Likelihood that this will be the map

[Indy Texas]

Possibly. This election is going to be closer than many people think, but I don't see Obama losing NC in such scenario.

I've been hearing people constantly say that this election will be very close, which is certainly possible. But here's my issue with that: Since 1916, only two patterns have existed with incumbent presidents running for reelection. They either win a second term by a larger popular and electoral vote margin, or they lose big against their challenger. It seems to be a pretty consistent pattern over the past century, which leads me to believe that one or the other will happen this year. Obama wins big or he loses big.

2004 is the elephant in the room. Bush won by the skin of his teeth. I think this will be a 2004-style election.

[old timey villain]

Incumbent presidents have the tendency to either keep their base from their first go around, or lose the base that weakly supported them in the first place. With moderate economic growth and a stable world stage, I see Obama keeping his base. It won't be like 2004. I would say otherwise if Romney represented something new in the party, but he does not.

In 1980 Carter lost the support of white southerners who had been trending Republican for two decades. Reagan was bold enough to win them back despite not being a native son.

Bush won white blue collar Reagan democrats in 1988 by portraying Dukakis as an out of touch wacky liberal. In 1992, when he ran against Bubba, he couldn't convincingly make that claim against Clinton and lost those voters who were essentially on loan to the Republicans anyway.

Does Obama lose many of the wealthy suburban voters against a moderate/suburban friendly Romney? Maybe, but I don't see it.

I know it seems like I'm going beyond the topic at hand, but I don't think you can just make up a map of the swing states from the last 10 years and decide that 2012 will look like that. You have to look up trends and historical patterns as well.

[pbrower2a]

I've been hearing people constantly say that this election will be very close, which is certainly possible. But here's my issue with that: Since 1916, only two patterns have existed with incumbent presidents running for reelection. They either win a second term by a larger popular and electoral vote margin, or they lose big against their challenger. It seems to be a pretty consistent pattern over the past century, which leads me to believe that one or the other will happen this year. Obama wins big or he loses big.

1924, 1948, 1980, 1992, and 1996 are distorted by the presence of a significant third party campaign. 1936 and 1956 were but slight improvements for the incumbent on their blowout of four years previous. 1964, 1972, and 1984 each had message candidates nominated as opponents who were not near the political center.  1932 had the shock of The Great Depression to cause a massive change in the electorate.  The only incumbent election since 1916 that was roughly similar was 2004, in which the incumbent improved slightly over his results of four years earlier.  Romney is not a message candidate, so absent some major new shock, there is no reason to expect a major change from 2008.

Let's not forget that 1980 only turned into a blowout in the last week, after the debate.  Had the debate gone differently (or never happened), Carter may well have eked out a narrow victory, Anderson or no Anderson.

And I wouldn't quite put Mondale in the same category as McGovern or Goldwater.

Goldwater and McGovern both dared appeal to the more radical wings of their Parties and got much excitement from them but offended the sensibilities of many not-so-firm members of their Parties. Mondale got recognition from Democrats for long and faithful service to the Party and excited nobody while offending few, so he got more than the 36% floor of partisan support. Mondale simply reminded Americans of the inadequacy of Jimmy Carter as President and didn't have much of a message. Reagan won 49 states but won a raft of them by narrower margins than those by which Nixon and LBJ did.

A "message" candidate loses badly in 2012... which is about what we saw with Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.

[angus]

I like the map, except that I'd switch Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire.  Manufacturing growth is steady, unemployment rate continues to fall, the DJIA stays above 13000, and Obama wins. 

[opebo]

I like the map, except that I'd switch Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire.  Manufacturing growth is steady, unemployment rate continues to fall, the DJIA stays above 13000, and Obama wins. 

Really, Florida more Democratic than New Hampshire or Virginia?  I doubt it.

[angus]

I like the map, except that I'd switch Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire.  Manufacturing growth is steady, unemployment rate continues to fall, the DJIA stays above 13000, and Obama wins. 

Really, Florida more Democratic than New Hampshire or Virginia?  I doubt it.

Virginia swings a bit in recent polling, but in eight of the last ten elections has given its votes to the Republican.  I was in Virgina for a couple of days last month, but I didn't get into any conversations about politics with the locals.  I'm not sure what in- or out-migration has occurred there since the Credit Crunch of 2008, or what effect it has on the upcoming general election, but it seems easier to call than Florida.  New Hampshire will have greater affinity for Romney than for Obama.  I'd ignore any polls out of there except the one that matters, which will happen in November.

In any case, I'd generally agree with the map posted, with only those exceptions.

[zorkpolitics]

This is a likely Romney's minimum win:  270 to 268:

This is a another likely Romney's minimum win:  272 to 266:

This is the unlikely but possible Romney blowout: 356 to 182:

[opebo]

New Hampshire will have greater affinity for Romney than for Obama. 

Nah, I think you're thinking of New Hampshire circa 1988 or 1992.  Things have changed.  Even if Romney does harken back to Daddy Bush days, the GOP isn't New Hampshirites darling anymore.  I think they'll come home again to their moderate/liberal home (and the home of all moderate/social liberal former Republicans) - the Democratic Party.

[Zagg]

Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Looks like a tall order to me.

[old timey villain]

New Hampshire will have greater affinity for Romney than for Obama. 

Nah, I think you're thinking of New Hampshire circa 1988 or 1992.  Things have changed.  Even if Romney does harken back to Daddy Bush days, the GOP isn't New Hampshirites darling anymore.  I think they'll come home again to their moderate/liberal home (and the home of all moderate/social liberal former Republicans) - the Democratic Party.

And even in 1992 New Hampshire didn't have enough of an affinity for Bush to vote for him again. There was a 25 point swing against Bush in '92, and even with the Perot effect, this is still pretty bad for one of his best states in 1988. It must have been that darn libertarian streak in NH. Reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge probably hurt him terribly up there.

[old timey villain]

I get more convinced every day that 1992 was a realigning election. Not one that heralded a vast advantage for the Democratic party, but definitely one that solidified the party's strength in all areas of the northeastern part of the country. 20 years ago, Romney would have been a perfect fit for New England and the suburban mid atlantic. But by 1992, the political "heart" of the GOP had completely shifted from Westchester NY to Waco TX (speaking metaphorically of course). Now, Romney has to play to the new base down south instead of the Yankee Republicans he could probably connect with much more easily. And as a result, the Northeast will still avoid Romney like the plague, even though he is basically a native son.

The GOP really sold their soul for the southern strategy. It helped them achieve incredible victories but eventually boxed them in.