Is 2012 going to be like 1964 for Republicans?

[DS0816]

Will the Republicans nominate a Barry Goldwater like candidate in 2012? If so, would Obama win in a landslide ala LBJ in 1964?

Election 2012 will not be like 1996 and 2004 — respectable gains in the popular vote (3% in each of the cases of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), and the trading colors of a few states that sees the incumbent, in re-election, net more electoral votes. (The only two-term president with less electoral votes in his re-election: 1916 Woodrow Wilson.)

It'll be a landslide, all right!

Probably a wipeout.

It'll go beyond 400 electoral votes for President Obama. (Which hasn't been seen since the Republicans' dominance of the 1980s.)

What you're seeing of today's "Republican" Party is a real meltdown. Of their party. It's evident in how it's taking shape — they're about out of gas. With no real leader to help, let alone rescue, them.

The Republican Party knows this.

Obama's 52.87 percent in the 2008 popular vote — you might as well call it 53% — will grow by at least 5 percent. (That would add an additional 10 points to the 7.25 margin by which Obama beat John McCain in 2008.) And if it's as bad I suspect, he'll render his Republican "opponent" — no matter who it is — unable to reach 40 percent of the vote. And that'll translate into, roughly, around 100 electoral votes added to his 365 (from 2008). States you don't think would ever say no to the GOP — and we got a sampling of it in 2008 with Indiana, Virginia, and the 2nd Congressional District in Nebraska — will be gone (and, yes, that includes Texas).

[DS0816]

The analogy might be more likely to be Carter in 1980.

Reagan was thought, even into the campaign, that he was too right wing to be president.  The old ad from 1976, "Governor Reagan didn't start a war.  President Reagan could."

Wishful thinking.

The Republicans had the advantage with the realignment election of Nixon in 1968.

We're in a different period.

[DS0816]

So, can we at least agree that 2012 will be definitely a landslide... either for the Democrats or the Republicans.

Whether people here agree with each other … it's not important.

Plenty of follks here don't think it'll be a [dominant] landslide; you have plenty thinking in terms of modest gains or declines. And others who think the GOP is going to have a comeback.

[DS0816]

Anyone who thinks Obama will win by an additional 5% or more is kidding themselves.…

And anyone, like yourself, who thinks the GOP — after being taken apart by their last honcho, George W. Bush, with his disasters, and with a political party having degenerated into an extreme cult — is going to make a comeback in winning back the presidency (or, at least, a marked shift in favor of their direction), within a mere four years, is the one who is kidding himself/herself.

Incumbents winning re-election commonly gain in percentage (and margin) for the popular vote, and a gain in Electoral College votes. (I wouldn't be surprised if the losing Republican, in 2012, fails to garner 40% of the popular vote.)

Obama — an additional five percent on top of the 52.87% he won in 2008, absolutely unthinkable? Not at all.

The Republican challenger — and thanks for the laughs over the cast of "hopefuls" — losing an additional five percent of the 45.60% garnered by their losing candidate of 2008, John McCain, unthinkable? Expected.

[DS0816]

Look, nobody knows what the political climate is going to look like in 2012. Remember that Clinton's and Reagan's ratings were awful throughout their first term (and especially at midterm), and they both won solid reelections. George H.W. Bush enjoyed 60+ approval ratings throughout nearly his ENTIRE TERM, but was undone in his final 6 months by a poor economy.

I don't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow. But when you consider it takes a couple years for a campaign to get going, and what's happening now, it's no mystery what's coming up in 2012. The GOP is f'd. And we'll be seeing our first 400-vote victory of a re-election landslide since the 1980s.