Obama/Romney starts here

[Politico]

This is a race involving an unpopular incumbent (his approval rating is ten points or more lower than Carter's in January 1980), and the Republican candidate has nothing to do with George W. Bush or Washington this time (much like the 1980 race and Republican ticket had nothing to do with Nixon), so it is way too early to say much of anything other than the following:

Obama - 37
Romney - 170
Up in the Air - 331

In other words, Romney only needs 100 out of 331 (or, put another way, an electoral batting average of .302 versus Obama's required electoral batting average of .704)...

[Politico]

This is a race involving an unpopular incumbent (his approval rating is ten points or more lower than Carter's in January 1980), and the Republican candidate has nothing to do with George W. Bush or Washington this time (much like the 1980 race and Republican ticket had nothing to do with Nixon), so it is way too early to say much of anything other than the following:

Obama - 37
Romney - 170
Up in the Air - 331

In other words, Romney only needs 100 out of 331 (or, put another way, an electoral batting average of .302 versus Obama's required electoral batting average of .704)...

You really need to change your screenname politico. We don't need new users to get the wrong idea that you actually know what you're talking about.

Can you guess why the "blue state/red state" nonsense will soon come to an end?

Hint: The "red state/blue state" nonsense started with Bush.

In any case, you'll see what I am talking about in November.

[Politico]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

Yeah, I am not saying that is where the election stands today. Plenty of other maps on here that show what would happen if the election were tomorrow. But it is not until November. I am just saying that this is all we can say at this point: Romney has a floor of about 159-170 and Obama has a floor of 37. Everything else is literally up in the air between now and November.

[Politico]

This is a race involving an unpopular incumbent (his approval rating is ten points or more lower than Carter's in January 1980), and the Republican candidate has nothing to do with George W. Bush or Washington this time (much like the 1980 race and Republican ticket had nothing to do with Nixon), so it is way too early to say much of anything other than the following:

Obama - 37
Romney - 170
Up in the Air - 331

In other words, Romney only needs 100 out of 331 (or, put another way, an electoral batting average of .302 versus Obama's required electoral batting average of .704)...

You really need to change your screenname politico. We don't need new users to get the wrong idea that you actually know what you're talking about.

Can you guess why the "blue state/red state" nonsense will soon come to an end?

Hint: The "red state/blue state" nonsense started with Bush.

In any case, you'll see what I am talking about in November.

The name red state/blue state originated with the election of 2000, but states have been described to have certain political leanings long before. The Pacific West, Midwest, and Northeast has been lean Democrat since Dukakis in '88, and he was a terrible candidate (like fellow Massachusetts Mitt Romney, he has many parallels it seems...).

Here's a newsflash: Things change, and usually relatively unexpectedly. Just compare 1964 to 1972, or 1976 to 1980, and so on.

There is nobody in this race with any ties to George W. Bush. He is ultimately the reason why the nation divided into the "red state/blue state" camps of 2000-2008. Like Nixon in 1980, Bush is out of the picture in 2012. Nobody knows the full implications upon the EC. It is silly to think that slight variants of 2000/2004 will be the norm indefinitely.

[Politico]

Yeah, Maryland is totally 'up in the air'... and all across New York City, people are chanting amongst themselves, 'Hope?  Nope!'

Obviously Maryland and New York are secure in Obama's column at the moment, but they are not ironclad secure the way that Vermont and Hawaii are.

[Politico]

Yeah, Maryland is totally 'up in the air'... and all across New York City, people are chanting amongst themselves, 'Hope?  Nope!'

it's easy to come up with situations that lead to Obama losing NY. 

e.g.: Israel gets into a war with Iran, Obama refuses to engage the US in the war....the Jews suffer heavy chemical weapons attacks, the MB in Egypt (which Obama helped bring to power) throws it's support behind Iran and starts pouring troops into the Sinai, Iran closes Strait of Hormuz sending oil above $200/barrel, gas prices in the US spike to $10/gallon causing gas lines, US unemployment quickly spikes above 12%....etc, etc, etc.

Any serious instability in the Middle East, even something much less serious than the above, and Obama is screwed if he does anything and screwed if he does nothing.

[Politico]

It's easy to come up with an equally probable situation where Romney loses some of those Politico blue states:

Unemployment falls to 3%...Osama bin Laden rises from the dead only to be captured and killed once again a day before the election, etc

outside of the realm of possibilities, but a ME war is a REAL possibility.

---

, Mitt Romney admits on live television that he will be guided in office by the "words of [his] Mormon gods"

I'm ignoring possible scandals since they are totally unpredictable, and probably unlikely.

so, without a scandal, it is extremely unlikely Romney does not win at least 158-159 electoral votes.

Yeah, it would have to be an epic fail of a campaign for Romney to lose that district in Nebraska and Arizona hence my keeping them blue.

[Politico]

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

Almost all of them have never seen an incumbent lose, let alone go down in flames like Carter (the polar opposite of Nixon just like Obama promised to be the polar opposite of Bush), so we have to cut them some slack.

Incumbents almost always go big one way or the other. 2004 was an anomaly. To find another president involved in a close race, you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson when you discount the unelected Gerald Ford. If I had to bet, I would bet against Obama going big the right way considering the economic environment, or just the fact that all of that 2008 hope/change stuff never came to fruition. He promised the stars yet delivered Bush's third term under a Democratic Congress (Bush was Big Government enough to propose something like ObamaCare, IMHO; just look at the Medicare drug benefits plan he passed). Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Even Obama's biggest supporters are becoming disillusioned with Obama.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall. Obama is going down hard. Oh, and remember the questions people had about whether white people said one thing to pollsters and did another in the polling booth? That effect is going to be very real this time, and it has nothing to do with racism but fear of being labeled racist. My prediction: Obama will over-poll by 3-7 points this time.

[Politico]

This thread isn't about worst-case scenarios... it's about where the race stands.

I understand that, I'm just saying Politico's map isn't that far-fetched - incumbent presidents face far more political risks than challengers do, simply because there's a lot more that can go wrong in 10 months than can go right.

Almost all of them have never seen an incumbent lose, let alone go down in flames like Carter (the polar opposite of Nixon just like Obama promised to be the polar opposite of Bush), so we have to cut them some slack.

Incumbents almost always go big one way or the other. 2004 was an anomaly. To find another president involved in a close race, you have to go back to Woodrow Wilson when you discount the unelected Gerald Ford. If I had to bet, I would bet against Obama going big the right way considering the economic environment, or just the fact that all of that 2008 hope/change stuff never came to fruition. He promised the stars yet delivered Bush's third term under a Democratic Congress (Bush was Big Government enough to propose something like ObamaCare, IMHO; just look at the Medicare drug benefits plan he passed). Just look at Occupy Wall Street. Even Obama's biggest supporters are becoming disillusioned with Obama.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall. Obama is going down hard. Oh, and remember the questions people had about whether white people said one thing to pollsters and did another in the polling booth? That effect is going to be very real this time, and it has nothing to do with racism but fear of being labeled racist. My prediction: Obama will over-poll by 3-7 points this time.

Considering your previous predictions... I feel relatively comfortable.

I've been right about Romney being the one in the primaries, and I'll be right about Romney being the one in the general election.

[Politico]

Your map is too generous for Obama, given that is based on if elections were held today.  Factors to look at, unemployed hovering around 8-10% from now until November 2012, the crisis in Europe with their debt, Iran's nuclear weapons, and gas prices could be $4-$5 a gallon this summer.   Along with Obama axing the Keystone pipeline permit.

The general perception is that the country is on the upswing, albeit from a very deep trough.  We are weathering Europe better than virtually any of the economic forecasts indicated (notice that the market is actually up this week).  Unemployment has been declining for months now and the state of foreign affairs is much less tumultuous than this time last year.  Think Reagan 1983-84, but with the bottom for Obama in October instead of February.

Weathering Europe? This is the calm before the storm, buddy.

[Politico]

actually, Politico's map (minus AZ) is probably Mitt's ground floor - can't really see Mitt doing worse than 159 unless Obama pulls a cure for cancer out of his arse.

But, if everything goes to hell in a hand basket (recession, unemployment >10%, middle-east war sending gas prices >$5, etc...), Obama could be lucky to get 37 electoral votes.

...But, that's obviously not where the election stands today.

Any Democrat's (including Obama's) ground floor right now is about 46%-47% in a two-man race, whatever that means electorally, barring turnout collapse (a la 1988 or 1996, highly unlikely given their far superior turnout operations nowadays).  Republicans need to understand that will not change until the stench of Bush is gone from people's minds, at minimum

The electorate was largely over Nixon by 1976, and completely over him by 1980, so I would not bank on Bush saving Obama's hide.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You do realize we are now in January 2012, not January 2011, right?

[Politico]

Your map is too generous for Obama, given that is based on if elections were held today.  Factors to look at, unemployed hovering around 8-10% from now until November 2012, the crisis in Europe with their debt, Iran's nuclear weapons, and gas prices could be $4-$5 a gallon this summer.   Along with Obama axing the Keystone pipeline permit.

The general perception is that the country is on the upswing, albeit from a very deep trough.  We are weathering Europe better than virtually any of the economic forecasts indicated (notice that the market is actually up this week).  Unemployment has been declining for months now and the state of foreign affairs is much less tumultuous than this time last year.  Think Reagan 1983-84, but with the bottom for Obama in October instead of February.

Weathering Europe? This is the calm before the storm, buddy.

You need to chill a bit.  The markets have now had over a year to price in Europe, and they don't seem particularly concerned.  There is an increasing sense that the global financial establishment is "ready for anything" after 2008. 

Monetary authorities are pretty much out of bullets, so I would caution against this type of thought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not disagree with this, but it is hard to imagine a big shock to financial markets in Europe (think Lehman Brothers except worse) not putting most of the global economy in a state of contraction, at least for a quarter or two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it definitely does not hurt when most of the rest of the developed world is largely in ruins following the worst war of all-time. I think that explains a lot of 1946-1970ish, really.