will Barack Obama be re-elected?

[5280]

It all depends on what goes on with the US as far as the economy goes.  If the situation doesn't improve in Iraq/Afghanistan and things get worse at North Korea, then Obama is in for a rough 2012 election.  Also, the Republicans need to get a worthy contender for the election.  Here is my map...

[HappyWarrior]

No one here can predict with any accuracy.  D's will say yes, R's will say no its that simple.

[auburntiger]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

[Rob]

Indiana I think was a fluke

Many of us thought the same of West Virginia after 2000.

[Daniel Z]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

I pretty much agree with your map as being the best case reasonable scenario for Obama. I agree that Indiana probably is a bit of a fluke and Montana probably won't be as friendly towards Obama in four years.

[auburntiger]

Indiana I think was a fluke

Many of us thought the same of West Virginia after 2000.

I thought so too because of how strong the Democratic party is there. When they immediately called it for Bush in 2004, I was shocked.

Thing is McCain never campaigned in Indiana, despite the polls wrote it off as safe, which gave Obama plenty of room to go after it hard, and even then it took until 2:30 to call it after polls had been closed for over 7 hours. Also, Indiana is still well to the right of the national average whereas in 2000, WV clearly shifted from 7 points left of the natl average to 7 points right of the natl average in just one cycle.

The Republicans won't make that same mistake again, and they will likely go after Indiana just to say they took an Obama state. Of course, they will have to defend MO and AZ to make that argument sound good, but those two are are possible to win again.

[pbrower2a]

Indiana I think was a fluke

Many of us thought the same of West Virginia after 2000.

I thought so too because of how strong the Democratic party is there. When they immediately called it for Bush in 2004, I was shocked.

Thing is McCain never campaigned in Indiana, despite the polls wrote it off as safe, which gave Obama plenty of room to go after it hard, and even then it took until 2:30 to call it after polls had been closed for over 7 hours. Also, Indiana is still well to the right of the national average whereas in 2000, WV clearly shifted from 7 points left of the natl average to 7 points right of the natl average in just one cycle.

The Republicans won't make that same mistake again, and they will likely go after Indiana just to say they took an Obama state. Of course, they will have to defend MO and AZ to make that argument sound good, but those two are are possible to win again.

Indiana kept its rural heritage far longer than neighboring Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois. Rural America has less need or desire for Big Government because small towns can always put public buildings on the edge of town, because few people make long-distance commutes the needs for highways are modest, and family authority over children is tight. But it has attracted industry, much of it a supplement to small incomes from small farms. Indiana is still a "right-to-work" state which has attracted labor-intense  manufacturing that suddenly became vulnerable to the subprime lending/ real estate meltdown and skyrocketing oil prices. Indiana has much of the RV industry. Such once-conservative bastions as Elkhart and Lagrange Counties suddenly found themselves with 15% or so unemployment. Places that used to vote 80% GOP now voted about 65% GOP. 

Indiana went from being safe for Republicans to near the national norm.

[marvelrobbins]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

This Is quite Likely the map for 2012 especilly If things keep going as they are now.Even against Palin or Gingrich Obama will not have a Reagan ELectoral landslide.He could get up to 55 percent of the popular vote but Alaska,Utuh,Wyoming,Idaho,The Dakotas,and most of the South will never be carried by Obama.Indiana Is the Obama state most likely to flip back to Republicans but remember also Democrats have thought they could take back West Virginia after what they thought was a fluke In 2000.Hasn't happened.Missouri Is the Mccain State most likely to flip to Obama.And with Mccain not running Arizona will be a a battleground and Republicans better stop ailenating hispanic voters.If Obama Is still In high approvol ratings and the Republicans are In bad shape they Georgia and Montana might come Into play.Right now I would call them for whoever wins the Republican nomination.

[Vepres]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

This Is quite Likely the map for 2012 especilly If things keep going as they are now.Even against Palin or Gingrich Obama will not have a Reagan ELectoral landslide.He could get up to 55 percent of the popular vote but Alaska,Utuh,Wyoming,Idaho,The Dakotas,and most of the South will never be carried by Obama.Indiana Is the Obama state most likely to flip back to Republicans but remember also Democrats have thought they could take back West Virginia after what they thought was a fluke In 2000.Hasn't happened.Missouri Is the Mccain State most likely to flip to Obama.And with Mccain not running Arizona will be a a battleground and Republicans better stop ailenating hispanic voters.If Obama Is still In high approvol ratings and the Republicans are In bad shape they Georgia and Montana might come Into play.Right now I would call them for whoever wins the Republican nomination.

You're saying Obama is invincible 3 1/2 years out.

You know, they said the same about George H.W. Bush, Carter, and Johnson (who didn't even run his odds were so bad).

[pbrower2a]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

This Is quite Likely the map for 2012 especilly If things keep going as they are now.Even against Palin or Gingrich Obama will not have a Reagan ELectoral landslide.He could get up to 55 percent of the popular vote but Alaska,Utuh,Wyoming,Idaho,The Dakotas,and most of the South will never be carried by Obama.Indiana Is the Obama state most likely to flip back to Republicans but remember also Democrats have thought they could take back West Virginia after what they thought was a fluke In 2000.Hasn't happened.Missouri Is the Mccain State most likely to flip to Obama.And with Mccain not running Arizona will be a a battleground and Republicans better stop ailenating hispanic voters.If Obama Is still In high approvol ratings and the Republicans are In bad shape they Georgia and Montana might come Into play.Right now I would call them for whoever wins the Republican nomination.

You're saying Obama is invincible 3 1/2 years out.

You know, they said the same about George H.W. Bush, Carter, and Johnson (who didn't even run his odds were so bad).

GHW Bush: a dinosaur. He couldn't offer a credible Second Act.

Carter: eccentric and muddled.

LBJ: caused a badly-going war to bloat.

[The Mikado]

Correct.

And please stop using historical trivia as determinative arguments.

I won't even try to tackle this question until the midterms (at which point it'll still be early, but at least it won't be ridiculously early).

[5280]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

I would have Obama lose Colorado and  Arizona while Obama takes West Virginia, Missouri and South Dakota.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

I would have Obama lose Colorado and  Arizona while Obama takes West Virginia, Missouri and South Dakota.

What? He losses Colorado but wins West Virgina? I say Obama losses Indiana, and wins Montana. Maybe Arizona and North Dakota.

[marvelrobbins]

I feel Obama has only 4 states he could pick up In 2012. Missouri,Arizona,Montana,and Georgia.Indiana Is the state that Is the Republicans best shot at picking up even If
2012 Is a great year for Obama which could be.

I just can't see any Southern states besides florida,Virginia,NC,and Georgia In play.I also
can't see the Dakotas flipping.Montana possably but not the Dakotas.

[ChrisJG777]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

I would have Obama lose Colorado and  Arizona while Obama takes West Virginia, Missouri and South Dakota.

Would you mind elaborating on why you think Obama would lose Colorado there?

[Mechaman]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

[5280]

I think he'll be re-elected probably like Clinton was, status-quo style.
By 2012, assuming no major blips, the economy will have improved, and justified or not, Obama can take credit for it. Most serious Republican contenders will wait for 2016. I hope that whoever we nominate can lose respectably somewhere around 4%. Until we know who the GOP nominee is, here is my map.

Indiana I think was a fluke, and if the Nebraska legislature makes it winner-take-all, then NE-2 automatically goes GOP.

Missouri is the most obvious one of the McCain states to switch, as would be Arizona without McCain.
North Carolina will probably vote for Obama again as will Virginia.

I can't see Obama making enough gains into Georgia to flip it, nor Texas. Montana and South Dakota tend to be anti-incumbent, so I kept those GOP.

I would have Obama lose Colorado and  Arizona while Obama takes West Virginia, Missouri and South Dakota.

Would you mind elaborating on why you think Obama would lose Colorado there?

I say that because his approval ratings are almost tied with his disapproval ratings.  Also, there's quite a few people who dislike the Democrat govenor's job in this state, he says one thing and does another.

[pbrower2a]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

The damage that the previous administration did to the economy will take years to undo. We can see it in a declining dollar, commodity prices from cocoa to gasoline, costs of imports and foreign travel, and a falling standard of living. Ordinarily pro-business conservatives call for sacrifices so that Big Business can invest in plant and equipment, research and development, and the like. Now it simply enriches executives who wield dictatorial power over employees. Hint: it's ordinarily a good idea to leave the family farm -- but not in the last ten years. When the quick, easy money is to be made by legalized loansharking, we have big problems.

The American public recognizes that things are bad -- but perhaps not how bad. We might have been better off to let the failed giant banks go under; all that they were able to do that the smaller banks were unable to do was to play a shell game of getting increasingly-bigger volumes of loans irrespective of quality. To Hell with that sort of banking! I'd love to see some of the high-flying bankers of five years ago have to pawn off their Mercedes-Benz autos for bus fares, beans, and rent for some cr@ppy apartment.

The only way for us to get out of this mess is to do what we used to do well -- small business.
 

[pbrower2a]

Ask a bookmaker for odds.

[5280]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

A theormonuclear holocaust?  God, you're a dumbass.  I can think of any number of reasons for Obama losing, and the economy is only one of them.  The electorate certainly may be gullible (which is why they elected the fool in the first place) but Obama will own this economy by 2012.  If the economy has not recovered or is getting worse, then things will not look well for him.

Obama owned the economy once he was elected.  It's not going to get better until it gets worse.  Another reason for him not winning reelection is crap happening in North Korea and the Afghanistan stuff not coming to a conclusion.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have no idea.  Ask me on the first Monday in November, 2012.

[Mechaman]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

A theormonuclear holocaust?  God, you're a dumbass.  I can think of any number of reasons for Obama losing, and the economy is only one of them.  The electorate certainly may be gullible (which is why they elected the fool in the first place) but Obama will own this economy by 2012.  If the economy has not recovered or is getting worse, then things will not look well for him.

Obama owned the economy once he was elected.  It's not going to get better until it gets worse.  Another reason for him not winning reelection is crap happening in North Korea and the Afghanistan stuff not coming to a conclusion.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said because it seems it goes over alot of peoples' heads: Obama has a friggin ubermann personality. He is quite frankly, a master debater (couldn't resist, lol). It would take something huge to make him defeatable. The economy would have to get almost as bad as it was under the Depression, North Korea goes ape and nukes somebody, or Obama appoints some mega liberal judges onto the Supreme Court and a nationwide ban on handguns occurs, just to name a few. I meant to say something EXTREMELY BAD would have to happen before Obama gets defeatable.

[Mechaman]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

The damage that the previous administration did to the economy will take years to undo. We can see it in a declining dollar, commodity prices from cocoa to gasoline, costs of imports and foreign travel, and a falling standard of living. Ordinarily pro-business conservatives call for sacrifices so that Big Business can invest in plant and equipment, research and development, and the like. Now it simply enriches executives who wield dictatorial power over employees. Hint: it's ordinarily a good idea to leave the family farm -- but not in the last ten years. When the quick, easy money is to be made by legalized loansharking, we have big problems.

The American public recognizes that things are bad -- but perhaps not how bad. We might have been better off to let the failed giant banks go under; all that they were able to do that the smaller banks were unable to do was to play a shell game of getting increasingly-bigger volumes of loans irrespective of quality. To Hell with that sort of banking! I'd love to see some of the high-flying bankers of five years ago have to pawn off their Mercedes-Benz autos for bus fares, beans, and rent for some cr@ppy apartment.

The only way for us to get out of this mess is to do what we used to do well -- small business.
 

I think the way I worded this came out awkward. I'm not saying the Republicans are free of guilt or playing partisan here, just saying that Obama is too charismatic and persuasive to the average joe to lose reelection. Once again, he's a master debater (I had to).

[pbrower2a]

When you got as much charisma and persuadability as Obama, it would take a thermonuclear holocaust to lose reelection. The economic downturn started during Bush's term and he can always leave the blame on the Bush regime. And when the economy gets worse he can just claim it's just an aftereffect of Republican policies enacted a long time ago blah blah blah and knowing the guillability of the electorate, they might just buy it.

The damage that the previous administration did to the economy will take years to undo. We can see it in a declining dollar, commodity prices from cocoa to gasoline, costs of imports and foreign travel, and a falling standard of living. Ordinarily pro-business conservatives call for sacrifices so that Big Business can invest in plant and equipment, research and development, and the like. Now it simply enriches executives who wield dictatorial power over employees. Hint: it's ordinarily a good idea to leave the family farm -- but not in the last ten years. When the quick, easy money is to be made by legalized loansharking, we have big problems.

The American public recognizes that things are bad -- but perhaps not how bad. We might have been better off to let the failed giant banks go under; all that they were able to do that the smaller banks were unable to do was to play a shell game of getting increasingly-bigger volumes of loans irrespective of quality. To Hell with that sort of banking! I'd love to see some of the high-flying bankers of five years ago have to pawn off their Mercedes-Benz autos for bus fares, beans, and rent for some cr@ppy apartment.

The only way for us to get out of this mess is to do what we used to do well -- small business.
 

I think the way I worded this came out awkward. I'm not saying the Republicans are free of guilt or playing partisan here, just saying that Obama is too charismatic and persuasive to the average joe to lose reelection. Once again, he's a master debater (I had to).

I understand now, and I accept your explanation. Obama has the best political skills of any President since at least Ronald Reagan's first term -- and similar techniques. To believe that he could fail requires that his ideology make him a bad President (he's not that far Left) or that he prove Nixonesque in power-lust or utterly corrupt. Not since JFK have we had any President who so well framed his political agenda in rhetoric. So far he has shown no recklessness. He says what he means and means what he says without ambiguity.

I don't think that he could get away with the same level of ineptitude as Dubya, who barely got re-elected. We as a people are less tolerant of incompetence, sleazy methods, and dishonesty than we were in 2004 -- and that is for the better.

It has been a long time since a President won re-election in a squeaker other than 2004 (of which there remain questions).  Truman would have won in a landslide had it not been for the Dixiecrat defection.

I stand on my statement: Obama has no responsibility to restore the wild boom of recent years. That's one thing that he absolutely couldn't do if he wanted. Our system couldn't afford another one. Obama can get away even with raising taxes so long as they come with expanded services (like national health care) or social justice.

[Vepres]

Well, I hate to be the one to tell you that you are as big a dumbass as everyone thinks, but you are.  Obama is hardly a "master debater" (he's sub-par at best).  The only thing he's good at is framing the issues so that he favors him, which wasn't exactly difficult last year.  This far out, it's way too early to say what will happen in 2012, but to say that the only way Obama loses is if a thermonuclear holocaust occurs is beyond stupid.

I agree. Obama just tied with McCain in the debates, despite McCain being erratic, off-message, and the political climate favoring Obama significantly.

One thing that may hurt Obama is that he's not following through on his promises of bipartisanship. Apparently, he hasn't contacted one republican on the healthcare bill that is being drafted (by all Democrats).