Looking at the percentages, Obama could win a landslide in 2012

[sg0508]

Last night was a clear electoral margin, but he performed very well all over, outside of the deep south.

He even did well in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Montana.  He has plenty of challenges ahead of him including the banking crisis, oncoming recession, deficits from hell and the war in Iraq.

If he manages to do a decent job, a lot of those states from last night are likely to switch to blue in 2008.

I could see him winning an "LBJ/Goldwater" like map with only the deep south voting for the 2012 Republican. 

Any agree?

I will say this about my party after last night, we're in big trouble and I hope we move back to the middly socially where we belong along with fiscal responsibility.

[nyquil_man]

IF he governs effectively and can address the crises we are facing, IF the demographic movement toward the Democrats we saw last night was not a fluke, IF he can convince the South that he is not made of poison, IF the Republicans remain scrambled, et cetera et cetera...

Then yes, I could see him winning a sizable, Reaganesque victory.

But those are a lot of IFs and I'm waiting to see if Obama can live up to his promise.

[Jacobtm]

If the economy improves markedly, I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain in MT, ND, AZ, AK, MO, GA, SC, TX and WV.

[tokar]

If the economy improves markedly, I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain in MT, ND, AZ, AK, MO, GA, SC, TX and WV.

Pretty much...

A lot rides on his performance in office too.  If he does poor in office he might have trouble holding onto states like VA, NC, OH, FL, IN, NV, CO.

A cataclysmic event like 9/11 certainly would make things less difficult, as it would spark nationwide patriotism as seen with Bush in his re-election bid.  But no one wishes for cataclysmic events to occur (man-made or nature-caused alike).

[opebo]

Assuming the economy gets better, as it should with massive government spending with, hopefully, at least a slight redistributive component, and barring any huge foreign policy errors, Obama should do somewhat better in 2012.  Unless four years of a black president angers whites, which it may, even despite some successes.

In any case I think he is unlikely to improve enough to gain more than Missouri, Montana, and Arizona, and, perversely, if he presides over (perhaps even effects) a good economy, it could cause him to loose Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio.  Many voters will feel free to give vent to racism or social issues based voting once their economic condition is made a bit less insecure.

[BlueSwan]

In any case I think he is unlikely to improve enough to gain more than Missouri, Montana, and Arizona, and, perversely, if he presides over (perhaps even effects) a good economy, it could cause him to loose Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio.  Many voters will feel free to give vent to racism or social issues based voting once their economic condition is made a bit less insecure.

I seriously doubt that. If a black president does well, wouldn't that result in less racism? I would certainly think so. I never believed the theory that racists would vote for Obama due to the economy. If they are really racists, then surely they wouldn't trust a black man with their economy.

[opebo]

In any case I think he is unlikely to improve enough to gain more than Missouri, Montana, and Arizona, and, perversely, if he presides over (perhaps even effects) a good economy, it could cause him to loose Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio.  Many voters will feel free to give vent to racism or social issues based voting once their economic condition is made a bit less insecure.

I seriously doubt that. If a black president does well, wouldn't that result in less racism? I would certainly think so. I never believed the theory that racists would vote for Obama due to the economy. If they are really racists, then surely they wouldn't trust a black man with their economy.

No no, you seem to misunderstand me.  I'm saying that they voted for Obama because of how they see themselves - in the current situation most working class people (people who are not wealthy owners) see themselves as insecure and dependant.  This of course is the accurate view, and one which requires voting relatively left, or at least what passes for left in american politics.

But once the economy improves, they will indulge once again in hubris.  Prideful workers can become irritated by many things which don't really matter, from the colour of the candidate to the 'social issues'.  So there is certainly the opportunity for some of Obama's margin in states like North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and others to melt away due to his success.

Looking at the whole history of liberal democrats in american governance it is reasonable to say that they always create their own electoral troubles - all those ordinary toilers voting Republican in the seventies, eightiest, and nineties, where only enabled to do so because the liberal Democrats gave them sufficient security and prosperity to indulge in their hubris.

[J. J.]

If the economy improves markedly, I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain in MT, ND, AZ, AK, MO, GA, SC, TX and WV.

Pretty much...

A lot rides on his performance in office too.  If he does poor in office he might have trouble holding onto states like VA, NC, OH, FL, IN, NV, CO.

A cataclysmic event like 9/11 certainly would make things less difficult, as it would spark nationwide patriotism as seen with Bush in his re-election bid.  But no one wishes for cataclysmic events to occur (man-made or nature-caused alike).

Even that depends on his response.  Remember Katrina.

[tokar]

If the economy improves markedly, I wouldn't be surprised to see him gain in MT, ND, AZ, AK, MO, GA, SC, TX and WV.

Pretty much...

A lot rides on his performance in office too.  If he does poor in office he might have trouble holding onto states like VA, NC, OH, FL, IN, NV, CO.

A cataclysmic event like 9/11 certainly would make things less difficult, as it would spark nationwide patriotism as seen with Bush in his re-election bid.  But no one wishes for cataclysmic events to occur (man-made or nature-caused alike).

Even that depends on his response.  Remember Katrina.

True that...

[Lief 🐋]

I think a Reagan/LBJ/Nixon-esque landslide would look like this for Obama:



KY and TN could possibly flip. He did at least break 40% in both of these states.

[tokar]

I think a Reagan/LBJ/Nixon-esque landslide would look like this for Obama:



KY and TN could possibly flip. He did at least break 40% in both of these states.

Agree with MOST of the map.
Don't agree with Nebraska (outside of CD2) and Kansas.  They were both McCain+16.

TX, WV, MS were McCain+12, +13 and +13 respectively.  Might be a bit difficult...

[Lief 🐋]

I think a Reagan/LBJ/Nixon-esque landslide would look like this for Obama:



KY and TN could possibly flip. He did at least break 40% in both of these states.

Agree with MOST of the map.
Don't agree with Nebraska (outside of CD2) and Kansas.  They were both McCain+16.

TX, WV, MS were McCain+12, +13 and +13 respectively.  Might be a bit difficult...

It depends if his landslide popular vote is closer to Reagan's 58% (a +12 swing from 2008) or LBJ's 61% (a +16 swing from 2008).

[Keystone Phil]

I think a Reagan/LBJ/Nixon-esque landslide would look like this for Obama:



KY and TN could possibly flip. He did at least break 40% in both of these states.

Oh, you're just itching for that "Kansas for Obama" result, aren't you?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The guy hasn't been in office for a day yet, and we're already talking about him winning by a Reaganesque margin.

What if he doesn't have a first term that solves the world's problems like he's promised?

[Lief 🐋]

The guy hasn't been in office for a day yet, and we're already talking about him winning by a Reaganesque margin.

What if he doesn't have a first term that solves the world's problems like he's promised?

Then he won't do that well, obviously. But historically, presidents win pretty solid re-election victories, unless they're unpopular.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The guy hasn't been in office for a day yet, and we're already talking about him winning by a Reaganesque margin.

What if he doesn't have a first term that solves the world's problems like he's promised?

Then he won't do that well, obviously. But historically, presidents win pretty solid re-election victories, unless they're unpopular.

Historically, presidents don't take office with the problems we have right now.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

The guy hasn't been in office for a day yet, and we're already talking about him winning by a Reaganesque margin.

What if he doesn't have a first term that solves the world's problems like he's promised?

Then he won't do that well, obviously. But historically, presidents win pretty solid re-election victories, unless they're unpopular.

Historically, presidents don't take office with the problems we have right now.

Well... the last president to take office with problems of similar magnitude, though at a later point in the circle, was one Franklin D Roosevelt...

[Lief 🐋]

Reagan also took office with some pretty bad things going on both domestically and internationally. His re-election seemed to work out pretty well.

[Gustaf]

In response to the thread title, the same could definitely have been said of Hoover in 1928...and a very close comparison would be Bush Sr. in 1988 who won by a similar margin. The margin by which you get elected doesn't really mean much. Hoover and Bush turned their margins into huge defeats, Nixon transformed a close margin to a landslide, etc.

If I had to bet I would bet on a landslide reelection for Obama but I don't want to bet on it this far out unless I'm forced to.

[Sbane]

He could win in a landslide if he actually solves problems. I think people will be understanding if it takes time, but they will not tolerate too many screw ups.