If Obama is re-elected in 2012, does he break 365 EVs?

[Psychic Octopus]

By that question, I am asking whether you think he will recieve a smaller - or larger - mandate. I personally think that he will not beat his 2008 performance, and lose at least Indiana in 2012. I don't really see what states he can pick up besides Missouri, Arizona, Montana, and Georgia, the latter three of which I can't see him victorious in. I think that if he wins, he wins by a smaller margin. And even if he wins all the states he won in 2008, he loses six electoral votes.

Thoughts?

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

It will almost certainly be smaller. I don't see him winning Indiana with the current conditions in place. Of course, the current conditions won't be in place but it would be useless to speculate about what will happen in the next two years and how that will effect things.

[albaleman]

I'd say yes because two-term presidents have almost always won their second term by a larger margin than their first, and because the GOP field is weak.

[Skill and Chance]

History suggests that re-elected presidents should win bigger the second time around.  If he wins, 56-41 would seem a lot more likely than 50-48.  I could see a narrow Bush 2004 style win with the president taking CO+NV+VA, which is probably what would happen if the election was today, but I think a big, 400+ EV win would be more likely.  If the election is narrow, he probably wins though because of the Dem advantage in the electoral college.  The GOP could win the PV with Obama still carrying Kerry+IA+NM+NV+CO or Kerry+NM+IA+VA for the EV win.

[tpfkaw]

Not a chance.  Of course, the first ain't terribly likely either.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

History suggests that re-elected presidents should win bigger the second time around.  If he wins, 56-41 would seem a lot more likely than 50-48.  I could see a narrow Bush 2004 style win with the president taking CO+NV+VA, which is probably what would happen if the election was today, but I think a big, 400+ EV win would be more likely.  If the election is narrow, he probably wins though because of the Dem advantage in the electoral college.  The GOP could win the PV with Obama still carrying Kerry+IA+NM+NV+CO or Kerry+NM+IA+VA for the EV win.

History doesn't always suggest what will happen in the future, but in any case, there was 1916.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Wasn't 1916 the only election where the incumbent did worse than he did in the previous election?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wasn't 1916 the only election where the incumbent did worse than he did in the previous election?

Well obviously the cases where the incumbent lost had them doing worse. There was also 1940 and 1944.  Also VPs did worse in 1948 and 1988.

[Oakvale]

Yes. If I had any money I'd bet money on it.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Wasn't 1916 the only election where the incumbent did worse than he did in the previous election?

Well obviously the cases where the incumbent lost had them doing worse. There was also 1940 and 1944.  Also VPs did worse in 1948 and 1988.

Ooops. I ment ones where the incumbent won. But besides FDR's 3rd and 4th elections, where there any?

[tpfkaw]

Also, if we're including VPs, 1928 was technically a lesser landslide than 1924 in PV margin terms.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also, if we're including VPs, 1928 was technically a lesser landslide than 1924 in PV margin terms.

Naw, that's only if we're including Secretaries of Commerce.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Also, if we're including VPs, 1928 was technically a lesser landslide than 1924 in PV margin terms.

True, but Hoover won a greater percentage of the PV than Coolidge did. I guess it depends how you measure PV landslides. That being said, Smith was the first Democrat to break 40% of the vote since Wilson, which is a little funny if you think about it because he did worse in the EV than Cox or Davis.

[tpfkaw]

Also, if we're including VPs, 1928 was technically a lesser landslide than 1924 in PV margin terms.

Naw, that's only if we're including Secretaries of Commerce.

Ah yes, right.

[DrScholl]

If he's re-elected, it will almost certainly be a larger number.

[anvi]

If Obama wins reelection, he will do so by a smaller margin that what he won by in 2008.  Voters in '08 blamed the economic meltdown and the "wrong direction" the country was headed on the other party, and that, along with an outstanding campaign strategy, drove the tide in Obama's direction in very unlikely places.  In '12, the slow recovery of the labor market and whatever else people don't like will be blamed on the president, and he thus won't win states like Indiana and North Carolina again, and I think, without a significant drop in the jobless numbers, keeping Ohio is unlikely.  He will capture a smaller percentage of the Independent vote in '12 and will get even fewer Republican swing votes than he did in '08.  Drops in PV trends like this can't help but translate into lower electoral vote numbers. 

If Obama and his people are clever over the next two years and cut some smart deals, and the labor market trends healthily upward, and if they can craft a good message and plot out a good campaign strategy, then I certainly think he can win reelection.  But unless political circumstances and fortunes change drastically in the next two years, the president will not outpace his 2008 EV performance.

[pbrower2a]

History suggests that re-elected presidents should win bigger the second time around.  If he wins, 56-41 would seem a lot more likely than 50-48.  I could see a narrow Bush 2004 style win with the president taking CO+NV+VA, which is probably what would happen if the election was today, but I think a big, 400+ EV win would be more likely.  If the election is narrow, he probably wins though because of the Dem advantage in the electoral college.  The GOP could win the PV with Obama still carrying Kerry+IA+NM+NV+CO or Kerry+NM+IA+VA for the EV win.

History doesn't always suggest what will happen in the future, but in any case, there was 1916.

Of course the unusual election of 1912 allowed Woodrow Wilson to win  81% of the electoral vote despite winning roughly 41% of the popular vote. Such would never have held in 1916.

Because Presidential winners just don't win between 58% and 64% of the electoral vote (a 'null area' that reflects more game theory than the relative strength of political campaigns even though random chance suggests that many elections would end up in that zone), it is more likely that President Obama would win fewer than 310 electoral votes or more than 360.  Of course, should the President win re-election with 315 or 244 electoral votes, then the 'null area' likely shrinks. But should he win 325 electoral votes or so,  then  the theory of a 'null area' vanishes.

[DS0816]

1912 saw the GOP implode with its two recent incumbents, one of whom switched to Progressive and took solely from the incumbent the likes of California, Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (the latter three having voted for all prevailing GOPs beginning in 1860 and all the way to Dwight Eisenhower in 1956). It left William Howard Taft with the biggest electoral defeat of a sitting president (holding only Utah and Vermont, the latter having supported the party in every election from 1856 to 1988 with exception of 1964). This paved the way for Woodrow Wilson to get a massive 433 (two electors switched to him to make it 435). 1916 saw the GOP regroup, nominate Charles Evans Hughes, and nearly unseat Wilson in a presidential realignment period for the Republican Party.

The 1940 and 1944 Roosevelt examples (all other commanders in chief who won more than one term won two terms) are not good for making a case; if you look at parties that won a third term, after a two-term incumbent (when considering R-vs-D), only 1904 Teddy Roosevelt gained electoral votes (after 1896 and 1900 William McKinley. By the way: 1868 Ulysses S. Grant doesn't count; 1864 Abe Lincoln had a greater percentage of the electoral vote then available).

[Yelnoc]

Not unless Palin or Gingrich are the nominee.  So maybe.

[TomC]

No, I think he'll fall to around 340.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

[Person Man]

No, I think he'll fall to around 340.

That's reasonable....

[Joe Biden 2020]

No, if he does win, I expect him to get no more than about 320 votes with no more states flipping and several traditionally Republican states flipping back such as Indiana, North Carolina, maybe Ohio, and possibly one or two others.

[RRusso1982]

I think that 2 of the states Obama won in 2008 were flukes and won't repeat themselves:Indiana and North Carolina

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I think he'll break about 310 if he's re-elected.