Obama's 2012 victory: Bigger or Smaller than Clinton 96?

[pbrower2a]

Truman-like victory (Huckabee splits from to start a southern Third Party  -- or runs as the  Reform candidate? --  as Romney/Palin win the GOP nominations):

Obama       313
Romney      84
Huckabee   119

Several states split 38/34/28 in a hotly-contested election in which everything is up for grabs, but the Democratic firewall largely holds, Obama losing only Iowa from it but continuing to hold Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Nevada.  Note some of the very pale colors because of such splits, as in Texas, Missouri, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, the Dakotas, Kansas, and Nebraska. As an extreme freak, Huckabee manages to win Nebraska at large despite winning neither NE-01, NE-02, nor NE-03... Huckabee and Romney split the white vote in Mississippi enough for Obama to win the black vote, getting an odd win in the South. Virginia is no longer "southern".

This is the best performance of a third party since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and because Huckabee's support isn't confined to the racists who supported Thurmond in 1948 and Wallace in 1968, it suggests to some that the Reform Party has become the #2 party (it actually picks up some house seats and a Senate seat!)  and that the GOP is in big trouble.

Here's an Eisenhower-scale victory:

Obama picks up Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona (no Favorite Son Republican this year, and Arizona has more Latinos than Mormons in the electorate), Missouri, NE-01 (thanks to all the young Cornhuskers at the University of Nebraska), Georgia, and Texas (Latino vote and transplanted Yankees fleeing "Michigrim". and "Oh-I-Owe").   

[pbrower2a]

Here's an Eisenhower-scale victory:

Obama picks up Montana, the Dakotas, Arizona (no Favorite Son Republican this year, and Arizona has more Latinos than Mormons in the electorate), Missouri, NE-01 (thanks to all the young Cornhuskers at the University of Nebraska), Georgia, and Texas (Latino vote and transplanted Yankees fleeing "Michigrim". and "Oh-I-Owe").   

Obama will win SC before TX. Plus, I think that Obama would win WV in this scenario.

He might pick up West Virginia under some circumstances.

If Obama wins West Virginia, then such indicates that he has successfully won over several states that he couldn't quite reach in 2008, and that the political dynamics of 2012 are very different from those of 2008. I have suggested elsewhere that southern moderate Democrats can win WV, KY, TN, AR, and LA, as Bill Clinton showed. Those states account for 29 electoral votes, and as such they are even bigger than Texas.  Can Obama reach the same people in 2012 that Clinton won over in 1992 and 1996 that he couldn't appeal to in 2008? If so, then Obama wins in a gigantic landslide.

Until Election 2012 we won't know. But Texas three things that none of those states has: a fast-growing Latino electorate, and perhaps to a greater extent than any of those States except Louisiana, more African-Americans,  and more transplanted Yankees. 

 

[pbrower2a]

This question.... Is hard to predict. It depends on the economy, and how the voters react. My natural instinct, however I wish against it is that he will be re-elected. Will it be larger then Clinton's, likely. But not by very much. Obama is, as I have studied, going to not suceed massively. He'll be an Ehhhhh.... President, according to my philosiphies and political views. The Only Real Reason He will be re-elected, in my opinion, will be to his massive cult of personality. The Economic crisis, is not a recession. It's a Depression.  It will be in a recession, likely, for the next 3-4 years, globally, not just In the US. We will then have slow economic growth, about 1.5-2.0%, a year. We will then hold Obama accountable for his presidency. Picture FDR, without victory in WWII in his legacy. He will be not a unifying figure, but rather a divisive figure among the parties and people, as is one of my great political heroes, Ronald Reagan, is today.

I look at Obama, ignore his political slant (which one must do to be objective, unless the ideology is outright Marxism or fascism)  and try to compare and contrast him to other Presidents. It's clear that nobody could ever be compared to George Washington because he defined what the Presidency is... and anyone who deviates from that norm unduly and without a valid excuse (prime example: Dubya) is likely a disaster. All Presidents will divide public opinion in their time, and assessments are generally more valid after history has muted the debates. But that means that one could have no fun with Dubya and could never speculate upon Obama.

(Well, Dubya was not good for my fun when he was President, but that's a different story). 

He didn't put a country back together as did Lincoln, and he has no such chance unless he foments a civil war -- which is just as well that he doesn't. Can he save Western Christian Civilization as did FDR? Things aren't as dangerous now as they were in 1933, when the Devil Incarnate took power in Germany... and let us hope that things don't get that bad. There's no cheap land to be annexed as Jefferson found available,  and we don't have the loose ends to tie up at the end of victory as with Truman. The closest parallel in a military situation is in 1953, when Eisenhower was able to negotiate an end to the Korean "police action"... the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been more inexcusably bungled, and dealings with the Russians or Chinese will be far easier in 2009 than in 1953. Eisenhower of course did not have an economy so badly fouled-up as this one, and he didn't have the vile consequences a predecessor's amoral and immoral choices to undo.   

Theodore Roosevelt? Intriguing comparison. But I will have to hold off on comparing Obama to TR for a long time. Obama would need to do some major reforms to compare to what many people consider the second-best peacetime President that we ever had.   

I see one distressing parallel; I have a hobby that causes me to look at microfilms of old newspapers, and I notice the high expectations that Americans had of Herbert Hoover -- expectations badly betrayed. It is possible that he could bungle the economy as did Hoover... but it looks as if much damage happened before Obama won the Presidency. Should he reverse or undo much of the damage that his dreadful predecessor does, then he is at least above average.

We have seen little more than one month of his administration, and the closest parallel that I can see is... Ronald Reagan. (Note the rule: ignore the ideology unless it is certifiably extreme).

Until at least 2012 the economic distress that we feel will be associated with Dubya, and any improvement in economic realities will be associated with Obama. Such would be the same with John McCain were he elected in 2008. McCain wasn't elected, probably because he couldn't separate himself enough from a failed President.

He has set high standards (not that matters much; so did Jimmy Carter, and look what that did for him!), and whatever bad policies of the previous Administration he could reverse early, he reversed quickly.

Slow economic growth? We will be fortunate to have even that. The write-offs of bad debts will be charges against GDP so long as there are bad debts associated with corrupt lending that one associates with Dubya's financial nuttiness.  The stimulus may keep people from starving and shivering -- good in itself -- but the real growth in America will come from where it usually has come: small business that can't cartelize industry, can't buy lobbyists, can't corrupt the political process, and can't always sell out to realize quick profits. A reversion to the high taxes that Republicans loathe would be a return to an economic environment compatible with small businesses as in the 1950s. Take away the institutional racism, the male chauvinism, the Red Scare, and add circa-2010 technology, and the 1950s would be the dream for much of America.

If we go in eight years from a Hoover-era America to an Eisenhower-era America, then many will be happy. He won't need any cult of personality to create a strongly-positive reputation for himself.

[pbrower2a]

I would prefer Obama not be the debt machine that Reagan was, but that looks unlikely now. I would love to see a TR style term with economic and environmental reforms, though.

Dubya was a horrible debt machine, too. I don't think that we can afford another debt machine again. The only times in which debt works well for a government are :

(1) when the debt is necessary for preventing or ending an economic meltdown, or

(2) when the debt is necessary for financing victory in a war that decides whether the political system endures.

The first case prevents revolution; the second prevents conquest 

[pbrower2a]

Either one is possible, with an unspectacular GOP nominee it could be bigger, with a great GOP nominee, it could be smaller, etc etc. I'm willing to be on smaller but still a solid victory.

Between 1912 and 2008 inclusively, all Presidential winners have won with either fewer than 304 electoral votes (Kennedy 1960 and Truman 1948 got 303; Nixon in 1968 won 301) or with more than 364 electoral votes (Obama won 365 last year). Kennedy won about 56% of the electoral votes in 1948; Obama won almost 68% of the electoral votes in 2008.  About anyone would be happy to win with 62% of the electoral votes, but nobody ever wins that way.

An explanation is appropriate. Someone behind 62-38  in electoral votes projects to win 334 electoral votes, which is about what Obama would have won without Indiana, North Carolina, and NE-02 (337 electoral votes). For the other guy, that implies 204 electoral votes, but about 50 electoral votes that the leader has are shaky, and to win one needs 20 or so more to win. If one is John McCain and 2008 is the last chance to be President, and Pennsylvania seems to be the best chance to win the election, then one goes for Pennsylvania. That McCain's effort to win Pennsylvania in seemed quixotic and futile to every Democrat mattered little to McCain; such was his only chance to win, and he took it.

That effort cost McCain any real chance to win Ohio and Florida, states then close that remained close, and Virginia, which slipped away completely. But after Colorado became a near-impossibility and Obama had a reasonable lock on 273 electoral votes and an outright win (Nevada was ignored, and it really slipped away from McCain), Mccain had to get desperate.

Now suppose that the 2008 election had been going badly for Obama in late September. He would have a lock on about 204 electoral votes, much like this (note that this is counter-historical speculation):

That's a poor situation, but it's not hopeless. With leads in states holding 215 electoral votes he is (in this scenario) only 66 electoral votes away from winning the election.  A close look at the electoral map shows that McCain support in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is weak. Mercifully those states are close enough that one can campaign in them almost simultaneously with occasional stops int campaign headquarters in Chicago to analyze the results and hone appeals to attract marginal voters.  Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan account for 44 electoral votes, so if he gets them to move in tandem, he's up to 259 electoral votes.  Those are obvious targets also for saturation campaigns for television ads.

11 more electoral votes? Ohio offers 20, but McCain just selected Senator George Voinovich as VP. Forget it. Florida? You know what happened in Florida in 2000, and that is going to happen again. New Mexico is iffy for everyone, and if all goes right you get it. But the Republicans have shown signs of pulling away in Virginia and Colorado.

A couple campaign appearances in Arkansas with Bill Clinton and in Tennessee with Al Gore have shown not enough good results to go elsewhere in strong Clinton states in the South. Too bad!

Nevada? 5 electoral votes is nice, but not enough. Besides, it isn't close to anything contested as Colorado slips away. It would be a waste of precious time as would Montana or the Dakotas, the latter three even more iffy.

But Texas? Oh, is it tempting! Dubya won it decisively in 2000 and 2004, but he's not running for re-election. After a stop in El Paso, where Obama finds enthusiastic crowds (oh, if only El Paso were part of New Mexico instead of Texas!) and gets notification that people Houston, Austin, San Antonio,  and even Dallas will vote for him, and the GOP leadership has gotten complacent about the Lone Star State. If Obama wins Texas he solves every problem that his campaign has!

Everything goes as planned, and:

OBAMA 293

McCAIN 245

(The mass advertising from Omaha to reach western Iowa paid off with a couple unexpected electoral votes in eastern Nebraska, and Nevada somehow came through-- barely. Obama proudly displays a November 5 edition of the Dallas Morning News (one of America's most right-wing newspapers) with a giant headline proclaiming

McCAIN WINS!

much as did Harry Truman.

But that's if the gamble pays off. If it doesn't, then he neglects some of the shaky states in the Northeast and west, and: 

McCAIN 375

OBAMA 183

It takes little time for reality to sink in on the evening of November 4 as Obama finds himself behind in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. At 9PM EST, the networks call Michigan for McCain and decide at 9:02 that Pennsylvania went for McCain. It's all over but the concession speech.  Texas? The effort probably lost Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- and because Pennsylvania is much like Michigan politically, it voted in tandem as Obama neglected it -- not to mention Connecticut and New Hampshire as well. McCain still wins it by a 10-point margin. McCain even gets one of the two electoral votes of Maine allotted by Congressional seats.

Nothing funny happened in Florida except for a headline in some gay-oriented newspaper in Miami:

O BUMMER!