Will Obama get reelected?

[Vosem]

I had an earlier response to the Senate’s health-care insurance bill. But it didn’t answer the question to this thread.

I’m among those who think Election 2008 was a realignment election which will result in the Republicans getting the short end of the stick for a majority of a 10-elections cycle.

Here is a sample idea of what could transpire in Election 2012.

States in red are Republican; those in blue are Democratic. The ones in yellow are the ones I believe will pose the potential to flip in a tide that sees a landslide—or massive landslide—of a re-election for 44th president of the United States Barack Obama [D-Illinois].

The thing is this: How much would [Obama’s] 2008 margin of 7.25% (won over losing GOP challenger John McCain of Arizona) increase against that of his Republican opponent in 2012? A 3-percent gain (the case with re-elections of 42nd president Bill Clinton, in 1996, and 43rd president George W. Bush, in 2004) is modest enough for a few states do some color trading. (For this exercise, I’m not yellowing the likes of Indiana or North Carolina; I’m keeping them blue. But I am coloring Missouri and Montana—both of which McCain held by less than 3 points—blue. That’s because these two states—plus, come to think of it, Georgia—are among the 22 in McCain’s column in which it was Obama who won the female vote. McCain held Ga. by approximately 5.2%) If there turns out to be a significant increase (40th president Ronald Reagan essentially doubled his 1984 margin over that of his first election’s, from 1980) … I’d say that at least ten states are on the horizon to flip. (Under those circumstances: plenty above 400 electoral votes and, roughly, 40 states will have been carried.)

Reminder: For me, this is an exercise (not my prediction)!

… LANDSLIDE?

Great. Another pbrower. Here's my map, anyway, using Atlas colors:

Generic Romney v. Obama map, maybe slightly leans Romney. Close states: OH, VA, MI, WI, MN, OR, NH, ME, PA, FL, NC, MO...ignore the shades.

And, pbrower...resistance is useless! The Romney Revolution is inevitable!

[DS0816]

And, pbrower...resistance is useless! The Romney Revolution is inevitable!

I was thinking of Mitt Romney with my above map.

[Vosem]

My map, as I see it, is the worst-case scenario possible for Mitt Romney. He only gets ~280 electoral votes.

THE ROMNEY REVOLUTION IS INEVITABLE!

[DS0816]

My map, as I see it, is the worst-case scenario possible for Mitt Romney. He only gets ~280 electoral votes.

THE ROMNEY REVOLUTION IS INEVITABLE!

I'll leave you to your dream.

[pbrower2a]

I had an earlier response to the Senate’s health-care insurance bill. But it didn’t answer the question to this thread.

I’m among those who think Election 2008 was a realignment election which will result in the Republicans getting the short end of the stick for a majority of a 10-elections cycle.

Here is a sample idea of what could transpire in Election 2012.

States in red are Republican; those in blue are Democratic. The ones in yellow are the ones I believe will pose the potential to flip in a tide that sees a landslide—or massive landslide—of a re-election for 44th president of the United States Barack Obama [D-Illinois].

The thing is this: How much would [Obama’s] 2008 margin of 7.25% (won over losing GOP challenger John McCain of Arizona) increase against that of his Republican opponent in 2012? A 3-percent gain (the case with re-elections of 42nd president Bill Clinton, in 1996, and 43rd president George W. Bush, in 2004) is modest enough for a few states do some color trading. (For this exercise, I’m not yellowing the likes of Indiana or North Carolina; I’m keeping them blue. But I am coloring Missouri and Montana—both of which McCain held by less than 3 points—blue. That’s because these two states—plus, come to think of it, Georgia—are among the 22 in McCain’s column in which it was Obama who won the female vote. McCain held Ga. by approximately 5.2%) If there turns out to be a significant increase (40th president Ronald Reagan essentially doubled his 1984 margin over that of his first election’s, from 1980) … I’d say that at least ten states are on the horizon to flip. (Under those circumstances: plenty above 400 electoral votes and, roughly, 40 states will have been carried.)

Reminder: For me, this is an exercise (not my prediction)!

… LANDSLIDE?

Slight tweak.

No way does Obama win NE-03, arguably the most conservative Congressional district in America. Obama would win Utah before he won NE-03, which went about 70-30 for McCain in 2008.

[Poundingtherock]

As long as Romney's favorable rating among Republicans is 51%, he has no chance at the nomination.

[Fritz]

Right now I'd give Obama about a 75% chance of being re-elected.  To lose, he either has to screw up pretty badly, or the Republicans have to nominate someone pretty awesome.

[J. J.]

Right now I'd give Obama about a 75% chance of being re-elected.  To lose, he either has to screw up pretty badly, or the Republicans have to nominate someone pretty awesome.

Too soon to tell, but I'd say 50/50, if forced. 

On the second point, the Republicans would not have to nominate someone "pretty awesome" to win, and that is actually the part that scares me.

[Rowan]

Gun to my head right now, I say Obama wins with every 2008 state except NC and IN. I think he eeks out victories in FL and VA.

[Poundingtherock]

Obama will lose Colorado as well with these numbers:

43/51 approval/disapproval

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MzEyNzlkMWMtZmI3NC00ZDU5LWJlYTYtYmY4NTY0OTIyOTE5&hl=en

He may hang on to Nevada:

45/50 approval/disapprovl

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MjY0NjY3ZWItOWNlMi00YzRiLWJlMmQtOTFjNGExOTkwYTYw&hl=en

[DS0816]

Slight tweak.

No way does Obama win NE-03, arguably the most conservative Congressional district in America. Obama would win Utah before he won NE-03, which went about 70-30 for McCain in 2008.

I don't know what happened. But there have been mistakes made when there were responses to the map I presented.

In Nebraska, I have the 2nd Congressional District for Barack Obama. I left the remainder of the state yellow, to indicate that a massive landslide (if one were to happen) puts a lot in question. So I left the 3rd Congressional District yellow.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obama will lose Colorado as well with these numbers:

43/51 approval/disapproval

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MzEyNzlkMWMtZmI3NC00ZDU5LWJlYTYtYmY4NTY0OTIyOTE5&hl=en

He may hang on to Nevada:

45/50 approval/disapprovl

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MjY0NjY3ZWItOWNlMi00YzRiLWJlMmQtOTFjNGExOTkwYTYw&hl=en

Because obviously there is NO WAY these numbers will change in three years.

[Tender Branson]

Obama will lose Colorado as well with these numbers:

43/51 approval/disapproval

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MzEyNzlkMWMtZmI3NC00ZDU5LWJlYTYtYmY4NTY0OTIyOTE5&hl=en

He may hang on to Nevada:

45/50 approval/disapprovl

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MjY0NjY3ZWItOWNlMi00YzRiLWJlMmQtOTFjNGExOTkwYTYw&hl=en

I think there`s a good chance that he`d beat out Palin and Huckabee there right now - even with these numbers - not so sure about Romney though ...

But in 2012, it will all be completely different.

[Poundingtherock]

Yes, the numbers could change....change for the worse.  There's a lot of room to drop if he cannot hang onto conservative Democrats.

[pbrower2a]

Obama will lose Colorado as well with these numbers:

43/51 approval/disapproval

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MzEyNzlkMWMtZmI3NC00ZDU5LWJlYTYtYmY4NTY0OTIyOTE5&hl=en

He may hang on to Nevada:

45/50 approval/disapprovl

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzLEv8CSM220MjY0NjY3ZWItOWNlMi00YzRiLWJlMmQtOTFjNGExOTkwYTYw&hl=en

I think there`s a good chance that he`d beat out Palin and Huckabee there right now - even with these numbers - not so sure about Romney though ...

But in 2012, it will all be completely different.

Very different, indeed.

The recovery that we are now in is not going to remain as it is; it will either continue or fizzle, and not flatline. Military situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are subject to change.  President Obama has yet to deal with a natural disaster; 2009 has been a surprisingly-quiet year for hurricanes. Not that anyone wants any natural disaster to strike anywhere in America, one can wonder whether our President has made preparations for one. President Obama has one big legislative success behind him and lots of small ones.

The only reasonable certainties in 2012 so far are that there will be a Presidential election and who the Democratic nominees for President and Vice-President will be, and who won't be running for President as a Republican. Dick Cheney seems to be as completely unelectable as Walter Mondale seemed electable in 1981. The GOP field is weak. There's not enough time for a Republican governor to pull off an "Oklahoma Miracle".

What have we not seen for a year? Barack Obama, political campaigner, and his political apparatus. Both were smooth and slick. Those will be back. In 2012 both stand to return. If anyone could pull off a successful campaign to rescue a controversial Presidency in much the manner of Harry Truman in 1948 (should that be the analogy), it is he. That's if things are going badly. If things are going well, then he can leave the electioneering to his political apparatus and well-motivated, energetic young campaign staff.


 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, the numbers could change....change for the worse.  There's a lot of room to drop if he cannot hang onto conservative Democrats.

Ah yes, it's impossible to improve. Everyone knows Obama is cursed to only go downhill for three years. Hack.

[J. J.]

In the last 100 years, only once has a party not won a 2nd consecutive White House term.  Obama's approval fluctuations aren't that different from presidents who have won wide re-election margins.  The Democrats losing seats next year wouldn't mean much of anything.  The Republicans remain deeply unpopular and come across as inept as far as strategy goes.  Anything can happen ibut I'd give Obama about a 80-90% chance of re-election at this point regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

Actually, 1912, 1932, 1976, and 1992.

[Psychic Octopus]

History means nothing when comparing likelihood of electoral success. If Obama wgets voted out, it will be because the people are anti-Obama, not pro-GOP. Surely people should realize that.

[J. J.]

History means nothing when comparing likelihood of electoral success. If Obama wgets voted out, it will be because the people are anti-Obama, not pro-GOP. Surely people should realize that.

Or both.  Obama got elected because of GWB's performance.  Elections are about alternatives.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In the last 100 years, only once has a party not won a 2nd consecutive White House term.  Obama's approval fluctuations aren't that different from presidents who have won wide re-election margins.  The Democrats losing seats next year wouldn't mean much of anything.  The Republicans remain deeply unpopular and come across as inept as far as strategy goes.  Anything can happen ibut I'd give Obama about a 80-90% chance of re-election at this point regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

Actually, 1912, 1932, 1976, and 1992.

You're incorrect! I believe you misunderstood what he meant though.

When Wilson won in 1912, Republicans had held the White House for four terms (McKinnly, Roosevelt, and Taft)

When FDR won in 1932, Republicans had held the White House for three terms (Harding, Coolige, and Hoover)

And in 1992, Republicans had held the White House for three terms (Reagan, Bush)

The only time a party lost the precidency after just one term, was in 1980 when Reagan defeated Carter.

The fact that it only happened once these last hundred years is a silly reason to think it won't happen this time though.  

  

[J. J.]

In the last 100 years, only once has a party not won a 2nd consecutive White House term.  Obama's approval fluctuations aren't that different from presidents who have won wide re-election margins.  The Democrats losing seats next year wouldn't mean much of anything.  The Republicans remain deeply unpopular and come across as inept as far as strategy goes.  Anything can happen ibut I'd give Obama about a 80-90% chance of re-election at this point regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

Actually, 1912, 1932, 1976, and 1992.

You're incorrect! I believe you misunderstood what he meant though.

When Wilson won in 1912, Republicans had held the White House for four terms (McKinnly, Roosevelt, and Taft)

When FDR won in 1932, Republicans had held the White House for three terms (Harding, Coolige, and Hoover)

And in 1992, Republicans had held the White House for three terms (Reagan, Bush)

The only time a party lost the precidency after just one term, was in 1980 when Reagan defeated Carter.

The fact that it only happened once these last hundred years is a silly reason to think it won't happen this time though.  

  

1952, Republicans won, 1960 Democrats won, 1968, Republicans won, 1976 Democrats won.  There really isn't that much of a pattern, expect that it's been one of the two parties that won.

The only real pattern is that two term presidents tended to start off with lower poll numbers.  Arguably, GHWB didn't, but I wonder if the poll was an outlier.  Lower expectations.

[J. J.]

If you flip a coin 10 times and get 9 heads, you still have 50/50 odds on the next flip.  But if you have an irregular deck of cards of unknown ratio of reds and blacks and pull nine out of ten reds, you have reason to believe there's more red than black in the deck.

I'd say 9 out of the last 10 White House party changes being followed by re-election is more analogous to the unknown deck of cards- that is, it's pretty hard for a party to lose the White House then win it back one cycle later.  Incumbents are favored.  The party who lost it is likely to have done so under tough circumstances which may have time to recover, and not enough time to earn forgiveness.  It doesn't seem an arbitrary pattern why Carter is the only one and done for his party in the last 100 years.

But this isn't a deck of cards; you really cannot compare elections to random events.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It has three years to go up and down.  Sorry, but Watergate was six years afterward and wasn't an issue.

[J. J.]

JJ,

this was the same point I was making.  in the last 100 years, Obama's election was the 11th time the White House changed parties.  9 out of 10 the new party was re-elected.  It's not random but surely a built-in advantage for the incumbent party in such a case.  As Reagan's defeat of Carter shows, it's not an insurmountable improbability for the challenger but I agree the GOP's biggest problem in 1976 wasn't one in 1980.  I doubt the GOP will be so lucky in 2012.  It's not that it's unlikely Obama will lose because it's been historically rare but that it's unlikely he'll lose for the same reasons it's historically rare: 4 years is just a bit too fast for the country to happily hand back the keys to the party who they felt drove them into the ditch.

I tend to look at the situation as opposed to straight odds.  I very strongly believe in realignment theory and will stick with my prediction that by 2016 we will be either into or just finishing a re-alignment (and I'll define that as a six year period, three congressional and two presidential elections).

So far, looking back at 2008, that wasn't it. However, the evidence isn't strong that it isn't.  I would say that if there is a gain of anything less than a R gain in 30 seats in the House and less than 5 seats in the Senate, there is no realignment coming in 2012.  A gain, even modest, in both the House and Senate for the R would indicate 2008 definitely wasn't.  That will be the big factor in if BHO gets re-elected.

[Mr.Phips]

JJ,

this was the same point I was making.  in the last 100 years, Obama's election was the 11th time the White House changed parties.  9 out of 10 the new party was re-elected.  It's not random but surely a built-in advantage for the incumbent party in such a case.  As Reagan's defeat of Carter shows, it's not an insurmountable improbability for the challenger but I agree the GOP's biggest problem in 1976 wasn't one in 1980.  I doubt the GOP will be so lucky in 2012.  It's not that it's unlikely Obama will lose because it's been historically rare but that it's unlikely he'll lose for the same reasons it's historically rare: 4 years is just a bit too fast for the country to happily hand back the keys to the party who they felt drove them into the ditch.

The average American voter is a complete idiot.  These are people who think it would be OK to give Republicans back control in 2010. 

[pbrower2a]

The one time in which the new Party holding the Presidency was ousted in four years was an oddity in its own right. Carter barely won against an incumbent with unusually-weak political skills. Gerald Ford caught on, but too late to win. Add to that, Jimmy Carter in 1976 was the last  Democrat to win almost all of the electoral votes of the old Confederacy.  Those states had been drifting R over the previous 15 years. Meanwhile Carter was the last Democratic nominee to win a Presidential election without winning California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. Jimmy Carter lost every one of those states in 1976, something unimaginable today, and he still won! (On the other side of the ledger he is the last Democratic nominee to have won Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina).

Jimmy Carter had huge faults as President: a competent Governor of Georgia, he thought that he could lead in Washington DC as if Washington DC were Atlanta. Look at how that worked. His oratorial skills were weak. He castigated Gerald Ford for a high "misery index" (add inflation to unemployment), and the index ballooned on him. He alternated between Macho Man and Wimp... and whatever one said about Ronald Reagan, Reagan was at least consistent. 

Obama=Carter is one of the more satisfying analogies for Republicans seeking a return to the power that they just had. Like most analogies in history they ignore significant differences. The most obvious differences between Carter and Obama are:

1. Obama is no outsider, unlike Carter. Many people voted for Carter because they thought that Washington insiders were the cause of ethical problems in politics, but by 1980 ethics in politics were secondary concerns.

2. Obama is a far better rhetorician. Can anyone remember whole sentence from Jimmy Carter?

3. Obama is a superb campaigner and has an excellent apparatus for a GOTV drive.

4. The Republicans face a huge structural disadvantage in winning a Presidential election. Obama must really foul up before the Blue Firewall is at risk.   The GOP must win almost everything outside the so-called Blue Firewall to have a reasonable chance to win the Presidency.

If anyone still predicts that the situation is favorable to Obama being defeated in his bid for re-election, then one must predict that he will meet a scandal,  that the economy will go sour, or that something like Iraq, Afghanistan, or (now Yemen) will blow up on Obama's watch. All of these are utterly unpredictable.