What would an Obama defeat look like in 2012?

[Kevin]

Just curious what would a perspective comfortable defeat look like for Obama in 2012? Should it happen.

[Joe Republic]

Probably something like this:

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Probably something like this:

LOL

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

LOL.

[Bo]

LOL.

A black man can't win Georgia while losing nationwide.

[Sbane]

I see the strongest swings against him occuring in the midwest if he were to lose. I also see him doing much worse in the rural west, which would mean a state like Montana would be out of reach even if Obama gains votes from last time around. If Obama loses I see states like Michigan and Wisconsin becoming 50-50, and maybe Oregon. He will lose Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa. I can see him holding on to Nevada even while losing, which I am sure a lot of people will disagree with. I basically see him losing most strength in places where whites swung a lot towards him, and Nevada is not one of those places.

For example I expect Florida to trend towards Obama, but if Obama is losing he will probably lose the state since he didn't do too well there to begin with. Same with North Carolina.

[pbrower2a]

Because no nominee, challenger or incumbent, Democrat or Republican, competent or incompetent, has ever won between 57.1% and 66.5% of the electoral vote in any Presidential election beginning in 1900, scenarios between this


 

Challenger 311
Obama 227

Obama holding onto either Pennsylvania or the combination of Minnesota and Wisconsin -- and I had to have him barely hold onto New Hampshire to make the numbers right...

and this:





 

Challenger 359
Obama 179


is unlikely. Take your choice between Connecticut and Oregon.

[pbrower2a]

LOL.

The reference is obviously to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Hint #1:

President Barack Obama has been able to get a large legislative agenda enacted into law; Jimmy Carter was completely ineffective at that.

Hint #2:

Statewide polarization of the vote is much more severe than it was in 1980. It would take nearly a 5% shift of the vote to turn Iowa (the deciding state of 2008) to the Republican nominee. Such a shift would give a result more like Kerry 2004 than like Carter 1980.  If you ignore the vote for John Anderson you find roughly a 5% shift of the votes that counted from Carter to Reagan.

 

[Reaganfan]

In all seriousness.

He loses Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina. Using the upcoming electoral vote changes...that puts Republicans at 266 Electoral votes.

The odds are high that other swing states such as Colorado or Nevada could fall back in GOP hands, putting them over the top.

Not that hard to do, especially with Obama's 2008 euphoria gone.

[Dr. Cynic]

My question is, what Republican beats him?

[izixs]

<Someone who has a positive vision for the future>/<VP candidate who isn't crazy or inept>

[pbrower2a]

In all seriousness.

He loses Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and North Carolina. Using the upcoming electoral vote changes...that puts Republicans at 266 Electoral votes.

The odds are high that other swing states such as Colorado or Nevada could fall back in GOP hands, putting them over the top.

Not that hard to do, especially with Obama's 2008 euphoria gone.

People rarely vote in a state of euphoria. Disgust at the other candidate is frequent enough. If the GOP nominee should be an uninspiring hack, then President Obama wins. His campaign will be as technically effective in 2012 as in 2008.

Remember: the GOP nominee must succeed both at

(1) distinguishing itself from the failed Presidency of George W. Bush, and

(2) offering a coherent and optimistic vision

It won't be enough to offer tax cuts or patronage to the "right people" or to excoriate Obama-era legislation that has yet to fail. People will get used to the Obama-era changes.

Sure, he can still have situations in which he is doomed as President. One is a renewed economic meltdown, another is some unforeseen disaster of foreign policy, and a third is scandal. But get any steady economic improvement, reduce American exposure in Afghanistan and Iraq, and avoid personal scandals blowing up too early, and he gets re-elected against any Republican nominee. It took the Democrats twelve years to find a Presidential nominee who could not be faulted for suggesting the legacy of Jimmy Carter, one of the weakest Presidents in American history. I expect much the same with George W. Bush.

The next Republican President will have no connection - even a legislative record -- to connect him or her to the protracted and catastrophic failure that is George W. Bush. 

[exopolitician]

I'm being generous by taking away PA and NH. If the Republicans have a really great year, give them Wisconsin and MAYBE Michigan.

[tpfkaw]

If he wins, it will be narrow, if he loses, it will be a landslide.

[feeblepizza]

Obama looses 285-253. If the GOP has a good year, they can win WI and maybe PA. I'm putting IA on the Republican column just because their traditional farm/value voters congregate there.

[Oakvale]

If he wins, it will be narrow, if he loses, it will be a landslide.

Funny, I'd say it's the other way around.

[J. J.]

LOL.

A black man can't win Georgia while losing nationwide.

It's the 1980 map. 

[Bo]

LOL.

A black man can't win Georgia while losing nationwide.

It's the 1980 map. 

I know and I got the comparison, but still Obama won't win Georgia while losing.

[Bo]

Probably something like this.

[J. J.]

Something like that.

This would probably be not as bad as Reagan/Carter, but close.  Obama wins in urban areas, NYC and suburbs, LA, and Chicago, but nowhere else.

[Kevin]

If the GOP really wants to win in 2012, I say they better nominate a governor or a former one. Like Huckabee, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Romney etc.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

LOL.

The reference is obviously to Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Hint #1:

President Barack Obama has been able to get a large legislative agenda enacted into law; Jimmy Carter was completely ineffective at that.

Hint #2:

Statewide polarization of the vote is much more severe than it was in 1980. It would take nearly a 5% shift of the vote to turn Iowa (the deciding state of 2008) to the Republican nominee. Such a shift would give a result more like Kerry 2004 than like Carter 1980.  If you ignore the vote for John Anderson you find roughly a 5% shift of the votes that counted from Carter to Reagan.

 

You didn't realize I was joking?

[tpfkaw]

If the GOP really wants to win in 2012, I say they better nominate a governor or a former one. Like Huckabee, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Romney etc.

Or Palin . . .

[Kevin]

If the GOP really wants to win in 2012, I say they better nominate a governor or a former one. Like Huckabee, Jindal, Jeb Bush, Romney etc.

Or Palin . . .

Any one except her also.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Probably something like this.

Yeah, that looks about right. Maybe Wisconsin could flip too, in the worst case scenario.