Forum Dems in denial about 2012

[Kevin]

Every time I log onto this forum I see frequently mentioned in threads about how Obama is going to win in a landslide "winning states like AZ, MO, and IN, NC again. We can't be that hackish can we? I mean saying that Obama is going to win more then they did in 2008 is defying the current electoral situation for him. The only reason he came close or win states like MO, IN, NC was due to the global financial meltdown less then 2 months before the election and the sheer unpopularity of Bush.

However, since his inauguration the economic situation has improved very little and there still is a slow economic bleeding in the economy overall. The Democrats lost the House, a majority of Governorships, and came close to forfeiting the Senate last November. Polling has also shown people strongly disapproving of the direction of the country, Obama's economic policies, and much of his key legislation. Not to mention his approvals are on the downwards again.

I mean given how bad things are overall, I don't see Obama winning in a landslide at all. Although I do admit that Obama does stand a somewhat decent chance of winning reelection and the problems and infighting within the Republican party does go a ways towards this. However, the last 2-term Democrat Bill Clinton who won his 2nd chance in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

[Lief 🗽]

However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Yes he did.

[GLPman]

Every time I log onto this forum I see frequently mentioned in threads about how Obama is going to win in a landslide "winning states like AZ, MO, and IN, NC again. We can't be that hackish can we? I mean saying that Obama i going to win more then they did in 2008 is defying the current electoral situation for him. The only reason he came close or win states like MO, IN, NC was due to the global financial meltdown less then 2 months before the election and the sheer unpopularity of Bush.

However, since his inauguration the economic situation has improved very little and there still is a slow economic bleeding in the economy overall. The Democrats lost the House, a majority of Governorships, and the Senate last November. Polling has also shown people strongly disapproving of the direction of the country, Obama's economic policies, and much of his key legislation. Not to mention his approvals are on the downwards again.

I mean given how bad things are overall, I don't see Obama winning in a landslide at all. Although I do admit that Obama does stand a somewhat decent chance of winning reelection and the problems and infighting within the party does go a way towards this. However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Thank you.

[TerroristFistJab]

IF the GOP puts up a  presentable and credible  candidate that can appeal to  mainstream voters like moderates and independents,  then they have great chance in 2012.   but  they seem to be fighting this tooth and nail. 

[sg0508]

IF the GOP puts up a  presentable and credible  candidate that can appeal to  mainstream voters like moderates and independents,  then they have great chance in 2012.   but  they seem to be fighting this tooth and nail. 

As of now, the ball is in the GOP's court.  A lot depends on their nominee.  Obama is simply waiting either for the economy to improve, or for the GOP to commit a major flop and nominate a Bachmann, which would be far worse than the 2010 Senate disasters in DE, CO or NV.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Every time I log onto this forum I see frequently mentioned in threads about how Obama is going to win in a landslide "winning states like AZ, MO, and IN, NC again. We can't be that hackish can we? I mean saying that Obama i going to win more then they did in 2008 is defying the current electoral situation for him. The only reason he came close or win states like MO, IN, NC was due to the global financial meltdown less then 2 months before the election and the sheer unpopularity of Bush.

However, since his inauguration the economic situation has improved very little and there still is a slow economic bleeding in the economy overall. The Democrats lost the House, a majority of Governorships, and the Senate last November. Polling has also shown people strongly disapproving of the direction of the country, Obama's economic policies, and much of his key legislation. Not to mention his approvals are on the downwards again.

I mean given how bad things are overall, I don't see Obama winning in a landslide at all. Although I do admit that Obama does stand a somewhat decent chance of winning reelection and the problems and infighting within the party does go a way towards this. However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Thank you.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Yes he did.

Don't forget Reagan had a similar approval rating to Obama at this point. Truman, IIRC, was horrible.

[opebo]

Kevin, I'm not in denial, and I do agree with you that many forum Democrats are overconfident.  The situation is very, very bad - a great depression.  I'd call the outcome a toss-up at this point.

Obama can win, but I think he will have considerably fewer states than he did in '08.  Essentially the only thing which will get him re-elected is the knowledge that your party caused the depression - a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate realizes this or at least has a visceral fear of the poor-killing party, now that they are become poor.

[sg0508]

Kevin, I'm not in denial, and I do agree with you that many forum Democrats are overconfident.  The situation is very, very bad - a great depression.  I'd call the outcome a toss-up at this point.

Obama can win, but I think he will have considerably fewer states than he did in '08.  Essentially the only thing which will get him re-elected is the knowledge that your party caused the depression - a surprisingly large percentage of the electorate realizes this or at least has a visceral fear of the poor-killing party, now that they are become poor.

The other way the GOP loses is if they nominate someone who is just unelectable (i.e. Bachmann) on a national level. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Yes he did.

Don't forget Reagan had a similar approval rating to Obama at this point. Truman, IIRC, was horrible.

Yes. Just remember how optymistic were the Democrats about unseating Reagan at this point.

[Paul Kemp]

Both sides will think they're going to win until fall '12.

[Mechaman]

Both sides will think they're going to win until fall '12.

The best post so far.
Electoral politics are a lot like my timelines: not even I know what is going to happen until right before a presidential election.

[Bull Moose Base]

Both sides will think they're going to win until fall '12.

Don Draper couldn't have said it more dismissively himself.

[memphis]

Just as soon as any specific GOP nominee can regularly tie/beat Obama in polling, I'll concede that Obama is in trouble. While the GOP primary race has been a topsy-turvy ride as Republicans swing from one flavor of the week to the next, the general polls consistantly show Obama winning. That said, the usual caveat about how election is more than a year away etc.....

[J. J.]

I'm the guy who keeps saying "Don't write Obama off just yet."  Right now, on Gallup, his numbers are lower than Clinton and  G. W Bush at the same point.  They are higher than Reagan's.  In the Clinton and Reagan cases, they are close.

One very troubling thing is that all three two termers were off their lows at this point, by at least 7 points, and that two of them were trending higher.  Obama is not doing either.  It sure looks like Obama's numbers might be sliding in the future, based on history.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm the guy who keeps saying "Don't write Obama off just yet."  

lol

[King]

This election still has plenty of turns.  One big one coming up will be the debt ceiling.  It's quite possible crafty Republicans will bankrupt the country and spin it as the O's fault.

But Kevin makes a good point, a Democratic President has not won re-election since Bill Clinton.  And we all know how many Democratic Presidents we've had in between Obama and Clinton.

[Skill and Chance]

If Truman can come back from 39% approval in September/October to win the election by 5% of the popular vote, then it is utterly foolish to write anyone off 16 months before the election.  Gallup had a poll  from the summer of 1983 with Reagan trailing Mondale 41-50.  That also means not getting too cocky because Obama is up on Romney in VA and FL right now.


PS:  If you are a Democrat, the best case scenario may not actually be a second Obama term.  Even if Obama wins in a landslide, he will never have a Congress that can actually pass liberal policy through 2016.  If the economy is as stubborn as it seems, what goes around comes around- the Dems get to Carterize the GOP incumbent and make big gains in congress in 2016.  Then things like single payer and carbon taxes would be back on the table, instead of deciding which programs to cut next.  Of course, if we start getting 1 M jobs per month in 2014, the Dems are screwed for a generation if Obama loses...              

[DS0816]

Every time I log onto this forum I see frequently mentioned in threads about how Obama is going to win in a landslide “winning states like AZ, MO, and IN, NC again. We can’t be that hackish can we? I mean saying that Obama i going to win more then they did in 2008 is defying the current electoral situation for him. The only reason he came close or win states like MO, IN, NC was due to the global financial meltdown less then 2 months before the election and the sheer unpopularity of Bush.

At this site, I find that *a*s use the word hackish.

Please go back to pollings from 2008 to re-check the timeline. Indiana was pure tossup — after Bush carried it in 2004 by 20.68% — before Obama won his party’s nomination in June. The home state of 2004 Democratic vice-presidential running mate John Edwards, North Carolina was competitive. (It has carried for all D presidents except Bill Clinton, who narrowly missed flipping it in 1992, and then saw Bob Dole get a little more R shift in 1996 — six years prior to wife Liddy winning the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Jesse Helms. Of course, Liddy was unseated six years thereafter by Kay Hagan.) And bellwether Missouri — in Bush’s column by 7.20% — was in play well before this “global financial meltdown less [than] 2 months before the election.”

So glad, though, you used the words “the sheer unpopularity of Bush.”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Inherited by his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. Always remember that!

Correction: Democrats did not lose majority control of the Senate.

(Also, the car business is back — and those not in that business have no idea how influential that is to the rest of the country. Jobs recovery is slower than how it should be. But this is the worst the country’s been in since the Great Depression. But, hey, look at how good Bush was at losing us jobs. How many he created.)

Midterms aren’t the same as presidentials. Governorships don’t mean *s*. Was anyone here in 2003 worried about W.’s re-election prospects after his party lost the governorships in Wyoming, Tennessee, Kansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma with the 2002 midterm? (Plus, Michigan and Pennsylvania and bellwether New Mexico, which Bush narrowly missed in 2000? Ditto, in 2001, with Virginia and New Jersey?) And in the 2010 congressional elections, Republicans blew the opportunity to pick up the Senate given it was on the trajectory to do so. (I’m referring to a period before the general that determined party nominees. Charlie Cook forecast the House flip approximately a year in advance! Look at Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada. And let us not forget opportunity with Connecticut and West Virginia — lousy candidates in all. With Colo., pissed away by Ken Buck, the Weld County D.A., who had pollings lead near to the end. Had the party nominated former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, she would’ve landslided incumbent appointee Michael Bennet — and she would have won the female along with the male vote. Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell took Mike Castle’s roughly-15-point polling lead and reversed it — shifting it a good 30 points away from the party that was on the trajectory to flip Joe Biden’s old seat. And does anyone need reminders of Nevada?)

Please keep in mind that, since the 17th Amendment was adopted nearly 100 years ago, only one president elected to at least two terms never lost same-party control of either house of Congress: Franklin Roosevelt. All the rest did: Woodrow Wilson (House and Senate, 1918); Dwight Eisenhower (House and Senate, 1954); Ronald Reagan (Senate, 1986); Bill Clinton (House and Senate, 1994); George W. Bush (Senate, 2001; House and Senate, 2006). (Richard Nixon never had same-party control of either house of Congress.)

Also keep in mind that, post-17th Amendment, there isn’t a presidential election where the prevailing party saw the House or Senate flip to the losing opposition party. (In other words, Republicans win back the Senate in 2012 only if they’re winning back the White House. Oh, sure, the trend can be bucked: It nearly happened in 2000 when, in a White House party-pickup for the Rs, Team Red went into the election with 54 Senate seats and would up losing four of the Ds that would make Dick Cheney the tie-breaking vote in the next Congress. But I hold that Rs win back the Senate if the White House comes first. Otherwise, it stays with the Ds with a re-election for the president.)

Obama’s job-approval rating isn’t where Bush’s was his last two years in office — below 40% — which put the nail in the coffin for any would-be successor hoping to hold with Election 2008 the White House for the Republican Party.

[DS0816]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look up the subject realigning elections, please. Also: take a look at presidential elections since 1856. You should notice that all those who won a second term — even non-consecutive Grover Cleveland — had an electoral-vote count gain with re-elections, compared to first-term victory. Just one exception to this: 1916 Woodrow Wilson; but consider 1912 Republican rift between the incumbent, William Howard Taft, and his predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy reduced Taft down to two states, Utah and Vermont, and he took six that had voted for Taft in 2008: California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. The rest — plus first-time participants Arizona and New Mexico — ended up in Wilson’s column.  The Rs regrouped for 1916, and that’s why they reduced the electoral-vote count of Wilson, who even lost his home state of New Jersey to challenger Charles Evans Hughes. This was during a realigning period favoring the Rs, from 1896–1928, with Wilson was the only D president.

Yes, of course when Bill Clinton won re-election to a second term in 1996 he became the first Democrat to win that second term since 1936 Franklin Roosevelt. But when Dwight Eisenhower won re-election to a second term in 1956, he became the first Republican to win that second term since 1900 William McKinley. Keep in mind the in-betweens who either died in office, or were replacements who won one full-term election but did not seek a second full term. Mitigating factors. Clinton was the only two-term D president during the realigning period for the Rs of 1968–2004. Ike was the only R president, with two terms (of course), during a realigning period for the Ds, 1932–1964.

You look at today’s two parties, and their latests with presidential elections — and go ahead and hone in popular-vote margin and Electoral College. It’s not the Republicans but the Democrats who have advantage.

The 1970s and 1980s Rs won more than 400 electoral votes in all their victories. In the 2000s, they never reached 300. 1972 Richard Nixon won against unviable George McGovern by a national margin of 23.15%. 1980 Ronald Reagan unseated Jimmy Carter by 9.75% and won re-election, in 1984, by 18.22%. 1988 George W. Bush did what third-consecutive-election party holds normally do — see a significant reduction of support that doesn’t go deep enough for the flip of the White House; he lost about 60% of Reagan’s margin, had an increase only in Tennessee, and beat Dukakis nationally by 7.73% while still reaching 400 in the Electoral College. For the 2000s, his son didn’t beat Al Gore in the popular vote. Bush, Jr. shifted 1996 Bob Dole’s loss of –8.52% by 8.00%, and he came up short at –0.52%. In 2004, and as a wartime president, his shift was only +2.98%, and a national margin victory of 2.46% — historically the lowest for a re-elected incumbent, winning a second term (like with the majority who came before) with gains.

Let us keep in mind that Bush Sr. had more electoral votes combined winning [426] and losing [168] than Bush Jr. had with his two [271 and 286] — that’s 594 to 557. 

With the 1990s’ and 2000s’ winning Democrats, and that neither Bill Clinton or Barack Obama were under 5.50% nationally, and both had 2-to-1 victories in the Electoral College: unseating Bush, Sr. in 1992, Clinton shifted +11.29% of Michael Dukakis’s loss of –7.73% to win the popular vote by a margin of 5.56%. His re-election margin shift was +2.96% so that he beat Bob Dole by 8.52%. (This was mentioned already.) In 2008, Barack Obama shifted 9.72% of John Kerry’s 2004 loss of –2.46% to prevail over John McCain by 7.26%.

I look at this way: There are four scenarios worth consideration for Election 2012…

A) Republican Party wins back the White House. A 7.27% to 9.72% shift of the popular vote, for a national margin between 0.01% and 2.46%. All states that were 2008 Democratic pickups flip back to the Rs. New Hampshire is the bonus state. Electoral-vote count is, once again, under 300. (This would be the case for Rs to win back the Senate. It would come along for the ride.) Since Rs and Ds first battled in 1856, just three party-pickups lost bid for re-election: 1888 Grover Cleveland was unseated by Benjamin Harrison; 1892 saw a rematch and Harrison was, in turn, unseated by Cleveland; 1980 Jimmy Carter was unseated by Ronald Reagan. Both Ds were unseated during realigning periods for the Rs: 1860–1892 and 1968–2004.

B) Democratic bare hold, where Barack Obama becomes first re-elected incumbent with electoral-vote decline since 1916 Woodrow Wilson — despite 2008 being the first election in a realigning period for the Ds. (Due to voting pattern, this scenario is the one I tend to dismiss. If he’s suffering such decline, the electorate tends to let these going-south-numbers make enough of the difference to sweep out the incumbent and/or flip party control.)

C) Democratic retained (variation on status quo), where Obama does some color-trading with select states (no greater than five would be involved). This would come from a modest gain in his popular-vote margin (say, 3 to 5 percent). Theoretically, the R challenger gets the pickup in Indiana (and, perhaps, the 2nd congressional district in Nebraska). D incumbent — who doesn’t lose No. 10 most-populous North Carolina (party’s convention hosting state; Ds have lost in one, while winning the election, since 1960!) — counters with pickups between these three (all in which Obama won the female vote): Missouri (R+0.13%), Montana (R+2.38%), and Georgia (R+5.20%). If any of those three need a substitute, that would come in the form of Arizona (R+8.48%), which is seemingly more of a reach but has been — since its first in 1912 — in the column for all two-term presidents at least once. Ariz. voted with the winner its first five decades (1910s till the 1950s), and gave the flip/carriage to Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996. (45%/45% was the male/female support for Obama in 2008. Females drew back, after giving John Kerry 47%, to give more support for home son John McCain.) Electoral vote — with consideration to reallocation — would go from 365, in 2008, to somewhere in the 370s but not beyond the 380s.

D) Democratic landslide. If this scenario were to play out in 2012, it would make Barack Obama just the fifth two-termer — given R-vs.-D. — to retain every state won in first election and build from there. (The other four were 1864 Abraham Lincoln, 1936 Franklin Roosevelt, 1972 Richard Nixon, and 1984 Ronald Reagan. What would enable this is a bomb of an opposition party’s nominee. That explained all four others, against George McClellan, Alf Landon, George McGovern, and Walter Mondale.) Basically, he’d pick up nearly all or every state in John McCain’s column by 10 points or less: Mo., Mont., Ga., Ariz., plus South Dakota (R+8.45%), North Dakota (R+8.65%), South Carolina (R+8.95%), and the 1st congressional district in Nebraska. Possibly, outside the single digit, select others under 20%, like Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, Nebraska (statewide or whole), and Kansas; well… it would stem from essentially doubling his national 2008 margin of 7.26%. Electoral vote would shoot past the 400 mark.

[Meeker]

Who are these Democrats claiming that Obama will win with a wider margin than 2008? I haven't noticed that.

[Kevin]

However, the last Democrat to win reelection was Bill Clinton in good times, and even he didn't surpass his electoral vote margin in his second run.

Yes he did.

Well my mistake but he did lose alot ground in many places in comparison to 92.

[DS0816]

This election still has plenty of turns.  One big one coming up will be the debt ceiling.  It's quite possible crafty Republicans will bankrupt the country and spin it as the O's fault.

But Kevin makes a good point, a Democratic President has not won re-election since Bill Clinton.  And we all know how many Democratic Presidents we've had in between Obama and Clinton.

No, it's not a good point. See 1956 Dwight Eisenhower.

[pbrower2a]

Every time I log onto this forum I see frequently mentioned in threads about how Obama is going to win in a landslide "winning states like AZ, MO, and IN, NC again. We can't be that hackish can we? I mean saying that Obama is going to win more then they did in 2008 is defying the current electoral situation for him. The only reason he came close or win states like MO, IN, NC was due to the global financial meltdown less then 2 months before the election and the sheer unpopularity of Bush.

In the absence of polls, nobody can predict how Indiana will vote.  Most likely the situation of 2008, a rarity in which Barack Obama long had a rare chance to win Indiana in a close election (the last time that that was possible was 1948, when Harry Truman barely lost the state). Indiana was close all summer, but Barack Obama wasn't going to let it be the state that decided the election. Favorite Son John McCain won Arizona by a margin less than the usual margin for a Favorite Son, suggesting that the state will be closer in 2012 without a Favorite Son. Missouri was extremely close in 2008 -- so close that the difference between winning and losing for the President was that Ralph Nader picked up more votes that would have never gone for John McCain than Bob Barr picked up votes that would have never gone for Barack Obama. (North Carolina was the opposite. Tellingly, my last prediction in [September]2008 exchanged Missouri for North Carolina because I did not account for third-party votes and was otherwise right).   That's not to say that my predictions now will be right. My predictions are partly counter-intuitive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nobody can deny the nastiness of the economic conditions that we all endure. The Republicans got their chance, and so far they have rarely convinced Americans that they can make things better. The Republicans have elected governors who are incredibly unpopular -- some so unpopular that they inspire demonstrations against them.  Approval ratings for the House Republican majority are abysmal.

Republicans are in a position in which, if they had desirable solutions for getting America out of the economic mess that it is in, would be in a good position to win. But what do they offer? Deflation that will make any debt (whether student loans, residential mortgages, medical debt, or even credit-card balances) more onerous after personal savings have largely been depleted. Less economic certainty for the bulk of Americans -- which will even further erode consumer confidence. Privatization of Medicare into the hands of entities which will make medical care more expensive. Tax cuts for the super-rich who did more to dismantle manufacturing jobs. More reliance upon cartels and trusts whose profits depend upon the management not so much of bounty as of scarcity.  It's shock therapy whose only guarantees are that America will look more like the sorts of countries that many of our ancestors (not my case, but we know some) emigrated from about a hundred years ago. What the Republicans offer must work so well that it overpowers the implicit injustice and cruelty. This isn't some country recently recently delivered from Commie rule; this is a country which offers few opportunities for successful privatization. (Oddly, President Obama did privatize GM and Chrysler).       

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a set of maps in another thread predicting the 2012 Presidential election based upon the most recent reliable polls -- mostly PPP (which gave a GOP advantage in 2008 contrasted to reality), a significant number of Quinnipiac polls, and some university polls. Polls by special interest groups and those that ask about favorability instead of approval are not included. Check that thread (The Official Obama Approval) for my maps -- and my reasoning.   



44% approval is roughly the break-even  point (50/50) for an incumbent's win.  I add 6% for approval between 40% and 45%, 5% at 46% or 47%, 4% between 48% and 50%, 3% for 51%, 2% for 52% or 53%, 1% for 54% and nothing above 55% or below 40% for an estimate of the vote.

This model applies only to incumbents, who have plenty of advantages but not enough to rescue an unqualified failure.

             
deep red                  Obama 10% margin or greater 122
medium red              Obama, 5-9.9% margin  134
pale red                   Obama, margin under 5% 83
white                        too close to call (margin 1% or less) 0
yellow                        close, but Obama wins against any major Republican candidate  11
orange                        close, but Obama loses against any major Republican candidate 3
Obama wins against all but  Romney 23
Obama ties one candidate, but defeats everyone else  20
close, but Obama wins against someone other than Romney 81
pale blue                  Republican  under 5% 12
medium blue             Republican  5-9.9% margin 3
deep blue                 Republican over 10%  10 

The addition of up to 6% to the President's approval ratings is what Nate Silver suggests for Governors and Senators approval ratings  as a prediction of what happens as one of those elected officials goes from governing mode or legislative mode to campaign mode. I apply this to the Presidency because much the same applies to the most recent Gallup nationwide poll of approval for the President with the qualification that the President

(1) won't campaign where he either has chance to win
(2) won't campaign where he has things seemingly sown up, and
(3) won't get more than 62% of the popular vote because not even FDR did.

As you can see I use matchups as a test of the assumption that a 44% approval is the break-even point.   

[anvi]

Here is the way I see it at the moment, Kevin.

Definitely no landslide for whoever wins.  I think the election of 2012 will be decided by nine states.  In alphabetical order, they are:

Colorado
Florida
Iowa
Nevada
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia

Nine tossup states is less than normal in a modern presidential race.  At this point, I see a good (non-nutter) GOP nominee having the advantage in Ohio and Virginia.  I see Obama having the advantage in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada, though the latter two only narrowly.  The other states are tossups.  Whoever wins will win by a narrow margin.  In fact, even apart from this election, a landslide in modern American politics, given its degree of polarization, would be quite shocking.  (And no, I don't consider Obama's win in 2008 to have been a landslide; McCain got 59 million plus votes, quite a good showing in an exceptionally bad year for the GOP.  It didn't shake out well for McCain on the electoral map, but the most generous characterization I would give Obama's '08 win would be "substantial.")  Who the GOP nominates is really crucial, given how close I think the race will be.  If they don't pick someone who can appeal to moderates and independents, they won't win; if they do, I think they can.  But I do think the GOP will pick a competitive nominee, and so I don't think the general election will be boring at all, I think it will be a nail-biter.