Is Obama destined to lose reelection?

[Kevin]

Is President Obama destined to lose reelection in 2012 and drag the Democratic Party's prospects down with him? I'm asking this question because even though there is a strong chance that Obama can pull what Clinton did after the 1994 midterm's and rebuild his political fortunes, he is facing much more daunting prospects then his Democratic predecessor did in the 1990's, As the current economic situation is very dire and appears to becoming even more so by the month, and predictions for the future aren't rosy ether as in 2011 the economic and financial situation in the US and abroad is predicted to be even worse with more bailouts here and in Europe, along the increasing possibility of double-dip recession and further shrinkage within the real estate market. Which to be fair alot of isn't his fault, as much of the recent turmoil is driven by economic events beyond US borders, and the fact that he inherited this crisis(even though he hasn't made it any better, if not worse)

Going on this I'm starting to believe that Obama will lose reelection in 2012 for the reasons I listed above, and that any Republican barring Palin or maybe Gingrich would beat him.


I now this sounds rash ad hackish to some to say this, this is just what my intuition is telling me.

[Mr.Phips]

It all depends on the economy.  If Obama can get unemployment below 8% by June 2012, he will probably win reelection.  I say June because that is usually when opinions harden about a bad economy.  A strong third quarter and declining unemployment after June 1992 didnt help Bush 41 at all. 

[Beet]

My intuition tells me Obama will lose re-election.

[Poundingtherock]

No, he is not destined to lose.

It's hilarious that this is coming from a Mark Kirk supporter, one of the biggest political hacks and outrageous liars to run for office. And I'm a pretty conservative guy as well.  I don't care whether you are a republican or democrat but anyone who lies about his or her military service like Kirk did should be shunned completely.  Even though Alexi was worse, that so many Republicans blindly supported this fool suggests to me that this party has some issues.

[tpfkaw]

Yes.  Unemployment will still be above 9% in November 2012.  However, Palin might make it close.

[redcommander]

No, he is not destined to lose.

It's hilarious that this is coming from a Mark Kirk supporter, one of the biggest political hacks and outrageous liars to run for office. And I'm a pretty conservative guy as well.  I don't care whether you are a republican or democrat but anyone who lies about his or her military service like Kirk did should be shunned completely.  Even though Alexi was worse, that so many Republicans blindly supported this fool suggests to me that this party has some issues.

He was a million times better than Alexi on policy though which is the important thing. Still the military issue like in Conneticut made the race close when it shouldn't have been. It Roskam had run he would have wiped the floor with Giannoulias.

[Keystone Phil]

Destined clearly isn't the right word. Is he on the road to losing re-election? Yes, I believe so...but we're two years away. Things can change. I think his style is going to be the big problem. He's set on standing his ground. If things don't drastically change for the better and he is still set in his ways, he's very likely to lose. I only say "very likely" because my party could screw things up.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I think Palin can very well beat Obama. If Romney is the nominee Obama will win. If Romney isn't the nominee, it's gonna be another good election for the GOP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It has nothing to with destiny, just choices.

Obama is not in as bad a position as some would like to believe. It's 2 years to go, we don't know who he's going up against... so many variables, and so much time left.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

I think he is probably going to win so no.

[Reaganfan]

I think a bigger problem is that the American electorate just seems tired of all politicians at all levels and is willing to dump parties or persons in power every cycle. See: Ohio 2004-2010. Went from GOP in Presidency 2004, to DEM in 2006 Midterms, to DEM in Presidency in 2008, to GOP in 2010 Midterms.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I think a bigger problem is that the American electorate just seems tired of all politicians at all levels and is willing to dump parties or persons in power every cycle. See: Ohio 2004-2010. Went from GOP in Presidency 2004, to DEM in 2006 Midterms, to DEM in Presidency in 2008, to GOP in 2010 Midterms.

Which could lead to some Libertarians winning soon. I think we might be in the mist of a change in the party system.

[pbrower2a]

Destined clearly isn't the right word. Is he on the road to losing re-election? Yes, I believe so...but we're two years away. Things can change. I think his style is going to be the big problem. He's set on standing his ground. If things don't drastically change for the better and he is still set in his ways, he's very likely to lose. I only say "very likely" because my party could screw things up.

It is possible to interpret the 2010 election as proof that Americans have begun to show renewed faith in an agenda that promises lower wages, less economic certainty, harsher working conditions, and higher taxes for the non-rich while promoting a ravaged environment, regulatory relief, swifter depletion of natural resources, wars for profit and control of natural resources, easier collection of debts, and lower taxes for the super-rich in return for promises of Pie in the Sky When You Die. If such is the valid interpretation, then America is Italy in 1922 or Japan around 1934 and Americans deserve the consequences. Masochists deserve what sadists inflict upon them. Otherwise, 2010 is the Last Hurrah for the Hard Right.   

Oh, can the GOP screw up! Because the GOP is essentially the same entity that it was between 1994 and 2006 when it had the majority, and has not changed positions except to go further to the Right, it risks alienating the voters who stayed home in 2010 after 2008 and many who made the voted for someone like Pat Toomey in 2010. This is especially true in the House of Representatives should the GOP leadership waste efforts on "proving" pseudoscience like Young-Earth Creationism or the denial of anthropogenic global warming -- or beginning inquisitions of people for "lack of patriotism" (as Reps. Daniel Issa and Michelle Bachmann have promised) for failing to share the GOP agenda. Corporate America owns the House of Representatives, and that can have ugly consequences. A government that effectively serves only 5% of the people while $crewing most of the rest can get extremely unpopular.  Wave elections sweep in some turkeys and poor fits, and such may have happened in 2008 -- and 2010 alike.

I wouldn't count out the Left forming its own mirror image of the Tea Party with similar results.  I can already think of an image of GOP politicians who have decided that the Oil Cartel has the right to set policies on energy and transportation -- the "Gusher of Greed", with GOP pols grabbing campaign contributions emanating from an oil well. I could also think of an image of a business executive with a whip in one hand and a bottle of whiskey (to dissolve what little conscience is left).

If the electorate of 2012 looks much like that of 2008, then the GOP is in deep trouble and not only because President Obama will be re-elected. The GOP needed to do some soul-searching after its losses in 2006 and 2008 and instead read Machiavelli for guidance. Every House seat will be up for grabs. Sure, the Democrats face potentially few gains in the Senate because only ten GOP seats are up for grabs:

State    Senator    Last election %
Montana    Jon Tester (D)    49%
Connecticut    Joe Lieberman (I)    50%
Missouri    Claire McCaskill (D)    50%
Virginia    Jim Webb (D)    50%
Tennessee    Bob Corker (R)    51%
Massachusetts    Scott Brown (R)    52%
Arizona    Jon Kyl (R)    53%
New Jersey    Bob Menendez (D)    53%
Rhode Island    Sheldon Whitehouse (D)    53%
West Virginia    Joe Manchin (D)    54%
Maryland    Ben Cardin (D)    54%
Mississippi    Roger Wicker (R)    55%
Nevada    John Ensign (R)    55%
Ohio    Sherrod Brown (D)    56%
Michigan    Debbie Stabenow (D)    57%
Washington    Maria Cantwell (D)    57%
Minnesota    Amy Klobuchar (D)    58%
California    Dianne Feinstein (D)    59%
Pennsylvania    Bob Casey, Jr. (D)    59%
Florida    Bill Nelson (D)    60%
Hawaii    Daniel Akaka (D)    61%
Texas    Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)    62%
Utah    Orrin Hatch (R)    62%
New York    Kirsten Gillibrand (D)    62%
Nebraska    Ben Nelson (D)    64%
Vermont    Bernie Sanders (I)    65%
Wisconsin    Herb Kohl (D)    67%
North Dakota    Kent Conrad (D)    69%
Delaware    Tom Carper (D)    70%
New Mexico    Jeff Bingaman (D)    71%
Wyoming    John Barrasso (R)    73%
Maine    Olympia Snowe (R)    74%
Indiana    Richard Lugar (R)    87%   

 
Any Democrat who won by less than 60%  in 2006 or later is vulnerable until I see otherwise. Imaginable Democratic pick-ups (not counting Joe Lieberman) are Senate seats in Massachusetts (it is Massachusetts), Nevada (John Ensign -- enough said), Arizona (should the anti-alien demagoguery of the GOP backfire), Texas (probably an open seat), and Maine (should Olympia Snowe be tea-bagged).  But that is only "imaginable", and give enough "ifs" and the likelihood of a set of independent events happening  shrinks to near zero.. I can see at least seven easy pick-ups for the GOP if the electorate is as in 2010 (MT, MO, WV, MI, VA, OH, NE) which, with GOP maintenance of the House and a defeat of Obama could aid in turning America into a Christian and Corporate (a/k/a fascist) State.

[© tweed]

destiny is a retroactive thing

[Liberalrocks]

Considering where Reagan and Clinton's approval ratings were at this time in their presidency I am not willing to right off the chances of Obama. Then we have a GOP field in which many of the prospective candidates would lucky to get 200 electoral votes. If they nominate Caribou Barbie its over! She will do worse then McCain and get crushed in a landslide. Huckabee wont do better then the deep south and Romney is slimy and untrustable. Thune would be competitive but may be too socially conservative. He certaintly would do better then Palin and Huck.

[J. J.]

Are we facing a realignment?

2010 may have been the R version of 1930.

Had McCain won, I'd be predicting an Obama victory in 2012.

[phk]

I think he will be one of the few incumbents who does worse the 2nd time around.

I think he can pull off a 2004 style Bush victory if the economic numbers are right and terrorism worries are declining.

[Penelope]

Are we facing a realignment?

2010 may have been the R version of 1930.

Had McCain won, I'd be predicting an Obama victory in 2012.

Not really. 1946 is about where we are, based on what I'm hearing from the GOP, and seeing in polls.

[White Cloud]

Republicans have been ceding about 250 electoral votes to the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992. Democrats have a solid bloc of states in the northeast, upper Midwest, and west coast that nets them about 250 electoral votes. Win those states and all the Democrat has to do is pick up another 20 EV's to win the election. Given that Obama is almost certain to win that bloc of states that every Democrat has won since 1992, the election will hinge on whether or not Obama can add to that bloc one of:

1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Florida

And/or add a combination of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada to put him over 270.

I think that Obama is in a good position to do that with the African-American vote in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada, the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the support that he has had in Iowa since his caucus win in 2008.

The big thing that Obama has going for him is the African-American vote. That is his firewall that will keep Republicans from being able to break through in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It also helps him in a state like Virginia, where if he maximizes the African-American turnout, it makes that state more competitive.

[Penelope]

Republicans have been ceding about 250 electoral votes to the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992. Democrats have a solid bloc of states in the northeast, upper Midwest, and west coast that nets them about 250 electoral votes. Win those states and all the Democrat has to do is pick up another 20 EV's to win the election. Given that Obama is almost certain to win that bloc of states that every Democrat has won since 1992, the election will hinge on whether or not Obama can add to that bloc one of:

1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Florida

And/or add a combination of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada to put him over 270.

I think that Obama is in a good position to do that with the African-American vote in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada, the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the support that he has had in Iowa since his caucus win in 2008.

The big thing that Obama has going for him is the African-American vote. That is his firewall that will keep Republicans from being able to break through in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It also helps him in a state like Virginia, where if he maximizes the African-American turnout, it makes that state more competitive.

Considering that the Southwest has been trending towards the Democrats since at least 2000, I would say Obama only has to win Ohio, and he's won the election. To be honest I don't see where everyone's getting the idea that Obama is in a position to lose states like Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico, all states which voted for him by upwards of 55%.

[White Cloud]

Republicans have been ceding about 250 electoral votes to the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992. Democrats have a solid bloc of states in the northeast, upper Midwest, and west coast that nets them about 250 electoral votes. Win those states and all the Democrat has to do is pick up another 20 EV's to win the election. Given that Obama is almost certain to win that bloc of states that every Democrat has won since 1992, the election will hinge on whether or not Obama can add to that bloc one of:

1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Florida

And/or add a combination of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada to put him over 270.

I think that Obama is in a good position to do that with the African-American vote in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada, the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the support that he has had in Iowa since his caucus win in 2008.

The big thing that Obama has going for him is the African-American vote. That is his firewall that will keep Republicans from being able to break through in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It also helps him in a state like Virginia, where if he maximizes the African-American turnout, it makes that state more competitive.

Considering that the Southwest has been trending towards the Democrats since at least 2000, I would say Obama only has to win Ohio, and he's won the election. To be honest I don't see where everyone's getting the idea that Obama is in a position to lose states like Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico, all states which voted for him by upwards of 55%.

I don't know how the EV's will change for 2012, but I believe that Obama will be able to get to 270 without Ohio, Florida, or Virginia. He would need to win the northeast bloc from DC to Maine (including New Hampshire), the upper Midwest bloc from Michigan to Minnesota, and the west coast bloc from Washington to California, including Hawaii. Then he would need to pick up Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada, all states that he won comfortably in 2008. I believe that would be enough for 270. He doesn't need Ohio or Florida. But just like in 2008, his campaign manager is going to construct scenarios where Obama can win with different combinations of states.

I think that Republicans speculate about winning rust belt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin because they think that region is their best place to break into the Democratic bloc. They are probably right, too. They aren't going to break into California, Oregon, and Washington. They are dead as a party in the northeast, except for New Hampshire. But I think that in 2012 at least, the African-American vote in Pennsylvania and Michigan, and to a lesser extent Wisconsin, will be Obama's firewall, which will keep Republicans from being able to win those states.

[Kevin]

Republicans have been ceding about 250 electoral votes to the Democrat in every presidential election since 1992. Democrats have a solid bloc of states in the northeast, upper Midwest, and west coast that nets them about 250 electoral votes. Win those states and all the Democrat has to do is pick up another 20 EV's to win the election. Given that Obama is almost certain to win that bloc of states that every Democrat has won since 1992, the election will hinge on whether or not Obama can add to that bloc one of:

1) Virginia
2) Ohio
3) Florida

And/or add a combination of Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada to put him over 270.

I think that Obama is in a good position to do that with the African-American vote in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada, the Hispanic vote in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the support that he has had in Iowa since his caucus win in 2008.

The big thing that Obama has going for him is the African-American vote. That is his firewall that will keep Republicans from being able to break through in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. It also helps him in a state like Virginia, where if he maximizes the African-American turnout, it makes that state more competitive.

Considering that the Southwest has been trending towards the Democrats since at least 2000, I would say Obama only has to win Ohio, and he's won the election. To be honest I don't see where everyone's getting the idea that Obama is in a position to lose states like Michigan, Wisconsin and New Mexico, all states which voted for him by upwards of 55%.

Considering the beatings the Democrats took in both Michigan and Wisconsin don't be so sure as they both trended right this past election. Especially Wisconsin, which threw out a well liked prominent, entrenched Democratic Senator, elected a Republican Governor along with GOP majorities in the State Legislature, in addition to giving Congressional Republicans a majority of the House delegation from the state. Michigan also gave the Republicans a solid victory in the Governor's race, and majorities in the State legislature. So overall, some Republican definate inroads were made into these "solidly" Democratic states.

[Kevin]

Destined clearly isn't the right word. Is he on the road to losing re-election? Yes, I believe so...but we're two years away. Things can change. I think his style is going to be the big problem. He's set on standing his ground. If things don't drastically change for the better and he is still set in his ways, he's very likely to lose. I only say "very likely" because my party could screw things up.

Perhaps I wasn't right using the world "destined" as things do change, but the present and projected future doesn't look too good for President Obama's reelection chances or the Democratic Party in general.

[Reaganfan]

AT THIS POINT...here's what I see as likely.

The economy will be in bad shape.
The President's campaign will sound drastically different than 2008.
Young voter turnout will be greatly reduced
African American turnout will be greatly reduced
Teaparty/Conservative turnout will be increased
Republicans will gain 6 electoral votes in the 2012 EV changes

States Obama will likely lose:
Indiana
North Carolina
Nebraska CD-2

That gives Republicans 206 electoral votes.

The President has gone from his African American/Young voter energizing 2008 self to...well...an incumbent President. Add the gray hair and unpopularity and a bad set of circumstances economically...and his 2008 stardom is gone. SEE: Obama campaigning in 2010. He's looking at the likelihood of losing Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, and Florida. That alone gives the GOP 269, thus the Presidency.

Not to mention if a liberal, African American Democrat could win a Nebraska CD or Indiana, whose to say a conservative Republican can't win Minnesota or Pennsylvania?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The irrational exuberance of Republicans on this forum is amusing.