Will the 2012 Election be a repeat of...

[pbrower2a]

1988 -- Obama wins much like the elder Bush in 1988 after a Romney collapse. 428-110, about a 9% margin for the President. Texas is the closest Obama loss, and he has won back some of the Clinton voters who had not gone for any Democrat for President since 1996. Basically as an analogy to 1988 you have a referendum between the status quo and a technocrat who proves to be an empty suit.

A 59-41 split of the popular vote as Reagan got in 1984 flips Texas, West Virginia, and one of Arkansas and Louisiana to President Obama.

[WhyteRain]

1988 -- Obama wins much like the elder Bush in 1988 after a Romney collapse. 428-110, about a 9% margin for the President. Texas is the closest Obama loss, and he has won back some of the Clinton voters who had not gone for any Democrat for President since 1996. Basically as an analogy to 1988 you have a referendum between the status quo and a technocrat who proves to be an empty suit.

LOL!  I'm printing this one out.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

1988 -- Obama wins much like the elder Bush in 1988 after a Romney collapse. 428-110, about a 9% margin for the President. Texas is the closest Obama loss, and he has won back some of the Clinton voters who had not gone for any Democrat for President since 1996. Basically as an analogy to 1988 you have a referendum between the status quo and a technocrat who proves to be an empty suit.

LOL!  I'm printing this one out.

Someone has no reading comprehension.

pbrower made a map of what it would look like if the election was a repeat of 1988, analogous to the two other maps you posted, which you seem to think are perfectly plausible.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Now the Democrats have the Blue Wall. The North East, Pacific West, and part of the Rust Belt (Minnesota and Illinois). That's 201 electoral votes that are staying with us.

Republicans have some safe states too. Here's my estimation (as you can see, the Red Wall and the Blue Wall are of approximately equal size):

Note also that there's no such thing as absolutely safe: yes, Obama won Indiana in 2008, but neither Minnesota nor New Mexico is out of reach for the Republicans in the event of a landslide of equal proportions. Republicans are actually ahead 191-190, but if you take a single congressional district in Nebraska, send it to Tossup, and then take one in Maine and send it to safe Democrat those numbers are flipped; it doesn't matter. The point is the two 'Walls' are of equal size. American politics is designed to have two equally large parties at all times. Who comprises which party shifts over time. Except for occasional tremors (the last of which was the electoral Great Depression period, roughly starting with the election of 1932 and ending with 1938), the two parties have always been equal, and always will be.

To answer the thread's question, none of the above. 2012 is not a replay of anything and seems to be its own election more than anything else. It would be more interesting if the candidates were playing speed chess instead of chess.

Minnesota is not part of the Blue Wall. And Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Arizona are sure as heck not a part of the Red Wall. The map looks more like this if you look at demographics as well as polling from 2008 and 2012.

The GOP has 16 states and Democrats have 14 states. But the Democrats have 53 more electoral votes because the GOP's base of support are old, rural, and uneducated voters, and who has the most of those? The Great Plains and Deep South. While the Democrats' base are more urban, young, and more educated. Therefore, the North East and Pacific West. The Rust Belt is a mix of both. As you can see, the East Coast is gonna be a Sea of Blue within the next 20 years.
Blue Wall 183 Red Wall 130 Tossup 244

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina is most definitely part of the Red Wall.  McCain won South Carolina by 9 points.  Everything points to Obama not doing as well in 2012 as he did in 2008, the only question is how much worse than 2008 will he do. And last but not least, even if By some miracle, Obama were to gain a 10 point national swing, he'd still lose.  We have a highly polarized electorate here. The only way Obama has a chance of winning South Carolina is if Johnson and/or Goode take large chunks of the vote away from Romney,

Georgia also ought to be counted as part of the Red Wall.  While it would go for Obama if he were able to conjure up a 400+EV landslide this year, that ain't happening.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

And a 1984-style re-election for Obama with the current demographic trends and polarization would look a lot like this.

Obama 471
Romney 67
I added about 5-6 percent of the vote to Obama from the 2008 election results. That flips Missouri, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, and the Dakotas. Hispanics could help Obama carry Arizona and Texas. That is a gain of 93 electoral votes. I don't think anyone will be able to crack 500 for a while.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

South Carolina is most definitely part of the Red Wall.  McCain won South Carolina by 9 points.  Everything points to Obama not doing as well in 2012 as he did in 2008, the only question is how much worse than 2008 will he do. And last but not least, even if By some miracle, Obama were to gain a 10 point national swing, he'd still lose.  We have a highly polarized electorate here. The only way Obama has a chance of winning South Carolina is if Johnson and/or Goode take large chunks of the vote away from Romney,

Georgia also ought to be counted as part of the Red Wall.  While it would go for Obama if he were able to conjure up a 400+EV landslide this year, that ain't happening.

In South Carolina, Obama got 45 percent of the vote, to McCain's 54. And the last South Carolina poll had Obama up 3 over Romney, 45-42. In a 9 point swing Obama would get 54 percent of the vote, so no, its not part of the Red Wall. And Georgia, Obama got 47 percent to McCain's 52. He only lost by 3 points. Demographic shifts means Georgia will probably be a swing state in about 2020. Remember, 4 years ago, the thought of Obama taking Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina would have gotten someone smacked down on this forum. Face it, the GOP's base is dying out, and young people are overwhelmingly Democratic. The GOP needs to branch out.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

At the moment, the only similarities I see is to 2004, that's only because Mitt Romney is pretty much the GOP's John Kerry at this point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina is most definitely part of the Red Wall.  McCain won South Carolina by 9 points.  Everything points to Obama not doing as well in 2012 as he did in 2008, the only question is how much worse than 2008 will he do. And last but not least, even if By some miracle, Obama were to gain a 10 point national swing, he'd still lose.  We have a highly polarized electorate here. The only way Obama has a chance of winning South Carolina is if Johnson and/or Goode take large chunks of the vote away from Romney,

Georgia also ought to be counted as part of the Red Wall.  While it would go for Obama if he were able to conjure up a 400+EV landslide this year, that ain't happening.

In South Carolina, Obama got 45 percent of the vote, to McCain's 54. And the last South Carolina poll had Obama up 3 over Romney, 45-42. In a 9 point swing Obama would get 54 percent of the vote, so no, its not part of the Red Wall. And Georgia, Obama got 47 percent to McCain's 52. He only lost by 3 points. Demographic shifts means Georgia will probably be a swing state in about 2020. Remember, 4 years ago, the thought of Obama taking Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina would have gotten someone smacked down on this forum. Face it, the GOP's base is dying out, and young people are overwhelmingly Democratic. The GOP needs to branch out.

The South Carolina polls in the Forum database all date to January or earlier, a time when a lot of Republicans had not yet decided whether to embrace the Mittbot.  (And the last three which generate that 45-42 number you speak of are all Registered Voter polls which typically overstate Democratic performance at the voting booth.)  That 45% for Obama is pretty much his cieling in this State.  He definitely will not get a majority of the vote here and his only chance of winning here is if a third party contender takes enough votes from Romney that Obama can win with something like a 45-43-10 plurality. (Numbers do not add to 100 due to rounding and other third parties.)  South Carolina is not and will not be in play this year.

[pbrower2a]

1988 -- Obama wins much like the elder Bush in 1988 after a Romney collapse. 428-110, about a 9% margin for the President. Texas is the closest Obama loss, and he has won back some of the Clinton voters who had not gone for any Democrat for President since 1996. Basically as an analogy to 1988 you have a referendum between the status quo and a technocrat who proves to be an empty suit.

LOL!  I'm printing this one out.

Someone has no reading comprehension.

pbrower made a map of what it would look like if the election was a repeat of 1988, analogous to the two other maps you posted, which you seem to think are perfectly plausible.

True. For me to stretch things that way I usually have offset a contrast. The two worst performances by incumbents were Hoover in 1932 and Carter in 1980... and it is inconceivable that any incumbent could do worse than those two. They were awful Presidents who messed up badly on what they promised.

Even if president Obama is a better President than either Nixon or Reagan he is not going to win 520 or so electoral votes. He would have to turn the entire South to the Democratic party and  pick up the Plains states or Mormon country... which he is not going to do.

...Relevant elections to this point are those in which an incumbent or inheritor (Bush in 1988) faces a challenger. FDR 1936 has the closest economic analogue because we have just had the closest thing to the start of the Great Depression since the Great Depression. Unemployment was very high in 1936.... and FDR won a landslide.

Is 1948 relevant? Running against a reactionary, do-nothing Congress looks like a good analogue. Oddly, the closest analogue to the percentage of votes for President Obama in 2008 is... FDR in 1944. Of course in 1944 America had shared purpose and next to no political polarization; FDR was a dying old man and Dewey was a bit younger in 1944 than Obama was in 2008. John McCain will definitely NOT be the GOP nominee for President.  Such might be good for a map.

1956? President Barack Obama is no war hero.

1964? No Goldwater this time.

1968? This time the third parties are more likely to hurt Republicans.

1972? See above. 1984? See 1972.

1976? President Obama isn't the electoral neophyte that Gerald Ford (who had never been elected to a statewide office) was.

1980? 1988? Previously discussed.

1992 and 1996 featured an independent, self-financed candidate who cut into conservative support in what otherwise might have been a close election.

2000? To have the style and an Obama win it would all have to come down to one state and alleged hanky-panky in the counting of votes in that State.