Three 2012 scenarios

[zorkpolitics]

Three 2012 scenarios:  what is your prediction?

1)   The election reverts to the pattern of 2000 to 2004 and it’s a toss-up that comes down to a single close state (maybe this time VA or CO?)

2)     Like most incumbents, Obama does better in his second term: wining all his 2008 states, plus picking some of the Obama Campaign target states: MO, MT, GA, AZ, TX

3)   Obama’s approval drops into the 30’s and the Republican wins all the Bush states plus most of the recent swing states: MN, PA, WI, OR, ME, OR, WA, NJ

[Bull Moose Base]

I think Obama's approval drops into the 30s and he adds Missouri and Georgia but at this point I'm probably just trying to be contrarian.

In truth, the direction of the economy and the Republican primaries are foggy enough that any of your scenarios are in the realm of possibility.  My bet is basically a repeat of the 2008 map with one or two states changing in either direction.

[Reaper]

My bet is basically a repeat of the 2008 map with one or two states changing in either direction.

All the polls suggest this, though some people are either in denial or enjoy partaking in false hope.

[President von Cat]

I think Obama's approval drops into the 30s and he adds Missouri and Georgia but at this point I'm probably just trying to be contrarian.

In truth, the direction of the economy and the Republican primaries are foggy enough that any of your scenarios are in the realm of possibility.  My bet is basically a repeat of the 2008 map with one or two states changing in either direction.

If Obama's approval hits the 30s in October 2012, there is no way he will win Missouri, Georgia, etc. He will definitely lose Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada and possibly a lot more.

I believe this will be a close election. It is still Obama's to lose - but the economy is not looking good. To win, the president has to hold four of the following five: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia and Iowa. Things look good for now - but if the economy continues to sour and the stock market tanks, I have a feeling he'll be upside down vs Romney in all of those states by election day.

[zorkpolitics]

I think it will be a close election.  No way will Obama do better.

Though Obama's approval rating is likely to be low 40's or high 30's, he is now, and probably still will be, well liked, which goes a long way to mitigating his policy failures, especially with the low information "independent" voters. 

Given that the Republican candidates do not have wide spread likeability/appeal, it will be the GOP election to lose rather than Obama's to win

[nhmagic]

Picking up WI or PA for the GOP wouldn't be part of a blowout, just a comfortable victory.  WI is very close to reach especially with Feingold not being on any ticket now and our dominance in the state.  The WI GOP effectively controls the party in many ways - Ryan as our policy pointman, Reince Preibus, Walker, etc.

[J. J.]

There is a fourth possibility.  Obama basically does as well as Bush (1992), Dukakis (1988), and Dole (1996), a loss, but not a landslide.

Right now, the odds on Obama increasing his electoral votes is close to zero.

[Thomas D]

Right now, the odds on Obama increasing his electoral votes is close to zero.

This I agree with. I think it will be very tough for Obama to hold IN & NC and I don't see how he'd make up for that elsewhere.

[J. J.]

Right now, the odds on Obama increasing his electoral votes is close to zero.

This I agree with. I think it will be very tough for Obama to hold IN & NC and I don't see how he'd make up for that elsewhere.

I'd add NH to that list and that one NE district.  I would also note that, with redistricting, he loses 6 electoral votes even if he carries the same states.

The Republican might have 210 without too much effort.

[Ember]

I think this is one election where Scenario #1 is not just possible but actually likely.

Scenario #2 is somewhat possible. Despite his close numbers in 2008, Obama most likely won't be able to win over Montana without a miracle. Only six states have a lower approval rating of him right now.

[MJM58]

I think most people are going to ask themselves, "Are we better off now under Obama than we were under Bush?" and relate that to the economy. If the election were today, I think it'd be close with the Republican edging out a close win.

[California8429]

I honestly couldn't tell you until next summer when we know the GOP nominee, Obama's approvals, unemployment numbers, where the DOW stands, what's going on in the middle east at that time, and what's going to come of the default situation

[Devils30]

I think Obama's approval drops into the 30s and he adds Missouri and Georgia but at this point I'm probably just trying to be contrarian.

In truth, the direction of the economy and the Republican primaries are foggy enough that any of your scenarios are in the realm of possibility.  My bet is basically a repeat of the 2008 map with one or two states changing in either direction.

Maybe flip Indiana and Arizona?

[Sam Spade]

Until that solid Democratic 46%-47% of the vote shows any sign of fracturing at any level (and it hasn't in the past 20 years), there will be no GOP blowout, unless you consider 52%-53% to be a blowout (I don't).  Sure, Obama's approvals right now are probably in the low to mid-40s, and they could well go lower, but I don't see the necessaries for the fracturing among those 5%-7% who would create the situation, given the mindset of those voters.

Similarly, it is impossible for me to see the Republicans falling under their 2008 total for a whole host of rather obvious reasons, #1 being the economy, which is already in or headed towards recession (if it ever got out of it in the first place).  Functionally, Indiana and NE-2 are completely lost, and I consider the hunt for Georgia to be humorous.  Montana hates incumbents and Missouri's internal movements are bad for Dem hopes.  It would have been possible (though far from probable) to win Arizona in 2008 if McCain were not the nominee, but unlike Nevada or even Colorado, the PVI movement there has been basically nil since the early 1990s (2010 was no different).  If Obama wins by 7%, yes Arizona could be up for grabs, but I doubt anything less will work.  In short, the Republican solids will probably be about the same as the Dem solids have been for this cycle, which would have not necessarily been the case last cycle (46%-47%), and Obama will get less EV than last time, regardless of who the competition is.

So that means we're stuck with the close race and the same states.  But you may not think 52%-47% is close, and that type of result is certainly possible.  It does not have to be within 1%.

The polls are telling you all these things right now, as well as a few intricacies about the only states that really matter.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The only way I see Obama doing better than 08 is if Perry or Bachmann get the nomination.

Otherwise - the election will come down to probably the same swing-states as 08, except swap IN for AZ. But the popular vote wipe outs won't be there for the most part, so the pop vote I expect will be very close.

[Penelope]

2)     Like most incumbents, Obama does better in his second term: wining all his 2008 states, plus picking some of the Obama Campaign target states: MO, MT, GA, AZ, TX

This, but Texas isn't going to be anywhere near close, and Montana is going to swing further to the GOP this time.

My long-term prediction (for a Dem Victory):

Obama - 369
Romney - 169

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

If the economy stays as it is and the GOP nominates a candidate that is palatable in New Hampshire and other moderate northern states, I think it is a blowout, in terms of EVs.  Popular vote probably still only 53-46 or 54-45.

[J. J.]

This is a blowout:

If the map looked something like this, I'd be announcing the high probability of a realignment and waiting for confirmation in 2014.

This, however, is not a blowout:

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

[Penelope]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

[J. J.]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

I said that in 2016 we'll either be starting, in or just finishing a realignment.  It is entirely possible that 2012 is not the realignment year and it starts in 2014.

If 2012 looks something like this...

... we are probably seeing a political realignment, a fundamental change in political patterns.


Obama could still lose, but the patterns don't change too much.  We could still see a realignment starting in 2014.

Like wise, Obama could win and we could still be seeing a realignment in 2014.

Basically, I see four elections in a realignment:

The Precursor Election - The congressional elections where the realignment party (RP), the one out of power, makes gains and usually gains one house. (1858, 1894, 1930, 1978)

The Realigning Election - The RP president wins, with a big popular, and/or electoral, vote margin.  One house, at least, becomes RP.  (1860, 1896 (the weakest), 1936, 1980).

The Hold Election - RP holds the house and usually increases seats (1862, 1898, 1934, 1982)

The Confirming Election - RP president wins, and wins bigger than before.  RP holds the house.  (1864, 1900, 1936, 1984).

Failing to confirm to this pattern is why 1912, 1952, 1972, and 1992 are not realignments.

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

[Paul Kemp]

If 2012 looks something like this...

... we are probably seeing a political realignment, a fundamental change in political patterns.

 . . . which it won't so the rest is irrelevant.

[Penelope]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

...

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

Yes, I see your point. All evidence points to 2010 being just another false "precursor" - but this time it will be different!

[J. J.]

Obama could still lose, and there would be no realignment.  I'd still be saying a realignment is coming.

Uh, care to elaborate?

...

Was 2010 a Precursor?  Maybe, but there were other false precursors before, 1910, 1918, 1946, 1966, 1994, and 2006.

Yes, I see your point. All evidence points to 2010 being just another false "precursor" - but this time it will be different!

No, realignments tend to occur at least 32 years apart.  None of these others, except 1966, were at that interval.  All realignments have a domestic crisis source, slavery (1860), bimetalism (1896), very bad economic conditions (1932, 1980). Arguably, that was present in 1946, and, stretching it with desegregation, 1966, but not in the others.  Both those factors were present in 2010.

I'd say that all evidence supports 2010 being the "precursor election," but there is not yet enough evidence to say definitely that it is happening.  Had 2010 produced 35 new Republicans in the House and 4 new Republicans in the Senate, I would have said it was good year to be a Republican, but there was no realignment.  A 35 seat gain in the House would normally be seen as a great victory for either party since 1980.  Same with a 4 seat Senate gain.

That's why you see to Obama loss maps.  One is, he loses, but the normal patterns remain.  The other is what you'd see in a realignment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As someone who is doing their PhD on realignments, I would say that I believe the evidence for anything besides a panic-driven blip is quite scant.

[Penelope]

J.J., what sort of evidence is there that proves, or at least supports, your notion that 2010 was the beginning of a huge realignment?

Yes, they won a lot of seats. Just like in 1946, and 1994. But there must be more evidence than those nifty lookin' numbers.