Have your Predictions Lauged at in JUST THREE YEARS! 2012 Predictions

[Vepres]

Obama/Biden Vs. Romney/Thune

Obama's approvals remain in the mid-forties throughout the campaign. The economy had improved in 2010, only to drop down again in late 2011. Romney runs on his economic credentials and returns to his more socially moderate roots. Polls show the election tied until the second (town hall) and third (domestic) debates, where polls show that a significant portion of the public viewed Romney as the victor. Thune performs well in the debate and defeats Biden, but this has little effect on the campaign.

Ultimately, Obama does well in the south due to Romney's Mormonism, while Romney performs well in the mountain west because of his quasi-libertarian campaign, and does well in the upper mid west because of his ties to the region and the economic problems.

After the 2012 elections, Republicans gain/maintain a majority in the house, and come just a few seats shy of a senatorial majority with 48 seats to the Democrats 50 seats + 2 independents.

[Vepres]

His choice of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court turns out to be a disaster, as a shocking video of her is uncovered where she talks about her hatrid of whites and men.

While this is possible, this is way too optimistic on your part. She will most likely be confirmed. Also, wars with North Korea and Iran? This seems highly unlikely as well. These guys have been "threats" for years, but have done nothing more than weapons tests. Still, I believe the map you made could happen, even under a more realistic scenario.

[Vepres]

Obama/Biden Vs. Romney/Thune

Obama's approvals remain in the mid-forties throughout the campaign. The economy had improved in 2010, only to drop down again in late 2011. Romney runs on his economic credentials and returns to his more socially moderate roots. Polls show the election tied until the second (town hall) and third (domestic) debates, where polls show that a significant portion of the public viewed Romney as the victor. Thune performs well in the debate and defeats Biden, but this has little effect on the campaign.

Ultimately, Obama does well in the south due to Romney's Mormonism, while Romney performs well in the mountain west because of his quasi-libertarian campaign, and does well in the upper mid west because of his ties to the region and the economic problems.

After the 2012 elections, Republicans gain/maintain a majority in the house, and come just a few seats shy of a senatorial majority with 48 seats to the Democrats 50 seats + 2 independents.

Uh, I dont see Republicans picking up eight Senate seats in 2012. 

1. This assumes they hold all their seats in 2010 and possibly gain a few.
2. My scenario assumes there is a second, though not as severe, recession as sort of a relapse of the first, never good for the incumbent party.
3. Republicans have structural advantages because Democrats have far more seats to defend that year (these were people from the 2006 elections, a heavily Democratic year).
4. Because of the recession, Obama doesn't turn out the youth like he did in 2008, and they vote in much the same way as other groups because they become disenchanted with Democrats. They would only be +2-5 Democrat instead of +10 or more Dem like this year.

[Vepres]

Obama/Biden Vs. Romney/Thune

Obama's approvals remain in the mid-forties throughout the campaign. The economy had improved in 2010, only to drop down again in late 2011. Romney runs on his economic credentials and returns to his more socially moderate roots. Polls show the election tied until the second (town hall) and third (domestic) debates, where polls show that a significant portion of the public viewed Romney as the victor. Thune performs well in the debate and defeats Biden, but this has little effect on the campaign.

Ultimately, Obama does well in the south due to Romney's Mormonism, while Romney performs well in the mountain west because of his quasi-libertarian campaign, and does well in the upper mid west because of his ties to the region and the economic problems.

After the 2012 elections, Republicans gain/maintain a majority in the house, and come just a few seats shy of a senatorial majority with 48 seats to the Democrats 50 seats + 2 independents.

Uh, I dont see Republicans picking up eight Senate seats in 2012. 

1. This assumes they hold all their seats in 2010 and possibly gain a few.
2. My scenario assumes there is a second, though not as severe, recession as sort of a relapse of the first, never good for the incumbent party.
3. Republicans have structural advantages because Democrats have far more seats to defend that year (these were people from the 2006 elections, a heavily Democratic year).
4. Because of the recession, Obama doesn't turn out the youth like he did in 2008, and they vote in much the same way as other groups because they become disenchanted with Democrats. They would only be +2-5 Democrat instead of +10 or more Dem like this year.

Republicans cannot possibly hold every won of their seats in 2010.  New Hampshire, Missouri, and Ohio are probably leaning Dem now and Republicans are going to need a lot of luck to find many seats to offset those.  The best case scenario for Republicans in the Senate in 2010 is breaking even.  In 2012, Republicans would probably be favored to pick up Nebraska and North Dakota without incumbents running and would have at least an even chance in Florida and West Virginia in an open seat scenario and could be able to beat Webb, Tester and McCaskill in a 1980 style Carter-like trainwreck where Obama only gets around 100 EV's.  That would get them to 47 seats in a picture perfect scenario. 

I disagree. Yes, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri (though McCain did win Missouri, which makes me think it's stronger R than the previous two) are vulnerable. But, Illinois, Delaware (if Castle runs), Colorado (untested incumbent), New York (simply because an untested incumbent vs. one of two strong GOP contenders, King or Pataki), Nevada (because Reid is weak), and Connecticut (because Dodd is really weak) are all possible pickups for the GOP, surely you don't think won't win any of these? I think Colorado and Connecticut are particularly vulnerable.

(Sorry for the long list, but it illustrates my point)

[Vepres]

Obama/Biden Vs. Romney/Thune

Obama's approvals remain in the mid-forties throughout the campaign. The economy had improved in 2010, only to drop down again in late 2011. Romney runs on his economic credentials and returns to his more socially moderate roots. Polls show the election tied until the second (town hall) and third (domestic) debates, where polls show that a significant portion of the public viewed Romney as the victor. Thune performs well in the debate and defeats Biden, but this has little effect on the campaign.

Ultimately, Obama does well in the south due to Romney's Mormonism, while Romney performs well in the mountain west because of his quasi-libertarian campaign, and does well in the upper mid west because of his ties to the region and the economic problems.

After the 2012 elections, Republicans gain/maintain a majority in the house, and come just a few seats shy of a senatorial majority with 48 seats to the Democrats 50 seats + 2 independents.

Uh, I dont see Republicans picking up eight Senate seats in 2012. 

1. This assumes they hold all their seats in 2010 and possibly gain a few.
2. My scenario assumes there is a second, though not as severe, recession as sort of a relapse of the first, never good for the incumbent party.
3. Republicans have structural advantages because Democrats have far more seats to defend that year (these were people from the 2006 elections, a heavily Democratic year).
4. Because of the recession, Obama doesn't turn out the youth like he did in 2008, and they vote in much the same way as other groups because they become disenchanted with Democrats. They would only be +2-5 Democrat instead of +10 or more Dem like this year.

Republicans cannot possibly hold every won of their seats in 2010.  New Hampshire, Missouri, and Ohio are probably leaning Dem now and Republicans are going to need a lot of luck to find many seats to offset those.  The best case scenario for Republicans in the Senate in 2010 is breaking even.  In 2012, Republicans would probably be favored to pick up Nebraska and North Dakota without incumbents running and would have at least an even chance in Florida and West Virginia in an open seat scenario and could be able to beat Webb, Tester and McCaskill in a 1980 style Carter-like trainwreck where Obama only gets around 100 EV's.  That would get them to 47 seats in a picture perfect scenario. 

I disagree. Yes, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri (though McCain did win Missouri, which makes me think it's stronger R than the previous two) are vulnerable. But, Illinois, Delaware (if Castle runs), Colorado (untested incumbent), New York (simply because an untested incumbent vs. one of two strong GOP contenders, King or Pataki), Nevada (because Reid is weak), and Connecticut (because Dodd is really weak) are all possible pickups for the GOP, surely you don't think won't win any of these? I think Colorado and Connecticut are particularly vulnerable.

(Sorry for the long list, but it illustrates my point)

New York is a royally blue state where any Republican needs a large number of crossover Democrats to win.  Delaware and Illinois will only be competitive if Republicans can get Kirk and Castle to run.

Wasn't King, a GOP representative from NYC, considered competitive due to his strengths and the Democrats' relative weakness in the state?

[Vepres]

Obama/Biden Vs. Romney/Thune

Obama's approvals remain in the mid-forties throughout the campaign. The economy had improved in 2010, only to drop down again in late 2011. Romney runs on his economic credentials and returns to his more socially moderate roots. Polls show the election tied until the second (town hall) and third (domestic) debates, where polls show that a significant portion of the public viewed Romney as the victor. Thune performs well in the debate and defeats Biden, but this has little effect on the campaign.

Ultimately, Obama does well in the south due to Romney's Mormonism, while Romney performs well in the mountain west because of his quasi-libertarian campaign, and does well in the upper mid west because of his ties to the region and the economic problems.

After the 2012 elections, Republicans gain/maintain a majority in the house, and come just a few seats shy of a senatorial majority with 48 seats to the Democrats 50 seats + 2 independents.

Uh, I dont see Republicans picking up eight Senate seats in 2012. 

1. This assumes they hold all their seats in 2010 and possibly gain a few.
2. My scenario assumes there is a second, though not as severe, recession as sort of a relapse of the first, never good for the incumbent party.
3. Republicans have structural advantages because Democrats have far more seats to defend that year (these were people from the 2006 elections, a heavily Democratic year).
4. Because of the recession, Obama doesn't turn out the youth like he did in 2008, and they vote in much the same way as other groups because they become disenchanted with Democrats. They would only be +2-5 Democrat instead of +10 or more Dem like this year.

Republicans cannot possibly hold every won of their seats in 2010.  New Hampshire, Missouri, and Ohio are probably leaning Dem now and Republicans are going to need a lot of luck to find many seats to offset those.  The best case scenario for Republicans in the Senate in 2010 is breaking even.  In 2012, Republicans would probably be favored to pick up Nebraska and North Dakota without incumbents running and would have at least an even chance in Florida and West Virginia in an open seat scenario and could be able to beat Webb, Tester and McCaskill in a 1980 style Carter-like trainwreck where Obama only gets around 100 EV's.  That would get them to 47 seats in a picture perfect scenario. 

I disagree. Yes, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri (though McCain did win Missouri, which makes me think it's stronger R than the previous two) are vulnerable. But, Illinois, Delaware (if Castle runs), Colorado (untested incumbent), New York (simply because an untested incumbent vs. one of two strong GOP contenders, King or Pataki), Nevada (because Reid is weak), and Connecticut (because Dodd is really weak) are all possible pickups for the GOP, surely you don't think won't win any of these? I think Colorado and Connecticut are particularly vulnerable.

(Sorry for the long list, but it illustrates my point)

New York is a royally blue state where any Republican needs a large number of crossover Democrats to win.  Delaware and Illinois will only be competitive if Republicans can get Kirk and Castle to run.

Wasn't King, a GOP representative from NYC, considered competitive due to his strengths and the Democrats' relative weakness in the state?

King never represented NYC.  He holds the most Republican district on Long Island. 

My bad. Still, I heard he is a strong potential challenger.

[Vepres]

Obama/Clinton vs Romney/Collins

Joe Biden dropping out because of health issue

No way Obama wins Kentucky without winning Indiana, even with Clinton on the ticket.