Obama/Romney starts here

[Senator Ben]

Obama: 299
Romney: 239

[Politico]

Yeah, Maryland is totally 'up in the air'... and all across New York City, people are chanting amongst themselves, 'Hope?  Nope!'

Obviously Maryland and New York are secure in Obama's column at the moment, but they are not ironclad secure the way that Vermont and Hawaii are.

[Lіef]

It's easy to come up with an equally probable situation where Romney loses some of those Politico blue states:

Unemployment falls to 3%, Mitt Romney admits on live television that he will be guided in office by the "words of [his] Mormon gods", Osama bin Laden rises from the dead only to be captured and killed once again a day before the election, etc.

[Politico]

Yeah, Maryland is totally 'up in the air'... and all across New York City, people are chanting amongst themselves, 'Hope?  Nope!'

it's easy to come up with situations that lead to Obama losing NY. 

e.g.: Israel gets into a war with Iran, Obama refuses to engage the US in the war....the Jews suffer heavy chemical weapons attacks, the MB in Egypt (which Obama helped bring to power) throws it's support behind Iran and starts pouring troops into the Sinai, Iran closes Strait of Hormuz sending oil above $200/barrel, gas prices in the US spike to $10/gallon causing gas lines, US unemployment quickly spikes above 12%....etc, etc, etc.

Any serious instability in the Middle East, even something much less serious than the above, and Obama is screwed if he does anything and screwed if he does nothing.

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

It's easy to come up with an equally probable situation where Romney loses some of those Politico blue states:

Unemployment falls to 3%...Osama bin Laden rises from the dead only to be captured and killed once again a day before the election, etc

outside of the realm of possibilities, but a ME war is a REAL possibility.

---

, Mitt Romney admits on live television that he will be guided in office by the "words of [his] Mormon gods"

I'm ignoring possible scandals since they are totally unpredictable, and probably unlikely.

so, without a scandal, it is extremely unlikely Romney does not win at least 158-159 electoral votes.

[Politico]

It's easy to come up with an equally probable situation where Romney loses some of those Politico blue states:

Unemployment falls to 3%...Osama bin Laden rises from the dead only to be captured and killed once again a day before the election, etc

outside of the realm of possibilities, but a ME war is a REAL possibility.

---

, Mitt Romney admits on live television that he will be guided in office by the "words of [his] Mormon gods"

I'm ignoring possible scandals since they are totally unpredictable, and probably unlikely.

so, without a scandal, it is extremely unlikely Romney does not win at least 158-159 electoral votes.

Yeah, it would have to be an epic fail of a campaign for Romney to lose that district in Nebraska and Arizona hence my keeping them blue.

[Secretary Polnut]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

The only states that Obama won in 2008 that he is clearly going to have difficulty in are IN, NH, FL, NC and NV.

IF things go to hell in a hand-basket, then obviously the race dynamics will change rapidly... but Politico's map is not a realistic perception in anyway of the race dynamics.

Yes things change, but 1964-1972 is a) a period of 8 years and b) both 1964 and 1972 were both extraordinary elections with external circumstances affecting the vote (JFK and the Democrat's implosion). Plus you had the 1968 election, which was close, in between. But things have changed. Consider the idea in 2000/2004 of VA/NC being either competitive or leaning Dem...

It's easy to come up with an equally probable situation where Romney loses some of those Politico blue states:

Unemployment falls to 3%, Mitt Romney admits on live television that he will be guided in office by the "words of [his] Mormon gods", Osama bin Laden rises from the dead only to be captured and killed once again a day before the election, etc.

Yes, and this is the point... any situation where Obama loses CA, NY, MA, MD... then there frankly more where Obama could win GA or AZ

  

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

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

[Secretary Polnut]

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

Yeah... Obama losing CA, NY and MA?! The circumstances that bring that about are not just far-fetched... but frankly fricking terrifying.

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

Yeah... Obama losing CA, NY and MA?! The circumstances that bring that about are not just far-fetched... but frankly fricking terrifying.

then you haven't been paying attention to the news:  Iran's Al Qods Brigades are positioned to attack oil installations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as well as shut down the Striat of Hormuz, if conflict breaks out (and Obama probably isn't the type to launch a preemptive full-fledge strike to take out that Iranian capability).

Now, chances of conflict between Iran and Israel (or the US) in 2012 may only be 10-25%...but 10-25% is NOT far fetched.

[Politico]

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

Almost all of them have never seen an incumbent lose, let alone go down in flames like Carter (the polar opposite of Nixon just like Obama promised to be the polar opposite of Bush), so we have to cut them some slack.

Incumbents almost always go big one way or the other. 2004 was an anomaly. To find another president involved in a close race, you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson when you discount the unelected Gerald Ford. If I had to bet, I would bet against Obama going big the right way considering the economic environment, or just the fact that all of that 2008 hope/change stuff never came to fruition. He promised the stars yet delivered Bush's third term under a Democratic Congress (Bush was Big Government enough to propose something like ObamaCare, IMHO; just look at the Medicare drug benefits plan he passed). Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Even Obama's biggest supporters are becoming disillusioned with Obama.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall. Obama is going down hard. Oh, and remember the questions people had about whether white people said one thing to pollsters and did another in the polling booth? That effect is going to be very real this time, and it has nothing to do with racism but fear of being labeled racist. My prediction: Obama will over-poll by 3-7 points this time.

[Secretary Polnut]

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

Almost all of them have never seen an incumbent lose, let alone go down in flames like Carter (the polar opposite of Nixon just like Obama promised to be the polar opposite of Bush), so we have to cut them some slack.

Incumbents almost always go big one way or the other. 2004 was an anomaly. To find another president involved in a close race, you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson when you discount the unelected Gerald Ford. If I had to bet, I would bet against Obama going big the right way considering the economic environment, or just the fact that all of that 2008 hope/change stuff never came to fruition. He promised the stars yet delivered Bush's third term under a Democratic Congress (Bush was Big Government enough to propose something like ObamaCare, IMHO; just look at the Medicare drug benefits plan he passed). Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Even Obama's biggest supporters are becoming disillusioned with Obama.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall. Obama is going down hard. Oh, and remember the questions people had about whether white people said one thing to pollsters and did another in the polling booth? That effect is going to be very real this time, and it has nothing to do with racism but fear of being labeled racist. My prediction: Obama will over-poll by 3-7 points this time.

Considering your previous predictions... I feel relatively comfortable.

[Thomas D]

[redcommander]

30% Leans Obama
40% Likely Obama
70% Solid Obama
50% Toss Up
30% Leans Romney
40% Likely Romney
70% Solid Romney

If Christie is Romney's running mate, I could see New Jersey moving into the leans Obama/toss up column, while Martinez would make New Mexico a toss up state.

[5280/East California]

If Romney nominated Martinez for VP, then expect CO to be lean Romney, along with Nevada and Florida. NM would be toss-up.

[Sam Spade]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

Any Democrat's (including Obama's) ground floor right now is about 46%-47% in a two-man race, whatever that means electorally, barring turnout collapse (a la 1988 or 1996, highly unlikely given their far superior turnout operations nowadays).  Republicans need to understand that will not change until the stench of Bush is gone from people's minds, at minimum (and probably much more).

The Republican's ground floor is probably around that this year, but is in general, a far weaker floor, and in many ways is close to collapse.

[The Mikado]

Sam, in other words, you're saying that Romney's floor is ~McCain 2008?  That seems reasonable as a worst-case for the GOP (and I think Romney will do significantly better than that).

I'm expecting something akin to a reverse 2004: an Obama win of ~50-48 or so.  As people in this thread have said, though, it depends pretty thoroughly on what ends up happening in Europe.

[Sam Spade]

Sam, in other words, you're saying that Romney's floor is ~McCain 2008?  That seems reasonable as a worst-case for the GOP (and I think Romney will do significantly better than that).

I'm expecting something akin to a reverse 2004: an Obama win of ~50-48 or so.  As people in this thread have said, though, it depends pretty thoroughly on what ends up happening in Europe.

Slightly better.  I think NE-2, IN and MO are off the table.  GA always was.  AZ, right on the edge.

Of course, Romney has quite the potential to be a worse candidate than McCain 2008 such that if he really f-cks up, he could depress turnout (as Kerry was close to doing in September 2004).  I don't portray that as a big deal due to all the early voting nowadays, but it always could be.

[Skill and Chance]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

Any Democrat's (including Obama's) ground floor right now is about 46%-47% in a two-man race, whatever that means electorally, barring turnout collapse (a la 1988 or 1996, highly unlikely given their far superior turnout operations nowadays).  Republicans need to understand that will not change until the stench of Bush is gone from people's minds, at minimum (and probably much more).

The Republican's ground floor is probably around that this year, but is in general, a far weaker floor, and in many ways is close to collapse.

My estimation of the ground floors, ignoring campaign scandals:

1. Obama's floor: 10.5% Unemployment with job losses in October, $5 gas and a major Middle East problem



2. Romney's floor: 6.5% Unemployment, 750K new jobs in October 2012 and a major foreign policy success (think constitutional democracy in Syria)

[Senator Snowstalker]

If unemployment is down to 6.5%, Obama would also win back all of the Bill Clinton states and Texas (probably WV and AR first)

[Skill and Chance]

If unemployment is down to 6.5%, Obama would also win back all of the Bill Clinton states and Texas (probably WV and AR first)

You're underestimating polarization since the 1990's.  Also, the no on Keystone probably takes Texas completely off the table for him regardless of demographics (but it helps enough in places like CO and FL that it was worth it IMO).  Conversely, Obama should hold NY, CA, and MA even in a 1932 situation. 

[Skill and Chance]

Here's my current state of the race:



I don't believe the polls in OH, NC and FL.

[5280/East California]

Your map is too generous for Obama, given that is based on if elections were held today.  Factors to look at, unemployed hovering around 8-10% from now until November 2012, the crisis in Europe with their debt, Iran's nuclear weapons, and gas prices could be $4-$5 a gallon this summer.   Along with Obama axing the Keystone pipeline permit.

[Skill and Chance]

Your map is too generous for Obama, given that is based on if elections were held today.  Factors to look at, unemployed hovering around 8-10% from now until November 2012, the crisis in Europe with their debt, Iran's nuclear weapons, and gas prices could be $4-$5 a gallon this summer.   Along with Obama axing the Keystone pipeline permit.

The general perception is that the country is on the upswing, albeit from a very deep trough.  We are weathering Europe better than virtually any of the economic forecasts indicated (notice that the market is actually up this week).  Unemployment has been declining for months now and the state of foreign affairs is much less tumultuous than this time last year.  Think Reagan 1983-84, but with the bottom for Obama in October instead of February.

[ModerateCoward]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

That would be a good thing.