Next election predictions

[exopolitician]

Bold prediction:

Obama/Biden: 285
Romney/Daniels: 253

The economy is still slowly recovering, unemployment is dropping but only slightly. Obama touts his legislative victories over the years and the ability to tackle economic issues and reduce unemployment, even if only slightly.

Not trying to be a smartass or anything but how is this prediction bold?  Or do you mean, making any specific prediction?

Making any specific prediction, as of right now, would be considered pretty bold.

[ShadowRocket]

I think Mitt Romney will be the 2012 equivalent of John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008 as the vulnerable frontrunner who falls behind early on, but still manages to win the party nomination in the end.

[nhmagic]

Sorry, azmagic, I really disagree to the point where I don't see that as possible at all. Herman Cain has never even held office before, or been a general, which is crucial in the modern age. That being said, he would have probably been a good candidate had he won the Senatorial primary back in 2004.

He's created jobs - something Obama has never done, as CEO of Godfather's Pizza.  This is the Tea Party age NiK, lots can happen - like Johnson in Wisconsin.  He is an excellent stump speaker, interviewer, and speech giver in general.  He's witty and good for the party's image.  He's also very conservative and would be an excellent contrast to Obama.  In addition, he's not saddled with the baggage other GOP candidates have.

http://www.hermancain.com/default.asp

There is a speech right on that page.  The other thing:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/27/run-herman-run

[California8429]

Well now Bachmann is making noise. Every tea partier wants in, they will crowd the field and eventually will be forced to back someone more conservative than romney who can win the primary like Gingrich, Thune, or something

[pbrower2a]

Sorry, azmagic, I really disagree to the point where I don't see that as possible at all. Herman Cain has never even held office before, or been a general, which is crucial in the modern age. That being said, he would have probably been a good candidate had he won the Senatorial primary back in 2004.

He's created jobs - something Obama has never done, as CEO of Godfather's Pizza.  This is the Tea Party age NiK, lots can happen - like Johnson in Wisconsin.  He is an excellent stump speaker, interviewer, and speech giver in general.  He's witty and good for the party's image.  He's also very conservative and would be an excellent contrast to Obama.  In addition, he's not saddled with the baggage other GOP candidates have.

http://www.hermancain.com/default.asp

There is a speech right on that page.  The other thing:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/27/run-herman-run

If you are a conservative, then there are two things that you don't want the government to do. One is to maximize revenue (taxes), and the other is to create jobs in government.

I'd be careful about assuming that the Tea Party Movement will continue its rise in the next two years. It gets to show itself in a role of responsibility, and it has yet to show that it won't make a fool of itself.  Excellent contrast to President Obama? He was an excellent contrast to Dubya.

Business executives tend to do a horrible job as elected officials. Look at Corzine in New Jersey! He was a Democrat! Most likely this guy runs an independent campaign much as Ross Perot did and siphons off votes from a more conventional  conservative like Huckabee -- or Romney. By doing so he ends up with a 45-35-20 split of the popular vote. People want politicians to look out for needs that Big Business either can't achieve or for prodding Big Business to do the right thing when there is a choice between greater profit and human decency.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You cannot run government like you run business.

Cain created jobs because when you're a CEO you can do that directly, as President you can't.
The methods and processes are COMPLETELY different. Business accumen has no correlation at all to political success.

[RJEvans]

1. Sarah Palin will NOT run.
2. Jon Huntsman WILL run.
3. Mitt Romney will NOT be the nominee but will likely finish with the second most delegates.
4. Either Rick Santorum or Tim Pawlenty will be the first to announce.
5. John Thune will be on the ticket.
6. There will be serious media consideration to put Rubio on the ticket but ultimately won't happen.

These are all guesses. Frankly, I think Romney may end up becoming the nominee, but I personally think a Huntsman-led ticket is best for the Republican Party.

[California8429]

So he don't think Romney will get it, but think he'll get it?

[Miles]

My prediction (before campaigning has started). These are probably of outcome maps, not margins of victory maps.

Green indicates 50/50 tossup.

OBAMA VS ROMNEY OR HUCKABEE

OBAMA: 277
REPUBLICAN: 237
TOSSUP: 24




OBAMA VS GINIGRICH OR PALIN

OBAMA: 369
REPUBLICAN: 160
TOSSUP: 9

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

GOP-over 325
Dems-under 210

[exopolitician]

GOP-over 325
Dems-under 210

May I ask how?

[Napoleon]

I would say this is the map of Obama vs. Generic Republican. Certain candidates' strengths or weaknesses would help them to exceed this map's expectations or otherwise fail to reach this 303-235 loss with dignity.

[pbrower2a]

I would say this is the map of Obama vs. Generic Republican. Certain candidates' strengths or weaknesses would help them to exceed this map's expectations or otherwise fail to reach this 303-235 loss with dignity.

So far, "Generic Republican" seems to be running stronger than any well-known Republican. I can see regional weaknesses for every one of them (Romney would do better in the North but at the expense of a Southern state or two that the GOP can't afford to lose; Huckabee would do badly in the North, perhaps picking up North Carolina (which wouldn't be enough) but losing  the Dakotas). That's before I talk of candidates on the fringe of either ability (Palin), skills running a national campaign (Gingrich --- think of Gerald Ford without the geniality), or near-unknowns. In view of how Pawlenty (lapsed Catholics would lose places with lots of Catholics) and Santorum do in their "own" states, you can write them off now. At that, I don't see how a fairly-unknown Senator from a very Red State (Thune, South Dakota) that is no microcosm of any large region of America has a chance. 

"Generic Republican" and "Generic  Democrat" go into hibernation  at the time of the first primaries and stay in hibernation until the electoral season is over. In contrast, we all know President Obama and his political weaknesses (including geographic vulnerabilities) very well. I think that Republicans are looking for personal electoral strengths of some unidentified Republican whose political acumen will overwhelm President Obama or that President Obama will be an abject failure.

I have a problem with anyone winning 335 or so electoral votes for the simple reason that nobody wins with between 57% and 65% of the electoral vote. The one in the lead plays it safe with the political equivalent of the Nickel Defense, consolidating states that might be shaky while abandoning those on the margin of victory; the one behind tends to take chances that either make the election closer or turn the election into a blowout.  Obama was on the low end of the blowout zone in 2008 and will likely either

(1) lose by a small margin (235-268 electoral votes)
(2) win with fewer than 315 electoral votes, or
(3) win 355 or more electoral votes (the sky is the theoretical limit, especially against some incompetent campaigner)

315-355 would be unprecedented since 1900.

As an illustration, if he won the states that he won in 2008 and no others he would win 359 electoral votes in 2012, or 358 if he lost NE-02 or the state went to winner-take-all. 

[Napoleon]

You're talking about generic Republican as a poll insert for "someone who isn't the President and is a Republican." I'm talking about generic Republican as just that, a generic Republican. Someone like John Thune or Bob McDonnell, with no real flaws or advantages. They are simply generic.

And, uh, my map shows Obama winning with about 52% of the popular vote.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

GOP-over 325
Dems-under 210

May I ask how?

We take back all the Bush 2004 states plus Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, One of Maine's districts, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado

[RJEvans]

So he don't think Romney will get it, but think he'll get it?

Oh get off your high horse. If you read carefully you will note I was very selective with my words.

Points 1 through 6 are my predictions. The rest is simply conveying personal sentiments.

[Yelnoc]

GOP-over 325
Dems-under 210

May I ask how?

We take back all the Bush 2004 states plus Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, One of Maine's districts, New Hampshire, Nevada and Colorado

Now how do you think that will happen?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

For this scenario to work, it could go one of a few different ways.
Romney is the nominee (I cringe at this) but he picks a Daniels or his protege Scott Brown.
Daniels or one of the Tea Party folks extends an olive branch to one of the Sisters of Maine (doubtful)
Pence/Johnson or Pence/Huntsman
Ron Paul with a moderate that even the Tea Party has respect for

[The Economist]

For the heck of it – a prediction for 2012 in depth.

President Obama announces for re-election in the spring or summer of 2011. He begins raising significant piles of cash (although nowhere near $1 billion). Republicans start announcing as well – Pawlenty, Thune, Romney, Gingrich, and Palin.

In Iowa, Thune wins a surprise victory while Romney rebounds in New Hampshire. Palin is shut out of both Iowa and New Hampshire and pins her hopes on South Carolina. Romney wins South Carolina and takes the nomination.

In the General, with the economy rebounding, the Republican ticket try to play on the themes of 2010 (energizing the tea party base, etc) and talking down Obamacare.  The voters, less angry than they were in 2010, decide to disregard a charismatic ticket and re-elect Obama/Biden.

Popular Vote

Obama: 54%
Romney: 45%

Electoral votes

Obama – 353
Romney – 185

Obama wins Arizona, Missouri and his 2008 states while ceding Indiana and North Carolina.
Romney wins the rest plus Indiana and North Carolina.

[Napoleon]

Obama gains in popular vote yet loses electoral votes outside of the margin of reapportionment... Weird. Very weird.

[Devilman88]

Romney wouldn't win nc...

[The Economist]

Well, I mean, I don't think he wins Indiana and North Carolina for a second term, which adds up to 26 electoral votes lost. I think however the electoral range would be from 353 to 380.