What are Obama's chances at this point?

[Fritz]

Discuss.

[cavalcade]

Would probably lose to Romney, would probably beat Perry.

[Thomas D]

Would probably lose to Romney, would probably beat Perry.

This. At least for now.

[Averroës Nix]

Would probably lose to Romney, would probably beat Perry.

Close enough to be called a toss-up either way, but Romney would have a better chance of winning than Perry.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

He'd have a better chance if The Media just went away. The Media is as determined as ever to "elect" a Republican.

[© tweed]

around 1 in 3

[Fritz]

But if Romney is the nominee, isn't it probable that the Tea Party will run a 3rd candidate, like Trump or (god forbid) Bachmann?

[Wonkish1]

You do realize that the distance between Very Likely and in the Bag is quite close, but the distance between very likely and 50-50 is huge.

I think odds are Obama will lose, not that he will very likely lose, nor 50-50. I think most people that are in Obama's corner would say that odds are he will win, I doubt many would say he's very likely to win.

[Fritz]

Point taken.

But, I think "odds are" equates to "likely", which is closer to "very likely" than to "50-50".  Maybe I should have left out the word "very".

[zorkpolitics]

At this point I think he wins a close election.  If he uses his $billion dollars to can paint the GOP nominee as scary or crazy he wins, if the election comes down to a referendum on his Presidency he loses.
At this point I see about a 7-8% swing to the GOP which would favor the GOP winning the Popular vote but Obama still winning in the Electoral College.  In 2012 Obama won the popular vote by 7.5% but it would have taken a 9.5% swing for him to have lost the Electoral College.

[milhouse24]

Barack Obama is no Harry Truman - Truman was far more accomplished and successful, its a bit of a disgrace that the media is comparing Obama's re-election to Truman. 

[Wonkish1]

Point taken.

But, I think "odds are" equates to "likely", which is closer to "very likely" than to "50-50".  Maybe I should have left out the word "very".

I would agree with leaving out the "very".

[opebo]

I voted for the small chance or whatever it was.  His chance is very small.

[NHI]

If it's Bachmann or Perry he's going to wins. If it's Romney or Huntsman he's going to be defeated.

[Jacobtm]

He would currently beat any Republican in the field.

Mitt wouldn't be able to win the conservative support necessary to tip the scales in enough swing states.

[Averroës Nix]

He would currently beat any Republican in the field.

Mitt wouldn't be able to win the conservative support necessary to tip the scales in enough swing states.

You seriously think that conservatives are going to throw up their hands if Romney is nominated?

They may not be enthusiastic about him, and they may prefer Perry/Palin/Bachmann/Paul/Cain/Gingrich/etc, but I doubt that when given the chance to replace Obama with Romney they'll say "Meh, who cares?"

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

Very likely to be defeated

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans need a very strong candidate to defeat him -- and even when the President had a 40% or so approval rating he was ahead of all Republicans in Ohio.

Who is a strong candidate -- and by "strong" I don't simply mean an ideological opposite? Ronald Reagan was able to appeal to Northern moderates in 1980 and 1984. Since 1992 the Republicans have practically thrown away everything in deep red before the election begins.

by appealing to white religious fundamentalists, interests in energy extraction and agribusiness, and big landowners. If "corporations are people", then the people who work for them seem to disagree with the politics of their bosses and the tycoons who own the shares. The Democratic nominee for President, whether Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama  has won every state and DC  in deep red in every Presidential election beginning in 1992. The chance of this constellation of "sure things" for Democrats is one to 2^95...   a number best described as having a number with 30 digits.  That is 242 electoral votes that the Republicans lose almost any close election.

Possible explanation: If you trust your boss and the shareholders and executives, or Republican elected officials above your boss, you vote R. If you think that they are either unable to aid you in holding onto your job or even have an incentive to cast you off at the first opportunity, then you don't vote R. If you work for a giant corporation you have little cause to vote R even if such is good for one's superiors... if you distrust your superiors. If you are a public employee and you trust your D officials, you vote D. I'm going to figure that until about 1990 people generally trusted their superiors in Big Business; they have little reason to do so now. It's all fear, and even if people know enough to not praise any liberal politician while in the office they might think differently.

The other side is that the Republicans have won twelve states and two Congressional districts very consistently. Those (in deep blue) have only 101 states. Not one of those was close in 2008 (all at least 9% away from an Obama win), and none shows any sign of going toward him enough to be interesting in 2012. Religious fundamentalism is strong, a conservative religious group like the Mormons dominate politics, the economy depends largely upon farming or ranching (neither of which needs Big Government except for farm and ranch water subsidies), or racial polarization in politics is severe. The easiest state that President Obama could pick off in 2012 is Texas, which says much about this group of states.   The democratic nominee in a close election now has a 242-101 advantage to begin with.

Hold your horses, you say! Five states (AR, KY, LA, TN, WV) that Bill Clinton won twice are winnable for a Democrat -- the right Democrat -- and Barack Obama did worse in those than he did in Texas. Put those in dark green, and count 'em. 38 electoral votes; President Obama is a horrible match for those states. Add those to the 101 that no Democrat has won beginning in 1992 and you get 139. So it is really a 242-139 advantage to begin in 2012 unless something happens to the President.

Now for the rest: put those states that have gone for the Democratic nominee four of the last five times in ordinary red, and those (except Georgia - you will see why) that have gone for the Democrats only once in the last five Presidential elections:

and really, things don't look so great for the Republicans, as Barack Obama has a high chance of picking off every one of them. The other side, six states and one Congressional district whose vote counts have voted even once for a Democratic nominee (Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, and NE-02) is itself shaky, so they are in light blue. In fact, the President will have a better chance of winning North Carolina than of losing any one of the states in plain red -- and North Carolina has as many electoral votes as all three states in plain red combined. Look at it this way: if Barack Obama is the wrong sort of Democrat to win states in dark green, then maybe he is the right sort of Democrat to win Indiana, NE-02, North Carolina, or Virginia.

Finally, the rest. Colorado and Nevada show signs that they are drifting sharply D because they re-elected Democratic Senators in a horrible year for Democrats overall, and they went strongly (8%+) for President Obama. If the President wins the Mexican-American vote as decisively in 2012 as in 2008, then he wins these two states easily and wins. Color them tan due to demographics. Florida and Ohio are the closest states to bellwethers; color them white. Georgia and Missouri were bare losses for President Obama in 2008, probably due to some characteristics of Ozark, Appalachian, and white deep South rural voters that just didn't warm up to him as they did for Carter or Clinton. Color them pale green.  

President Obama wins re-election if he wins all states in any shade of red and either

(1) the two states in tan
(2) one of the states in white
(3) Virginia or North Carolina

The President is not going to win

Arizona or Montana without also winning Colorado and Nevada
Indiana or NE-02 without also winning Ohio
Georgia without also winning both Florida and North Carolina
Missouri without also winning both Ohio and Virginia

[Tender Branson]

If the nominee is Perry, I´m fairly confident that Obama wins re-election.

If it's Romney, which is looking more likely once again, I would rate it a toss-up.

All others currently have no chance winning the Republican nomination.

[Pyro]

I think it'll be close, but it really depends on who the Republican Party nominates.

If it's Romney and the economy is in the same shape it is in now, he could pull it off.
But many of these conservatives alienate independents, the exact same independents who hate Obama. That will lead to a depressing turnout.

[Averroës Nix]

Really enjoyed your post, pbrower. I notice that if Obama wins NV & CO (the tan states) but loses NH (along with Ohio and Florida), the Republican takes 270 EVs. Do you think that it's at all likely that NH would throw the election this way?

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

The Republicans need a very strong candidate to defeat him -- and even when the President had a 40% or so approval rating he was ahead of all Republicans in Ohio....

Because that 40% percent approval is sure to hold up another 14 months while Ohio and the rest of America are basking in the glow of the economic genius of Double Dip Obama...and America will surely vote in Nov '12 to Double Down on Hope and Change....right?!

...not...gonna...happen

[pbrower2a]

Really enjoyed your post, pbrower. I notice that if Obama wins NV & CO (the tan states) but loses NH (along with Ohio and Florida), the Republican takes 270 EVs. Do you think that it's at all likely that NH would throw the election this way?

Possible. Likely? If NH goes R, then much else gets shaky, like IA and PA. But NC and VA are very shaky for any Republican, too.

Close Presidential elections devolve into strategy, and Barack Obama played a good game of chess against a poker player. He secured his position in one critical position after another and compelled his opponent to make bad gambles.

If New Hampshire is at all in doubt, then I expect the President's campaign to flood the state with volunteers from  neighboring and near-neighboring states  where his election is far more certain. Remember: he had paid staff, and I am sure that many of those from California decided that they would take Nevada residency and vote in Nevada. In a close election that could mean everything. Sure, Nevada wasn't close. Many Texans on the paid Obama staff did much the same in Colorado. They might do much the same in 2012. Or it could be Arizona. Or Indiana!

Sure, this is behavior. Strategy cannot save a President who leads us ineptly through bad times and lacks convincing (valid is not enough) exculpation for a bad economy. If the 2012 election is at all close, then the President wins.    

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Against both Romney and Perry, I'm giving the President a 2/3rds chance of re-election.

(At the moment, I don't think anyone else has a serious chance at the nomination.)

[milhouse24]

Romney will pick an evangelical VP to satisfy the base - someone like Thune, Portman, DeMint, Barbour, Daniels, Burr, Allen, etc.