What would an Obama defeat look like in 2012?

[tmthforu94]

Eh, something like this...

[exopolitician]

Eh, something like this...

I could see this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think that would be 'realistic' worst-case scenario.

[tpfkaw]

Michigan is more likely to go GOP than Minnesota, Oregon, or New Jersey?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would say yes - if the economy doesn't re-bound, the Rust belt will punish Obama.

If Pawlenty is the nominee... throw MN into the blue column (worst case scenario).

[J. J.]

I think that would be 'realistic' worst-case scenario.

I might say Oregon might go GOP in a "realistic" worst-case scenario, i.e. a moderate double dip recession.

[J. J.]

At about a 12 point loss to a Republican candidate:

It would probably never be this bad.

I could see this one:

This is a Dukakis like loss.

[Dgov]

Why does everyone think Minnesota is going to go for Obama even if he loses?  It only voted 54% for him, so if he loses states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, I'm willing to bet he loses Minnesota too.

[pbrower2a]

Let's look at prior defeats of incumbent Presidents. Closest was Carter over Ford, 297-240 with a faithless elector who voted for Reagan instead of Ford:

 

Republican challenger 295, Obama 243

This is of course identical to Bush winning over Kerry in states, but because the electoral votes have moved away from the northeastern United States. Take away New Hampshire and you get a 299-239 divide.

At the other extreme, William Howard Taft won only eight electoral votes in a three-way race. As an odd coincidence, Taft won election in 1908 with about the same proportion of the electoral vote in 1908 as Obama would win in 2008. William Howard Taft had one of the most forgettable Presidencies, and he is best remembered for his girth and his subsequent service as Chief Justice. The only combination of electoral votes that would combine to 8 would be this:

 

Of course there would have to be a third-party challenger, and some of the states would be in green or yellow, depending on taste.

As I see it, the Republican challenger is far more likely to get competition from the Right.

The political cultures of the states are so polarized that even with a 60-40 split of the popular vote, Obama would end up with a map similar to this:

 
 

 Not even Herbert Hoover lost 60-40. 
   

Obama would be losing a bunch of states by 70-30 and even 85-15 margins, but he would still get about 170 electoral votes with bare wins in much of America, which is about how the elder Bush did against Bill Clinton. Is General Secretary of the United Nations available?
   

 

[Psychic Octopus]

Obama getting 170 electoral votes but losing 85-15 in the popular vote?

As for the 1992 reference, Bush Sr. did as well as he did because Perot drew evenly from both Clinton and Bush. And also, Bush had 37.5% of the national vote, not near 30%. Obama garnering 30% of the vote or less would result in a massive landslide for the Republican candidate.

[Yelnoc]

If he were to lose the popular vote 85-15, I don't see how he could get anymore electoral votes then the 3 from DC.  The only close losses would be Hawaii and Vermont.

Luckily for him, political polarization makes that effectively impossible.

[5280]

At about a 12 point loss to a Republican candidate:

It would probably never be this bad.

I could see this one:

This is a Dukakis like loss.

How would Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico have more popular percentage vote than Colorado or Kansas for that matter?  South Dakota have more than Nebraska?

[pbrower2a]

Obama getting 170 electoral votes but losing 85-15 in the popular vote?

As for the 1992 reference, Bush Sr. did as well as he did because Perot drew evenly from both Clinton and Bush. And also, Bush had 37.5% of the national vote, not near 30%. Obama garnering 30% of the vote or less would result in a massive landslide for the Republican candidate.

The "bunch of states" are those that nobody can see Obama winning except in a gigantic landslide -- Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma... In this scenario I see him barely holding onto such states as Connecticut, Michigan, and New Jersey; barely losing  Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire...

[pragmatic liberal]

Obama getting 170 electoral votes but losing 85-15 in the popular vote?

As for the 1992 reference, Bush Sr. did as well as he did because Perot drew evenly from both Clinton and Bush. And also, Bush had 37.5% of the national vote, not near 30%. Obama garnering 30% of the vote or less would result in a massive landslide for the Republican candidate.

No, he's talking about losing some states 85-15, though I think that's still unlikely. Except for DC and the Jim Crow-era Deep South, that seems awfully unrealistic. Did McGovern even lose any states 85-15?

[J. J.]

At about a 12 point loss to a Republican candidate:

It would probably never be this bad.

I could see this one:

This is a Dukakis like loss.

How would Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico have more popular percentage vote than Colorado or Kansas for that matter?  South Dakota have more than Nebraska?

Because for AZ and KS, I hit the wrong percentages.