What will likely happen is what always happens in these re-elections - if the voters choose to re-elect Obama, they will regardless of who's running against him; if they don't want him back, his opponent probably just has to show that they're a competent wooden spoon or something similar.
OK -- just about any Republican could have beaten Jimmy Carter in 1980, and had Dubya been running for a third term, just about any Democrat except perhaps William "Cold Cash" Jeffrerson could have beaten him. Part of the Obama success in 2008 was showing that an election of John McCain was for all practical purposes voting for, as Howard Dean put it crudely at first, "McSame".
Of course, much can happen in 22 months, but so far President Obama has most of the choices. The GOP has taken away almost any significant reform to his taste -- but he can campaign against a do-nothing Congress in such a case. Such worked for Truman in 1948 -- really, really well, and the GOP leadership of the time never saw it coming.
A graceful exit from Afghanistan practically ensures re-election, in which case the best course for the GOP is to showcase some promising talent for 2016. Thomas E. Dewey was that sort in 1944. A strengthened economy? He can take most of the credit. He can make promises to do more than the 112th Congress would let him do -- maybe recalling the legislative achievements of the 111th when he had majorities in both Houses. He can start once the 112th Congress is seated. But even if the economy falters because the GOP has nothing to offer but tax shifts, pay cuts for the non-rich, and sell-offs of public assets in sweetheart deals, then President Obama wins.
Re-election is now for President Obama to lose. With his approval ratings where they are he will have to campaign for re-election, but he has already proved a shrewd and competent campaigners. He had a strong campaign apparatus in 2008 and he can pull it out of hibernation in 2012. I see little reason to believe that the 2012 Presidential election will be appreciably different in geography than that of 2008, as shown in recent polls.
We have a near-given in President Obama. Every adult American not in need of shelter knows who he is. We know what he stands for, we know his personality, and we know how he campaigns. He is apparently cautious enough to not let any vanity get in the way of winning. We have no meaningful idea of who his Republican opponent will be. We don't know that candidate's weaknesses of regional appeal. We know that anyone who defeats President Obama will have to be able to cut into regional support in the Midwest and the Middle-Atlantic States. If someone says that someone like Senator John Thune has a better chance than does Mike Huckabee it is because Americans better know Mike Huckabee than they know John Thune.
It may boil down to turnout.
Look at the Senate races in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- Republicans could not have won without having an electorate that looked like that of 2002.
The only way in which the Republicans do as well or better in 2012 is if the Hard Right convinces America that it has the only viable answers to every problem. A pure plutocracy with a Protestant-fundamentalist ethos would have to offend fewer voters or win converts. Your guess is as good as mine on whether that will happen.
But there are some basic rules. First, people don't want to make real sacrifices except in a time in which literal survival is at stake. People working in near-minimum wage jobs are unlikely to believe that pay cuts or taxes shifted toward them can do them any good. Second, second chances for failures are usually failures themselves unless time has passed and the institution or person who failed has cleaned up his act, made major changes in behavior and purpose, and otherwise set up a new plan for doing things differently. This applies as much to the has-been who used to be successful and to the one who has never achieved much.
I see little reason to believe that the GOP is appreciably different from what it was going into the 2006 election. Sure, the personalities are different, but the ideology and appeals are the same. The constituencies are the same. The Hard Right tends to be poor (as is the case for right-wing authoritarians) at introspection. Sure, it can be more ruthless, doctrinaire, and strident -- but such has never been enough to bring Commies to appreciable power in America. Sure, I would like to see the GOP win of the House majority as a Pyrrhic victory because it brings numerous empty-suites and fanatics into easy view of Americans. If Republicans could effectively run against Nancy Pelosi, then what happens when the Democrats get to run against people even less competent at using Congressional power -- like Michelle Bachmann or Joe Barton?
I think that the Republicans maxed out in 2010, winning Congressional seats that they could never win in another year. Forget momentum; think of the Plexiglass Principle in which one pushes too far, runs into the Plexiglass, and gets driven back to some extent.
30 years ago? No. There was Ronald Reagan, and there was Bill Clinton. Both are possible analogies. Hasn't worked for what he got? He could have taken other courses of action, perhaps joining some corporate law firm (where the money is) or joining in in the lucrative 'business' of Chicago machine politics where some alderman can get away with making millions off kickbacks while in all but local obscurity. (I figure that he went into the US Senate in part because the Chicago machine didn't want him around). He is a quick study, so things come easier for him than they might for those who must get their experience in the School of Hard Knocks for lack of raw and obvious ability.
He is no lazier than Ronald Reagan, and his political skills are much the same.
... If I could make a theatrical analogy for the GOP, then the GOP had a long run in the House and Senate from 1994 to 2006 without having really changed. its biggest claim to fame is tax cuts and a more business-friendly climate of regulation. It has essentially the same constituency that it had in 1994 and has reached out successfully to practically nobody.The Broadway show that has a ten-year run and then folds ordinarily doesn't get a revival for some time -- maybe another ten years. It might, but by then the talent is very different, the scripts and sets are different, the music is slightly and subtly reworked (in a musical). The successful play doesn't change much. Eventually the predictable audience fades away, and the drama and song (if any) get stale. So it is with politics, a drama in its own right.
