How likely is this scenario?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I'd say. Missouri, Indiana, and Montana are strong for Obama, and California goes >60% Republican?

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

We're doomed. Fascism is upon us.  it, I give up.

well, you Dems have one hope left for 2012:  the economic numbers get so bad and scary, Obama turns white.



(cue opebo in 4...3...2...)

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Woah, did I just have a nervous breakdown?

[J. J.]

I'd say. Missouri, Indiana, and Montana are strong for Obama, and California goes >60% Republican?

I made a mistake and didn't turn off the percentages. I fixed it.  I am nowhere near the percentages yet.

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

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

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

looks like a cool map..but since Dave has put away his crayons, can we PLEASE switch the colors now?

[Torie]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

[Link]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

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

Clean break with reality.

[Penelope]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you are dreaming.

fixed

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you are dreaming.

fixed

[TheGlobalizer]

If Obama wins, this is more or less what the map looks like, with VA/OH rattling around.

I think it's more likely that Obama ends up getting the Marcellus-Wallace-in-the-basement treatment, however.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

If Obama wins, this is more or less what the map looks like, with VA/OH rattling around.

I think it's more likely that Obama ends up getting the Marcellus-Wallace-in-the-basement treatment, however.

Rape by a sex slave who lives in a coffin/cage (can't remember) and eventually killing his captors and escaping? Sounds like victory to me.

[TheGlobalizer]

If Obama wins, this is more or less what the map looks like, with VA/OH rattling around.

I think it's more likely that Obama ends up getting the Marcellus-Wallace-in-the-basement treatment, however.

Rape by a sex slave who lives in a coffin/cage (can't remember) and eventually killing his captors and escaping? Sounds like victory to me.

Pyrrhic victory, perhaps.  Maybe he should ask Carter how his a**hole is doing.

[J. J.]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

There is whole thread on the possibility of a realignment which was started in January 2008.

As I said, "Obama, Worse Case Scenario." It is basically the very left wing states and the home states of Obama and Biden.

Like I said, if we see this map, you are looking at a re-alignment.

1980 was the re-aligning election as I define it.  V. O. Key called the "critical elections" and probably would have defined 1984 as that election.  He did regard 1936 as the "critical election."

I regard it as being a lot more gradual, taking place over 8 years.  We may have started one in 2010, and if we get a map like this one, the probability will be that we are in one.  I basically said by 2016 we'd be in one, but I had no idea what it would look like.

Here is the thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

In other words:

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you may be looking into the future.

A re-alignment would produce a map that would resemble this, if not be identical to this.  An Obama defeat, but a strong showing, would not signal a realignment.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Today I learned not to listen to Dead Kennedys in a bad mood. I sound like a right-wing troll pretending to be a liberal hack.

[redcommander]

I don't think Obama could win New Hampshire now. It would take a very crappy candidate or campaign to allow him to win the state. Heck even Rick Perry would probably start out as the favorite in the state.

[TheGlobalizer]

FWIW, I do not expect a realignment with Obama as a candidate.

I can see one happening soon, however, depending on how the left/progressives and right/conservatives shift in defining themselves in the next 2 elections.  Think left-populism vs. tech-savvy-independent for Democrats, and socon vs. libertarian for Republicans.  If the Dems went more populist and the Republicans more libertarian, with Dems adopting more socially conservative views and Republicans a more tolerant tech-savvy posture, you could start to see a significant realignment which actually strikes me as a bit more intuitive to existing and especially future demographics (think a Mountain West libertarian vs. a Rust Belt populist).

Just for for sh**s and giggles, imagine this electoral math:

Pro-business libertarian vs. populist social conservatives.  (I've assumed a balanced electoral map due to the necessity of electoral sensibility and the establishment of a new middle.)

I know, long-shot, but I personally feel states like MN and TX are a lot more similar in attitude than the current political cleavages show.  Austin is similar to Minneapolis, and podunk TX is similar to podunk MN.  TX is certainly more socially conservative overall but TX is also less authoritarian.

I'd see the battleground states being CA, FL, PA, and possibly the pro-business south (GA, TN, NC, TX).

Anyway, probably rolling off topic at this point.

[Link]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

There is whole thread on the possibility of a realignment which was started in January 2008.

As I said, "Obama, Worse Case Scenario." It is basically the very left wing states and the home states of Obama and Biden.

Like I said, if we see this map, you are looking at a re-alignment.

1980 was the re-aligning election as I define it.  V. O. Key called the "critical elections" and probably would have defined 1984 as that election.  He did regard 1936 as the "critical election."

I regard it as being a lot more gradual, taking place over 8 years.  We may have started one in 2010, and if we get a map like this one, the probability will be that we are in one.  I basically said by 2016 we'd be in one, but I had no idea what it would look like.

Here is the thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

In other words:

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you may be looking into the future.

A re-alignment would produce a map that would resemble this, if not be identical to this.  An Obama defeat, but a strong showing, would not signal a realignment.

Clean break with reality.

[cavalcade]

The map in the OP is pretty much what I'm expecting right now, if no recession.

Against Romney, +/- Iowa and New Hampshire.
Against Perry, +/- Ohio.

So very possible.


If there is a double dip, then give either Perry or Romney a win.  But I'd guess unemployment would have to be 12% for either of them to win a Kerry state other than New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

[CARLHAYDEN]

*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.

I disagree with you on Virginia, but everything else looks quite plausible.

[J. J.]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

There is whole thread on the possibility of a realignment which was started in January 2008.

As I said, "Obama, Worse Case Scenario." It is basically the very left wing states and the home states of Obama and Biden.

Like I said, if we see this map, you are looking at a re-alignment.

1980 was the re-aligning election as I define it.  V. O. Key called the "critical elections" and probably would have defined 1984 as that election.  He did regard 1936 as the "critical election."

I regard it as being a lot more gradual, taking place over 8 years.  We may have started one in 2010, and if we get a map like this one, the probability will be that we are in one.  I basically said by 2016 we'd be in one, but I had no idea what it would look like.

Here is the thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

In other words:

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you may be looking into the future.

A re-alignment would produce a map that would resemble this, if not be identical to this.  An Obama defeat, but a strong showing, would not signal a realignment.

Clean break with reality.

No, I've talking about the possibility of a realignment since January 2008, but after 2008.  Like so many other things that you fail to grasp, some of what I said to expect in a realignment has already happened.

I'm not calling the realignment yet, but the odds on it have gotten better.  Keep in mind that a map like the one below would not indicate a realignment.

If this map occurs, there probably will not be a realignment, though Obama loses.

[mondale84]

Delaware hanging red while MA, CA and NY go blue is curious JJ. By the way, the term "realignment" means something with some staying power. Do you remember the 1984 map?  Was that a "realigning" election?  The term "realignment" is overused, and each time it is used, it should be taxed really. I hereby declare it an act in interstate commerce.

There is whole thread on the possibility of a realignment which was started in January 2008.

As I said, "Obama, Worse Case Scenario." It is basically the very left wing states and the home states of Obama and Biden.

Like I said, if we see this map, you are looking at a re-alignment.

1980 was the re-aligning election as I define it.  V. O. Key called the "critical elections" and probably would have defined 1984 as that election.  He did regard 1936 as the "critical election."

I regard it as being a lot more gradual, taking place over 8 years.  We may have started one in 2010, and if we get a map like this one, the probability will be that we are in one.  I basically said by 2016 we'd be in one, but I had no idea what it would look like.

Here is the thread:  https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=69332.0

In other words:

This is "Obama, Worse Case Scenario" map:

If you see this map, you may be looking into the future.

A re-alignment would produce a map that would resemble this, if not be identical to this.  An Obama defeat, but a strong showing, would not signal a realignment.

Clean break with reality.

No, I've talking about the possibility of a realignment since January 2008, but after 2008.  Like so many other things that you fail to grasp, some of what I said to expect in a realignment has already happened.

I'm not calling the realignment yet, but the odds on it have gotten better.  Keep in mind that a map like the one below would not indicate a realignment.

If this map occurs, there probably will not be a realignment, though Obama loses.

You may keep dreaming about a realignment in favor of Republicans, but it might just be the opposite. How are Obama's approval ratings so lackluster and he still is so competitive with the Republican field in important swing states and nationally? Perhaps because 2008 was a realignment and people are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because Republicans are viewed as ridiculously extreme. Let's remember that specific pieces of Obama's agenda (such as healthcare) are unpopular because they aren't liberal enough...

...for the 'pubs out there, keep your heads on straight

[King]

I enjoy J.J.'s realignment scenario as though it's the Democratic Party that is the one that is dying.  Sure, Dem leadership is full of pussies right now, but Republicans are the ones who are actually out of touch with the American people.

[J. J.]

You may keep dreaming about a realignment in favor of Republicans, but it might just be the opposite. How are Obama's approval ratings so lackluster and he still is so competitive with the Republican field in important swing states and nationally? Perhaps because 2008 was a realignment and people are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because Republicans are viewed as ridiculously extreme. Let's remember that specific pieces of Obama's agenda (such as healthcare) are unpopular because they aren't liberal enough...

...for the 'pubs out there, keep your heads on straight

Since I posted it in January 2008, I obviously was looking for a Republican realignment.  I also expected the Republican nominee to be elected.

2008 definitely was not the realignment since we saw what happened in 2010.

Ah, Obamacare is unpopular because it is a expansion of government.

I enjoy J.J.'s realignment scenario as though it's the Democratic Party that is the one that is dying.  Sure, Dem leadership is full of pussies right now, but Republicans are the ones who are actually out of touch with the American people.

Ah, you better go back and read the thread.  I have not said "dying," but changing.

[Penelope]

 

You may keep dreaming about a realignment in favor of Republicans, but it might just be the opposite. How are Obama's approval ratings so lackluster and he still is so competitive with the Republican field in important swing states and nationally? Perhaps because 2008 was a realignment and people are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because Republicans are viewed as ridiculously extreme. Let's remember that specific pieces of Obama's agenda (such as healthcare) are unpopular because they aren't liberal enough...

...for the 'pubs out there, keep your heads on straight

Since I posted it in January 2008, I obviously was looking for a Republican realignment.  I also expected the Republican nominee to be elected.

2008 definitely was not the realignment since we saw what happened in 2010.

Ah, Obamacare is unpopular because it is a expansion of government.

I enjoy J.J.'s realignment scenario as though it's the Democratic Party that is the one that is dying.  Sure, Dem leadership is full of pussies right now, but Republicans are the ones who are actually out of touch with the American people.

Ah, you better go back and read the thread.  I have not said "dying," but changing.

J.J., I often like to think that you're just trying to be a good political analyst, trying to figure out what will happen.

Then I realize that you are actively looking for, not just for a regular realignment (which would be perfectly acceptable to be looking for), but a Republican realignment.

You insinuate in this post that 2008 clearly could not have been a realignment because the GOP won a lot of seats in 2010. I think it's a lot more clear that you don't think that 2008 could be a realignment because you're still in disbelief that John McCain lost. Get over it.

A realignment does not require that the President's party win a whole bunch of seats, or even keep congress in the midterms. Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and (IIRC) Richard Nixon, would tend to disagree with you. Even so, Barack Obama has kept one house of congress, and the Republicans in congress tend to be less popular than the Democrats in congress. Obama continues to lose to the Generic Republican, while winning fairly well against all named candidates. This tells us that people don't like Republicans, but they don't like Obama, and probably wouldn't vote against him unless something really catastrophic happened.

[Link]

J.J., I often like to think that you're just trying to be a good political analyst, trying to figure out what will happen.

That was your first mistake.