obama might win in a landslide, that the GOP in 2012, as long as they don't run a throwaway candidate like Palin, has a lock on 170 electoral votes (if, that is, Nebraska converts to a winner-take-all system).  That means that, in my book, 2012 will not be a landslide win for the president, since I take a landslide to have the winner winning at least 400-450 EVs..  I'm also claiming that, in the immediately foreseeable future, provided nobody runs a throwaway candidate or suffers some unforeseen meltdown, neither party's nominee will get routed in landslide fashion.  

Now, if the GOP runs Palin or some other such candidate, all bets are off on the no-landslide claim above.  South Carolina and the Dakotas won't give their electoral votes to Obama no matter who is running against him, but against someone like Palin, the president could win most the states you mention, and at least come close in Montana.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[King]

ModerateDemocrat1990 is now concern trolling for the right, so obviously the polling is in favor of President Obama.

[anvi]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Let me get this straight.  You think that an Obama reelection will automatically get the president, minimally, Missouri, Montana and Georgia and optimally Arizona, the Dakotas and South Carolina too...and you think I don't know what I'm talking about?  Ok.

Presidential reelections are not determined by historical averages.  They are determined by the political circumstances at the time and where the voters' inclinations are.  In recent reelections, Clinton and Bush 43 saw a little state trading, but only upped their electoral vote totals by the equivalent of one or two states a piece.  Eisenhower and Reagan landslide re-elects, which bump up your historical "average" quite a bit, are a thing of the past in today's political environment.  '08 could not have possibly been a more optimal year for Obama; the economy was beginning a dramatic downward spiral, the sitting president of the opposing party had approval ratings that were in the sewer and everything that had gone wrong was pegged on him, and the GOP nominee picked a doorknob for a running mate.  In 2012, Obama is going to be the target of whatever voter recrimination is out there, and given current political trends, there is just no way, even if he easily wins reelection, that Obama will carry Georgia, the Dakotas and South Carolina.  No way.  Even Missouri will not give Obama their electoral votes, not when McCaskel is running away from Obama in a full sprint to save her Senate seat.

Now, having said all that, I'm inclined to think Obama will win reelection.  Economic conditions are on a slow upswing well-before election year, the president is an awesome campaigner and can raise boatloads of money, he is politically positioning himself for reelection pretty astutely, and the GOP field, at least at this moment, stinks; none of them look enthusiastic about running, or particularly capable.  But I don't think it's a gimme, and it certainly won't be a landslide.  I take one considerable wildcard in 2012 to be the Democratic base.  Their feelings about Obama range from hatred to hostility to disappointment to indifference, and none of those feelings are good at getting people to go to their polling places.  If Obama wins, he'll land somewhere between 270-330 EVs, depending on who the GOP nominee is.  One exception, if the GOP were to nominate someone like Palin or Bachmann, than Obama will win in a wipeout.  But the GOP isn't dumb enough to nominate someone who would lose in a blowout next year.

But we'll bump this conversation in November 2012.  If you're right, I'll be happy about it.  If I am, I'll gloat a little.     

[DS0816]

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Let me get this straight.  You think that an Obama reelection will automatically get the president, minimally, Missouri, Montana and Georgia and optimally Arizona, the Dakotas and South Carolina too…and you think I don’t know what I’m talking about?  Ok.

Not … automatically! If the Republicans were to win back the White House in 2012, just about (or, in fact) every Democratic pickup from 2008 flips back to the 2012 Republican party pickup candidate. But if turns out that the 44th president of the United States wins re-election, well that map isn’t going to stand still! So, in your scenarios that talk possibility for re-election for Obama, you need to gray in more 2008-Republican-held states for the possibility of what 2008 R’s could get flip to 2012 D. They are not a lock for the GOP challenger unless the party wins back the presidency.

Missouri barely held for 2008 John McCain: 3,913 votes and a margin of R+0.13%. Montana was 11,723 votes and R+2.38%. Georgia was 204,636 votes and 5.20%.

Breakdown of the gender vote—in order to flip a state you have to win the one that votes for your party first (R’s win males before females; D’s win females before males)—and these were the three, of a total 22, McCain-held states in which Obama won the female vote: Mo. was 50% females (for Obama); Mont. was 51% females; Ga. was 54% females.

Gender gap in Ga., with 40% males (for Obama), kept it in the Republican column. His 54% Ga. females was one less than the tied-for-No. 2 showing of 55% from pickups North Carolina and Iowa, and two less than the No. 1-performing 56% in pickup Colorado. Of Obama’s nine party pickup states, Ga.’s female support was even better than leading bellwethers Ohio (53%) and Florida (52%), as well as rising bellwether Virginia (53%). Mont. was 44% males (one point above N.C.); Mo. was 48% males (one point above pickup Indiana). Mo.—which has voted with the winner in all but two elections since 1904—is greatly encouraging. (Keep in mind: no electoral map from the past has ever been duplicated.)

Had Obama garnered Mont.’s 51% female support in Mo., that state would have been in his column. Had Obama garnered Mont.’s 44% male support in Ga., it would have been delivered to him. If we are to see a 2012 Obama re-election margin by about 3% greater support, over his Republican challenger, do you think he isn’t going to go after and erase that 3,913 raw-vote margin in Mo.? (2,000 vote switches would result in the R-to-D 2008/2012 flip.)

Mont. will be tricky, because it has a habit of giving incumbents less margin support with re-election. It has voted the same as Idaho since it first voted in 1892, except for 1992, but the spread in margins show that Idaho is routinely one the top-three Republican presidential states while Mont. is more wild. And that could be because D’s, pretty generally, don’t bother with the state’s 3 electoral votes—and that’s a mistake! Mont. is more competitive—look at the 1960 and 1976 D winners, John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter, and the 1988 D loser, Michael Dukakis (a George Bush underperformance!)—and, since the first post-World War II election of 1948, Mont. voted the same as Colorado up till 2004. 15 elections is a row! The same three D’s who won Colo. in 1948 (Harry Truman flipped it from R to D, after it carried for 1944 Thomas Dewey), 1964 (D pickup for Lyndon Johnson), and 1992 (D Bill Clinton winning it while unseating R incumbent George Bush) also carried Mont. The spread, in points, between Colo. and Mont. has averaged over the last 16 elections at 5.65%. (The last three cycles had a spread greater than 10 points. Average spread of those other 13 elections: 3.58%.)

• 1948: Montana (D+7.94%) | Colorado (D+5.36%) | Spread: 2.58%
• 1952: Montana (R+19.32%) | Colorado (D+21.31%) | Spread: 1.99%
• 1956: Montana (R+14.26%) | Colorado (R+19.68%) | Spread: 5.12%
• 1960: Montana (R+1.50%) | Colorado (R+9.72%) | Spread: 8.22%
• 1964: Montana (D+18.38%) | Colorado (D+23.08%) | Spread: 4.70%
• 1968: Montana (R+9.01%) | Colorado (R+9.14%) | Spread: 0.13%
• 1972: Montana (R+20.08%) | Colorado (R+28.02%) | Spread: 7.94%
• 1976: Montana (R+7.44%) | Colorado (R+11.47%) | Spread: 4.03%
• 1980: Montana (R+24.39%) | Colorado (R+24.00%) | Spread: 0.39%
• 1984: Montana (R+22.29%) | Colorado (R+28.32%) | Spread: 6.03%
• 1988: Montana (R+5.87%) | Colorado (R+7.78%) | Spread: 1.91%
• 1992: Montana (D+2.51%) | Colorado (D+4.26%) | Spread: 1.75%
• 1996: Montana (R+2.88%) | Colorado (R+1.37%) | Spread: 1.51%
• 2000: Montana (R+25.08%) | Colorado (R+8.36%) | Spread: 16.72%
• 2004: Montana (R+20.50%) | Colorado (R+4.67%) | Spread: 15.83%
• 2008: Montana (R+2.38%) | Colorado (D+8.95%) | Spread: 11.33%

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not say that they were; however, I did give an illustration of two-termers (except non-consecutive Grover Cleveland), and there are historical patterns; and, yes, one can average them out. So, numbers are always involved! And, at the same time, the patterns are there. I use the word shift instead of “swing,” because of the nature of elections. A shift refers to adjustment. I don’t think, if Obama were to beat his GOP challenger nationally by an additional 5% (say, by 12.27%), we’ll find that Arkansas (R+19.85%) and Louisiana (R+18.63%)—states that backed all prevailing D’s except for one (Ark., with 2008 Obama) and three (La., with 1948 Truman, 1964 Johnson, and ’08 Obama)—will flip to vote in order to re-elect the 44th president while Mont. and Ga. will not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. All presidential elections have that one thing in common: direction. But a longterm pattern exists where, for instance, numerous states are likeminded in their voting patterns. For example: my home state Michigan and Pennsylvania have voted the same since R’s first competed in 1856 with exceptions of four elections. Two of those elections saw Mich. and Pa. with a party’s nominee—and the other state not voting for that candidate. In the two other elections, Mich. and Pa.—both having carried for FDR in three of his four elections—weren’t timed perfectly (Pa. held for an unseated 1932 Herbert Hoover; Mich. flipped for 1940 challenger Wendell Wilkie). In another example: Since their first election in 1820, Alabama and Mississippi have voted the same in all with exception of 1840.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nationally, their re-election margins increase were 2.96% (Clinton) and 2.98% (Bush). With Clinton, five states traded colors in 1996: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Montana. With Bush, three states traded colors in 2004: Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. People thought this was strange. But 1956 Dwight Eisenhower was right in between: four switches. (At this moment, I haven’t noted the numbers with, say, 1872 Ulysses Grant and 1900 William McKinley. Feel free to tell me how many states traded colors.)

Since the Republicans and Democrats first matched in 1856, there have been just three incumbents—elected to a second term—who saw no states flip on them: 1936 Franklin Roosevelt, 1972 Richard Nixon, and 1984 Ronald Reagan. Look at their margin increases: with Roosevelt the lowest at 6.50%; Nixon was the rarity, with an additional 22.45% (and it stands as the record). Look at their unviable competitors (like Nixon experienced, in 1972!), and you understand why and how this is possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They won landslide elections with their firsts. (Though, again with the term landslide, 1980 Reagan was nationally 9.75% above Jimmy Carter. His 489 electoral votes is historically No. 1 for a party pickup in the Electoral College.)

Are numbers a thing of the past?

When Barack Obama flipped the White House—from the 2004 Republican to 2008 Democratic column—his national shift was 9.73%. You can call it a ten-point shift. 1980 Ronald Reagan had a near-12 point shift. Two points more. They’re similar. (And, for averages, 2000 George W. Bush had a national 8-point shift. So, Obama is right in between them.)

1956 re-election for Dwight Eisenhower was pretty average. 1984 re-election for Ronald Reagan was double Ike’s—an additional 8.47% to Eisenhower’s 4.22%. Average between the two: 6.35%. (That’s 0.13% less than 1872 Ulysses Grant, who did see at least one state flip on him, and 0.15% less than Franklin Roosevelt, who gave up no states.) I stated that there has been an average between somewhere in the 4s% and 6s% for margin increases of re-elected incumbents.

The math cannot be dismissed.

[DS0816]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A part of your point may involve a partisan ID of states. (Charlie Cook, of The Cook Political Report, calls them PVIs: Partisan Voting Index.) Those that are 10 or 15 points, minimum, more Republican or Democratic than on average to the rest of the country. Then there are those states topping more than 20 points! That correlates to the numbers in shifts and in the Electoral College. But, look: Barack Obama started out 2008 with 252 (that’s the sum of all 19 states and District of Columbia won in 2004 by losing D John Kerry), and the crossing line of 270 was really easy. 1980 Ronald Reagan started with 241 (the sum of the 27 states held in 1976 by unseated R Gerald Ford). Crossing line of 270 was a breeze. Difference: again, ID of states, where the margins weren’t as dramatic for Reagan (who flipped 17, compared to Obama’s 9, and won an additional 248 electoral votes to the gain of Obama’s 113).

There’s also the analyses of Obama winning counties that last voted Democratic for 1964 LBJ, the presiding commander in chief over a realignment against his party in the following presidential. These were in states that were Democratic pickups, Democratic holds, and—why, of course!—Republican holds:

In 2008 Democratic Pickups…
• Colorado Arapahoe (Littleton); Jefferson (Golden); Ouray (Ouray)
• Indiana Tippecanoe (Lafayette)
• Nevada Washoe (Reno); and, the state’s capitol, Carson City
• New Mexico Los Alamos (Los Alamos)
• Ohio Hamilton (Cincinnati)
• Virginia Loudoun (Leesburg); Prince William (Manassas); City of Winchester

In 2008 Democratic Holds…
• California Nevada (Nevada City)
• Illinois McLean (Bloomington); Stephenson (Freeport)
• Michigan Berrien (St. Joseph); Clinton (St. Johns); Eaton (Charlotte); Jackson (Jackson); Kent (Grand Rapids); Leelanau (Leland)
• Minnesota Olmsted (Rochester)
• New Hampshire Belknap (Laconia)
• New Jersey Somerset (Somerville)
• Pennsylvania Berks (Reading); Chester (West Chester); Dauphin (Harrisburg); Monroe (Stroudsburg)
• Wisconsin Calumet (Chilton)

In 2008 Republican Holds…
• Nebraska Douglas (Omaha), whose congressional district Obama flipped/carried; Lancaster (Lincoln)
• North Dakota Cass (Fargo); Grand Forks (Grand Forks)
• South Dakota Brookings (Brookings)
• Texas Dallas (Dallas); Harris (Houston)
• Utah Salt Lake (Salt Lake City)


Part of this is also worth asking: How would Hillary Clinton have performed? My feeling is that she would’ve taken Barack Obama’s popular vote of 52.92% and generated (at a minimum) 54.93%. She may have reached Franklin Roosevelt’s historical-No. 2, 57.41% and, say, get 57.42%. That would’ve shot her well past the 400 mark in the Electoral College. At that point she, too, would have flipped/carried Indiana. With only Nebraska #02 an uncertainty, Hillary would’ve won Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Georgia, Montana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and—gulp!—South Carolina. North Dakota and South Dakota as well. (The last three listed are the ones to take away, if you don’t want to agree with all of them. I do wonder about Texas where I believe she would have, indeed, won the female vote in that state.)

George W. Bush had a job-approval rating being in the 20s% and 30s% his final two years in office. History was against his party being able to hold the White House via Election 2008. Where you should pick up arguments is with the b.s. assumptions that Democrats are as electorally weak as they were during the decades of, say, The Mary Tyler Moore Show and The Golden Girls. No, they’re not. After Nixon realigned the south, the north caught on after afterglow wore off for the GOP … and, well, let’s say that these R governors in the midwest and their power plays are of no surprise. When Dwight Eisenhower became the only elected Republican during realignment favoring the D’s, from 1932–1964, the only states not in Ike’s 1950s column that carried for 1990s Bill Clinton (the only two-term D during the R’s realignment, 1968–2004) were Georgia and Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. (Historically, George W. Bush is the only two-term Republican president to win in both his elections Ga. and Ark.)

It’s realignment.

The map favors the D’s, not the R’s, and it’s the Republicans who are weak (since the 1990s). (George W. Bush had fewer combined electoral votes winning two elections … than his father did winning one and getting unseated in the next.) Two elections (out of five) isn’t bad, but not being able to win the popular vote in the first (shifting 1996 losing R Bob Dole’s –8.52%, by 8%, to fall short with –0.52%), and getting a 2.46% national margin in the second (historically the lowest for a re-elected incumbent, be it a gain or—in the case of 1916 Woodrow Wilson—decline) says a lot about the prowess of today’s Republicans. (W. is the only two-term Republican never to have once carried: California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and, particularly, Vermont—which voted for the R’s from their first election in 1856 right up till 1988, saying no only to 1964 Barry Goldwater.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Referendum on the president? A target. So what! It’s applicable, generally, to any and every incumbent seeking re-election. Just three party pickup presidents were unseated in the last 150-plus years—and the 1888 and 1892 elections were unique (so, too, for Jimmy Carter!)—and, what, should one feel intimidated? With Obama’s No. 4 historical best of 52.92% of the popular vote (again, no party pickup president with that popular vote, or greater, has ever lost bid for re-election—himself and/or the party!).

Regarding the states: It depends on the national shift. In the last 150 years, just one re-elected incumbent suffered decline—again, Woodrow Wilson—and that happened in a period where realignment favored the opposition party. (Quickly: 1912 saw the R’s rip apart with incumbent William Howard Taft and previous occupant Teddy Roosevelt. In 1916, the R’s regrouped, nominated viable Charles Evans Hughes, and were competitive in the way they should have been, even with losing the White House, four years earlier.)

If Obama gets a near-3 points gain (going from 7.26% to 10.26%; that was the case with 1996 Clinton and 2004 Bush), he isn’t going to suffer an electoral-vote decline. Even with the reallocation of the states’ electors (12 of them, actually). I’ve pointed out Mo., Mont., and Ga. already. As for South Carolina, where Obama earned 48% of the female vote (of those in McCain’s column where the maverick held the female vote, S.C. and the likes of the Dakotas, Texas, and Tennessee gave Obama either 47% or 48%), it would be under the scene where the R’s nominate a bomb who nabs about five percent less support, in the popular vote, than the 45.66% reaped by 2008 McCain. So, if the 2012 GOP nominee in 2012 scores between, say, 39.50% and 41.49%, S.C. would become a part of the additional Team Red losses. As would Arizona (45% males and females for Obama), North Dakota, South Dakota (all of them were in McCain’s column by between 8 and 9 points). Texas (R+11.76%) is tougher but not impossible. Missouri would be easy. Montana and Georgia would follow.

(Note about Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri: She will win re-election if President Obama gets re-elected. Her race looks to be reflective of what will materialize on a national level. In 2006, she was the pickup, having unseated Republican Jim Trent, who unseated in 2002 Gov. Mel Carnahan’s widow Jean, for the remaining four years on Mel’s six-year term, won posthumously on Election Night 2000—when George W. Bush flipped Mo. while Mo. voted out Republican John Ashcroft for his deceased Democratic challenger. And Ashcroft became the first unseated incumbent, specifically in that Mo. U.S. Senate seat, in nearly 50 years [as incumbent R James Kern lost the seat in 1952 while Ike picked up the White House along with Mo. on election night]!

The first female U.S. Senator elected to a full term in Missouri history, McCaskill is in the same boat as another 2006 Democratic pickup—Montana’s Jon Tester. If McCaskill gets unseated in 2012, it will also happen with Tester; and we would see the flippings of a few more Democratic-held Senate seats—which include the open seat in Virginia, perhaps the best new presidential bellwether state. If McCaskill wins re-election while Obama captures a second term, the State of Missouri will like be a pickup for him. And ditto re-election for Sen. Jon Tester and Obama with a pickup of Tester’s home state of Montana. So, for the the Republicans to unseat McCaskill and Tester: if they were to win back control of the U.S. Senate, the R’s will have to win back the White House; because, and the history shows, incumbent presidents don’t win re-election while losing same-party control of either house of Congress to the opposition party which just failed to unseat the commander in chief.)

[DS0816]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very little is a gimme. The closest thing to a “gimme” in presidential politics is this two-party duopoly that basically says, “You have lots of choices in the many avenues of life. But in politics, you get two!”

Landslide is being loosely described these days. A 2-to-1 Electoral College victory have many thinking that’s good enough to call it a landslide. A national margin of 10% over the runner-up has been considered landslide. Then some have toughened the standards: 400 in the Electoral College, and 15% nationally with the margin. The Electoral College is correlated to shifts from one election to the next, but with critical focus in comparing to the previous cycle. Had Obama experienced a exact, uniform shift of the 2004/2008 vote, he wouldn’t have flipped North Carolina (R+12.43% in 2004) and Indiana (R+20.75%). Instead he would’ve won over Missouri (R+7.20%). And Arkansas (R+9.76%)—whose females went from 49% support for John Kerry to 39% support for Obama (do you think that would played out had Hillary been the nominee?!)—would have resulted in a state recount. It’s not all a matter of perfectly filling in the circles, dotting all i’s, and crossing the t’s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Second sentence … no. The criticisms are warranted, but the bases of both major parties do not flip around and around and around. It’s fodder. Applicable to 2010 midterms—and midterms and presidentials are different animals.

Your range of “270–330” infers a national margin decrease between 3% and Obama’s 2008 win of 7.26%. If he’s getting re-elected, he won’t be discounted. At minimum he would surpass the 365, from 2008, and—if he’s nationally gained with a margin between 2.51% and 5.00% over his opponent (compared to John McCain)—he would end up an electoral-vote count that is no more than 25 above his beginning (reallocation count of 359).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologize for my earlier tone. But it’s not intended to say “you’re full of crap.” It’s me saying, “it’s not likely.” And I will say this: I don’t take this all too seriously … to a point I could be worried about what the results will actually be, in 2012, as a concern exists with posters’ abilities to forecast a presidential election about 20 months into the future. But the R’s can be dramatically landslided even without nominating Michelle Bachmann or, even more entertaining, Sarah Palin.

Part of the Republicans’ problem is that they have to come up with a brand of leadership that is a departure from their party’s previous commander in chief. That’s worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980. But unlike Jimmy Carter and inflation, the 2008 financial meltdown, along with the economic destruction, jobs losses, home foreclosures, war in Iraq … they happened on the watch of this country’s last Republican, not Democratic, president. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t have to solve everything within his first term. And we know what 1936 was like for FDR. Nor will it have to play that way for 2012 Barack Obama.

At this early stage, I’m guessing Obama will get re-elected similarly to Dwight Eisenhower. Ike increased re-election margin by 4.22% but had a first-election margin of 11.18%. So, I may spot Obama one or two more points. 1956 Eisenhower gave up Missouri but, in his rematch against Adlai Stevenson, Ike countered with pickups in Kentucky (which votes like Tennessee, a bellwether that did go for Ike in ’52), West Virginia (up to that point, historically advantageous to winning GOPs when Dems had the south!), and Louisiana. So, I could picture Obama narrowly losing Indiana and Nebraska #02 (a la 1996 Bob Dole pickups of Colorado, Georgia, and Montana), and to counter with pickups with Mo., Montana, and Georgia (a la 1996 re-elected Clinton’s flippings of Arizona and Florida). One poster suggests, if one of the three pickups doesn’t flip to 2012 Obama, perhaps a strong reach could get him to win over Ariz. This would, nevertheless, put in the 370s. If Obama is “challenged” by an unviable opponent, look at the single-digit margin states held by 2008 McCain (and those up to 15 points but not beyond) for possibilities.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

He won't get a landslide victory because of the unemployment number. In fact, if the unemployment number is still above 8% going into the election, he won't even get reelected. It's that simple.

[Bull Moose Base]

Seems more likely to be the trend more than the absolute number as in Reagan's case where he was elected with high unemployment.  Or FDR in '36.  Polls showed Obama tied or slightly ahead of Romney and huckabee when unemployment was over 10.  If it's close to 8, I don't think the election will be all that close.  Congressional Republicans who've been open that their focus is stopping Obama's re-election are trying to keep unemployment up with austerity. Romney has in editorial admitted worry about an economic recovery ahead of Obama's re-election.  Even with such candor, their strategy of obstructing recovery and running against the economy worked in 2010 so I don't rule out its potential success in 2012 either.  But if it's about 8, the election will be about '08.

[NHI]

No way, no how.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It won't happen. The GOP "wave" of 2010 still has a good deal of traction, though whether that is enough to beat Obama, I can't say (who can at this point?)

But 400 electoral vote victory? He gets 401 with everything he won last time plus Arizona, Georgia, and Missouri. Georgia is still solidly GOP, Arizona wouldn't have the Favorite Son effect but it's still tough for Democrats to win there, and Missouri is ambiguous-it didn't go to Obama even in a solid nationwide victory (Nader notwithstanding).

This is the best I see Obama doing in 2012, most likely:

Obama gains Missouri while losing Indiana and the Nebraska electoral vote he won in 2008.

364-174

[Inmate Trump]

Sure, anyone can win in a landslide, they just have to have the right circumstances.

I doubt Obama will pull one off, but it's certainly possible depending on the GOP nominee as well as any further economic decline, gas prices, etc.  Also his seemingly non-involvement in the oil spill crisis as well as his mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan could come back to haunt him.

Anyway, I really don't see a way that any of the most likely GOP candidates will win against him.

[milhouse24]

Only if the Republicans nominate an old moderate like John McCain
Any other decent GOP candidate will at least bring it to 50/50