2012 Map Megathread

[Josh/Devilman88]

But she would scare off the moderates and independents that Romney would get.

True, but no amount of moderates/independents will make up for not being able to win one's own base. One cannot win the election without winning the base of his own party first (of course that is not intended to suggest that all other groups are unnecessary). That is why, for a party to win, its nominee must attract BOTH the base AND moderates/independents. That is what Obama was able to do this year.

Right, and right now the base of the Republican party, doesn't like Romney.

[Psychic Octopus]

the social conservatives don't, the economic conservatives think he is great. anyway, my prediction:

Godlike Obama Term:

Above Average term:

Average:

Bad:

Average Term:

[Psychic Octopus]

Schwarzenegger/DeMint vs. Obama/Biden
Average Obama Term

After a recovery in the Economy, in early 2010, China begins to have problems, and with their growth plummeting to 5 percent, massive unemployment ensues in China ensues. Obama begins to have problems in Foreign Affairs, and in a close election he is voted out of office.

[aaaa2222]

Arnold would never win California, I'm sorry to say. He still can't even run.

[Brittain33]

The theory that a successful Obama term brings Appalachian Democrats home in 2012 isn't getting any love on this thread.

[Applezz]

Matheis and Mint,

>>Virginia and New Mexico would flip long before Minnesota did.

Generally true, but I suppose the only reason for picking Pawlenty
would be to flip Minnesota.  Still, I don't think Sanford would ever win
a Republican nomination with big hitters like Romney, Crist, Huckabee
and, well, Palin in the field. 

My way of thinking is that since Bush and McCain were liberal on amnesty and that Sanford isn't then New Mexico would definitely go to Obama. As far as Virginia and Minnesota it's 50-50 because Obama has a strong base in both states.

Sanford could definitely win the 2012 nomination. The reason why is because he's extremely against any type of pork barrel spending and is against deficit spending. He could unite the Republican party, along with libertarians like Paul and maybe even Barr because he can bring the Republican party to a new direction. Look at his article on wikipedia. My guess is that he will at least be in the top 3 with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in 2012.

[War on Want]

The theory that a successful Obama term brings Appalachian Democrats home in 2012 isn't getting any love on this thread.

Well he won't bring them home if he faces Huckabee or another Republican that could appeal to them.

[Psychic Octopus]

Arnold would never win California, I'm sorry to say. He still can't even run.

I know, but maybe he'll have a 25 point uptick in approval. I saw a poll saying his approval was up slightly a couple months ago... Plus it'd be funny.

[Brittain33]

The theory that a successful Obama term brings Appalachian Democrats home in 2012 isn't getting any love on this thread.

Well he won't bring them home if he faces Huckabee or another Republican that could appeal to them.

True, but I think Huckabee may be unique among Republican candidates in having that appeal. The real problem this year wasn't Democrats voting Republican, it was just that many of them didn't vote. I wonder how much of a draw Huckabee would be that Palin wasn't... if anything this is an indictment of Palin because in many ways he's a much stronger candidate, but supposedly Palin was the only real draw for many Republicans.

[tmthforu94]

My map is Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Jindal

[Mr. Morden]

You people are aware that the electoral vote allocation will change between now and 2012, aren't you?  Because using 2008 electoral vote totals on the maps doesn't make sense.

[tmthforu94]

You people are aware that the electoral vote allocation will change between now and 2012, aren't you?  Because using 2008 electoral vote totals on the maps doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I know. But on this site, it hasn't changed. I think it gets better for Republicans, but I'm not sure.

[Holmes]

My map is Obama/Biden vs. Romney/Jindal

This would be strange.

[Mr. Morden]

You people are aware that the electoral vote allocation will change between now and 2012, aren't you?  Because using 2008 electoral vote totals on the maps doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I know. But on this site, it hasn't changed. I think it gets better for Republicans, but I'm not sure.

There are several 2012 template maps here:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=86173.0

Otherwise, if you don't use one of those, probably better to just use one of the blank maps that doesn't include the EV #s at all, as it's better than using the 2008 numbers.

[Matt Damon™]

You people are aware that the electoral vote allocation will change between now and 2012, aren't you?  Because using 2008 electoral vote totals on the maps doesn't make sense.

I am fully aware, It's just that the site lacks '12 maps.

[bhouston79]

Approval Rating > 70%

Approval Rating > 60% < 70%

Approval Rating > 55% < 60%

Approval Rating > 50% < 55%

Approval Rating > 45% < 50%

Approval Rating > 40% < 45%

Approval Rating < 40%

[Psychic Octopus]

tmthforu94 , this would be your map with census approtionment according to wikipedia...

[Lincoln Republican]

Post your maps here to see how close/wrong the maps tend to be be!

I love your map.

[Lincoln Republican]

Do your maps who whoever you want Obama to face in 2012. For the map I did I had Romney/Pawlenty.

I love your map.

[anvi]

I think that Romney will be a very formidable candidate in 2012 and there will be lots of states in play.  But you think he will win Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin (while losing Michigan)?  If he does win, it will closer than that.

[Matt Damon™]

I think that Romney will be a very formidable candidate in 2012 and there will be lots of states in play.  But you think he will win Pennsylvania, Oregon and Wisconsin (while losing Michigan)?  If he does win, it will closer than that.

Obama isn't really shaping to be that great as POTUS. Romney could pull it off.

[anvi]

We'll see.  I do think however that underestimating Obama has led to the downfall of lots of very experienced politicians and pundits.  If he has a bad term and is not up to the admittedly immense challenges the country is facing, then sure, he could get beat next time; just not, I don't think, by the overwhelming margins that Carter did.  Landslides on the scale of either '64 or '80 don't seem very feasible in today's electoral politics.  Success at policy-making requires many different skills than campaigning too, as our current POTUS has painfully reminded us.  But, we'll see.  If Obama were a pushover candidate, he wouldn't be taking the Oath on the 20th.

[Matt Damon™]

Being glib and charismatic is enough to win the primaries. It's not enough to govern well.

[Matt Damon™]

Then again, Obama could pull a FDR -- as in be a mediocre to bad POTUS but use charisma and glibness to get the people behind him despite his bad performance.

[anvi]

I agree that success in governing and campaigning are very different.  I'd go further and say that one of the great tragedies in American politics today is that people often don't make the necessary distinction between them.  But, Obama has not taken office yet.  So, we'll see.  If he performs well and makes good policy, he will merit reelection.  If he makes bad policy in a time of economiic and international crisis, he will deserve to lose.  We'll see.

You obviously don't like his campaigning style and rhetoric.  But I think Drew Weston's book The Political Brain hit the nail on the head with regard to the way Democrats have campaigned in recent elections.  Gore and Kerry presented themselves as so cerebral and unengaged that they didn't capture people's hearts, and, like it or not, if you can't capture people's hearts in a campaign for the presidency, you're going to lose.  As Westen says with regard to capturing hearts and minds, "if you don't win the heart first, the mind won't follow."  It may be an unfortunate fact about human beings that their emotions guide their reason most of the time, but the misfortune of that fact doesn't make it any less true.  You might not like flash in campaigns, but sometimes a little flash is what is required, and you can't govern if you don't win.  I think the fact that Obama understood this well does not speak poorly of him. 

But, I agree with you that none of this says anything about his policy-making skills, and we have yet to find out about those, so, we'll see.  One thing is for sure, if he loses Wisconsin in 2012, that's a sure sign he will have been a rotten POTUS.