Which map is more likely at this point?

[Old Europe]

Map A: Obama in a Clinton-like re-election (1996).






Map B: Obama in a Bush-like defeat (1992).






Comparisons to Clinton/Bush refer to EVs, not states.

I decided to omit a narrow re-election/defeat for Obama. The last time an incumbent president was only narrowly re-elected while actually losing EVs compared to the prior election was 1916, I think. And was a sitting president ever narrowly defeated??

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Map A.  For it to be like Map B, Obama would have to have a DD recession.  I think that's unlikely at this point.  Plus the lack of attractive candidates on the other side. 

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

And was a sitting president ever narrowly defeated??

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

To answer your question, Map B is more likely IMO, though it certainly isn't guaranteed.

[Old Europe]

And was a sitting president ever narrowly defeated??

D'Oh. To be fair, Ford was never elected in the first place and hence an anamoly.

[Californian Tony]

I'd say map 1 is a bit more likely considering the GOP will probably run a Palin-like nutjob. But both are realistic possibilities.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Map A.  For it to be like Map B, Obama would have to have a DD recession.  I think that's unlikely at this point.  Plus the lack of attractive candidates on the other side.  

It's a tough choice though.   Especially since we don't know who the GOP will put up.

One possible worst-case scenario:  

The GOP gets somebody like Thune, who is unknown by most of the public but has no real weaknesses.  The Liberals will be turned off by the tax "deal", the GOP base will still rally against Obama blindly (no matter what he does), and the independents will still be up for grabs.  

This could easily result in map B.

I might keep NJ red in any situation, since has such a huge African American vote.  

[WillK]

You ask if a sitting president was ever narrowly defeated.    John Adams in 1800 and Cleveland in 1888.  In both cases, a small change in the vote in NY and the incumbent would have won.

[MilesC56]

Obama is gonna win reelection becuase the Republicans don't have anyone good to go against him. Thats the bottom line.

The best Republican would be Romney, who is about tied with Obama in most swing states.

Unless the Republicans recruit someone outside of the Romney/Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich group, I'm expecting something more like Map A.

Thune would be the strongest, in my opinion, but he lacks the funding and name recognition.

[MilesC56]

You ask if a sitting president was ever narrowly defeated.    John Adams in 1800 and Cleveland in 1888.  In both cases, a small change in the vote in NY and the incumbent would have won.

But that was back when NY was a swing state.

[Insula Dei]

You ask if a sitting president was ever narrowly defeated.    John Adams in 1800 and Cleveland in 1888.  In both cases, a small change in the vote in NY and the incumbent would have won.

But that was back when NY was a swing state.

If MacMillan runs NY will be a swing state.

[oakvale]

Map A's more likely, which isn't to say that it's very likely at all.

[WillK]

You ask if a sitting president was ever narrowly defeated.    John Adams in 1800 and Cleveland in 1888.  In both cases, a small change in the vote in NY and the incumbent would have won.

But that was back when NY was a swing state.

True, but the question wasnt qualfied in that way. 

[N.i.K.]

At this point, Map A, considering that a few Republicans are tied with the President, while others lag pathetically behind, and Generic Republican runs neck-and-neck with him. Whether that will be the case in two years is anyone's guess...

[Gravis Marketing]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

[Grumps]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

I'd say Palin or Santorum would fit that bill, easily.

[WillK]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

Seems to me that Map B depends on a particularly good Republican candidate, better than the names tossed around right now.    So by default A is more likely.  

[N.i.K.]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

Yeah, I don't like to make predictions this far out either. We shall see what happens, considering that history never is a foregone conclusion.

[Gravis Marketing]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

Seems to me that Map B depends on a particularly good Republican candidate, better than the names tossed around right now.    So by default A is more likely.  

I could see the country turning on Obama so much that any Republican who isn't a walking gaffe machine does quite well as the country embraces "change", but I could just be pessimistic.

In any case, I don't want to crap all over this thread, but it seemed as good a place as any to talk about how at sea I feel about the next election. Which is probably for the best.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Map B

the only way Map A happens is if Palin is the nominee...and Palin ain't gonna be the nominee.

[WillK]

I know we're all here to make predictions and hedge them and such, but after the roller coaster of the last two years, who else feels unable to make any broad predictions at all? I could predict that Obama would beat Palin, but beyond that, I see a wide range of possible outcomes and can't reason my way to favor one over another. I think either of these are possible, although Map A depends on a particularly bad Republican candidate running, worse than Romney or Huckabee.

Seems to me that Map B depends on a particularly good Republican candidate, better than the names tossed around right now.    So by default A is more likely.  

I could see the country turning on Obama so much that any Republican who isn't a walking gaffe machine does quite well as the country embraces "change", but I could just be pessimistic.

In any case, I don't want to crap all over this thread, but it seemed as good a place as any to talk about how at sea I feel about the next election. Which is probably for the best.

I could see that happening based on something that happens next year or in 2012.  I took the question of the thread ("likley at this point") to be based on how things stand today.   The country still likes Obama better than they like Congress. 

[Gravis Marketing]

I could see that happening based on something that happens next year or in 2012.  I took the question of the thread ("likley at this point") to be based on how things stand today.   The country still likes Obama better than they like Congress. 

I agree, based purely on what we know today and presuming 2010 is a nadir for Obama, I say Map A is more likely.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Map B

[Gravis Marketing]

Seems to me that Map B depends on a particularly good Republican candidate, better than the names tossed around right now.    So by default A is more likely.  

I could see the country turning on Obama so much that any Republican who isn't a walking gaffe machine does quite well as the country embraces "change", but I could just be pessimistic.

To that point, George H.W. Bush wasn't a particularly good or inspiring candidate in 1988, but he had a good campaign and good macro conditions against a vulnerable opponent, so he won by a sizable margin.

[Yelnoc]

I would say Map A.  If history is any lesson, political parties have a tendency to nominate the weakest candidate for sh**ts 'n giggles.

Palin 2012, anyone?