How likely is this scenario?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

*Obama wins 285-253 against Romney; some Southern states actually swing to Obama due to a reverse Clinton effect of butthurt Perry supporters, as well as the actual Clinton effect having faded. Still, Romney wins every state in the South except Virginia.

*The real Democratic victory is in Congress, however. Democrats take back the House while gaining seats in Massachusetts, Nevada, and Tennessee, while losing North Dakota.

[Penelope]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Definitely possible. The post above isn't as long as his approvals are in the 30s.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

Streaks are worth looking at, but not completely sticking to. Should McCain have won due to the 200-year streak of electing white men to the presidency? Should Obama not have won Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia, since no Democrat has won without them?

[J. J.]

Assuming that Obama recovers, I think this is the most likely scenario:

Even in this situation, the Republican retain control of the House and probably take the Senate.

My worst case scenario for the Democrats is devastating.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yeah, it's pretty much a repackaged 1948.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

don't know if you've looked outside, but the economy appears to be headed into a double dip recession...in which case Obama would be extremely unlikely to win even 10 states.

[Penelope]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

Streaks are worth looking at, but not completely sticking to. Should McCain have won due to the 200-year streak of electing white men to the presidency? Should Obama not have won Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia, since no Democrat has won without them?

No. Trends exist, and will subvert old streaks. But it isn't just the fact that a lot of Presidents have won more their second time around that leads me to believe that in Obama's case, this will also be true. Clearly, in Woodrow Wilson's case this was not true at all.

It's the fact that the next election will be almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. An election like that is never close. It'll be a landslide either for or against Obama.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

don't know if you've looked outside, but the economy appears to be headed into a double dip recession...in which case Obama would be extremely unlikely to win even 10 states.

You mean the one we're in? With the manufactured debt ceiling crisis over, we can finally roll up our sleeves and at least try to get back to what actually matters-creating jobs. Plus, a double-dip would only help the president. If the Republicans think they can get away with destroying their economy to defeat Obama, they're badly mistaken.

[argentarius]

I agree with you about the presidential election (That it is very possible) and Massachusetts (I think a tea partier will beat Brown) but I think it is slightly absurd to say  the democrats will make gains in the senate and take back the house.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

Streaks are worth looking at, but not completely sticking to. Should McCain have won due to the 200-year streak of electing white men to the presidency? Should Obama not have won Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia, since no Democrat has won without them?

No. Trends exist, and will subvert old streaks. But it isn't just the fact that a lot of Presidents have won more their second time around that leads me to believe that in Obama's case, this will also be true. Clearly, in Woodrow Wilson's case this was not true at all.

It's the fact that the next election will be almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. An election like that is never close. It'll be a landslide either for or against Obama.

Right off the bat I can think of 1960, 1976 (it wasn't just Watergate), 1980 (jumped back and forth, happened to take place at a low point for Carter), 1992 (had the election been moved even a few days earlier, it would have been closer) and 2008 before the stock market crash (yes, it was an economic race before that).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

don't know if you've looked outside, but the economy appears to be headed into a double dip recession...in which case Obama would be extremely unlikely to win even 10 states.

You mean the one we're in? With the manufactured debt ceiling crisis over, we can finally roll up our sleeves and at least try to get back to what actually matters-creating jobs. Plus, a double-dip would only help the president. If the Republicans think they can get away with destroying their economy to defeat Obama, they're badly mistaken.

you do know that posters have been banned due to no other reason than sheer idiocy?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If the economy really tanks, the voters know who to blame based on current polling.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If the economy really tanks, the voters know who to blame based on current polling.

Is that why Obama's approval rating on the economy has been hitting new lows?

you're dreaming.  full stop.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If the economy really tanks, the voters know who to blame based on current polling.

Is that why Obama's approval rating on the economy has been hitting new lows?

you're dreaming.  full stop.

And then look at the House Republican approvals, and who Americans are blaming. They're waking up, and the Republicans' time is running out until at least 2020.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And then look at the House Republican approvals, and who Americans are blaming. They're waking up, and the Republicans' time is running out until at least 2020.

my fault, didnt realize the GOP House was going to be headlining the ticket even though Perry is from Texas....how silly of me.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

And then look at the House Republican approvals, and who Americans are blaming. They're waking up, and the Republicans' time is running out until at least 2020.

my fault, didnt realize the GOP House was going to be headlining the ticket even though Perry is from Texas....how silly of me.

1. Rick Perry is like Bush concentrate. He won't be president, ever.
2. 1996? The nominee may as well have been Newt himself.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And then look at the House Republican approvals, and who Americans are blaming. They're waking up, and the Republicans' time is running out until at least 2020.

my fault, didnt realize the GOP House was going to be headlining the ticket even though Perry is from Texas....how silly of me.

1. Rick Perry is like Bush concentrate. He won't be president, ever.
2. 1996? The nominee may as well have been Newt himself.

  in 96, the economy was BOOMING and Dole was boring and from the GOP Senate.  Perry is an excellent campaigner...not that I think he is qualified to be president, but he is a giant killer during campaigns.

as I said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyqLTdcMKig

[Penelope]

As I've said before, Obama will most likely either lose or pick up more EV's. Now that's not saying he'll get 400 or something crazy - he'll get around 369 if he wins (that is, against Romney).

Streaks are worth looking at, but not completely sticking to. Should McCain have won due to the 200-year streak of electing white men to the presidency? Should Obama not have won Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia, since no Democrat has won without them?

No. Trends exist, and will subvert old streaks. But it isn't just the fact that a lot of Presidents have won more their second time around that leads me to believe that in Obama's case, this will also be true. Clearly, in Woodrow Wilson's case this was not true at all.

It's the fact that the next election will be almost exclusively about jobs and the economy. An election like that is never close. It'll be a landslide either for or against Obama.

Right off the bat I can think of 1960, 1976 (it wasn't just Watergate), 1980 (jumped back and forth, happened to take place at a low point for Carter), 1992 (had the election been moved even a few days earlier, it would have been closer) and 2008 before the stock market crash (yes, it was an economic race before that).

And how many of those are similar to this election?

None.

don't know if you've looked outside, but the economy appears to be headed into a double dip recession...in which case Obama would be extremely unlikely to win even 10 states.

Plus, a double-dip would only help the president.

Dude, you're making me agree with JMFCST.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dude, you're making me agree with JMFCST.

...come with me, my son...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yeah, once unemployment sinks to 11% in a 2012 double dip, America will wake up, realize House Republicans are to blame, and then give Obama a rousing re-election romp that includes a Democratic pickup of the House.

This seems totally plausible to someone who has absolutely no grasp on politics whatsoever.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yeah, once unemployment sinks to 11% in a 2012 double dip, America will wake up, realize House Republicans are to blame, and then give Obama a rousing re-election romp that includes a Democratic pickup of the House.

This seems totally plausible to someone who has absolutely no grasp on politics whatsoever.

Had we been pushed to default, of course that would happen. However, right now a sh**tty but not terrible economy is probably the best scenario for the Republicans.

[J. J.]

I agree with you about the presidential election (That it is very possible) and Massachusetts (I think a tea partier will beat Brown) but I think it is slightly absurd to say  the democrats will make gains in the senate and take back the house.

A lot more Democratic seats are up in the Senate and there are five retirements.

As for blaming the GOP in Congress, Rasmussen's generic ballot shows that the GOP leads 43% to 37% and is increasing.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

We're doomed. Fascism is upon us.  it, I give up. Congress needs a good shootup (we can leave Ron Paul and some of the Progressive Caucus alone), and so do their masters in Wall Street and West Jerusalem.

[J. J.]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, we're in a realignment.