When will the GOP regain th White House.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Presuming Obama saves the economy, and is a foreign policy sucess, when will the GOP regain the white house?

Will he walk on water too?

Realistically 2012 with 2016 the latest

2016 at the very earliest, likely 2020 -- if the GOP doesn't disintegrate. Should the GOP disintegrate, we will see a split in the Democratic Party, which will be more relevant.

Haha, I love how nonchalant this guy is about being a hack.  Every one of his posts is so hilariously in favor of Democrats, but the way he phrases it makes it sound like it's so obvious and objective.

Anyway, the GOP should be able to recover by 2012 and if it finds the right candidate (not likely) could win given the right circumstances.  In all likelihood it won't be until 2016 though.  But by then they should have it locked in, unless on the off chance Obama does fantastically well.  If we maintain our standing or improve in 2010 Republicans will be in a pretty good position relative to the past couple years, which will probably happen if we pick up both Virginia and New Jersey.

LOL

Dude, check out the other thread where he nonchalantly claims that Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky will be lean Obama, assuming that we will all accept that as fact.

[pbrower2a]

Presuming Obama saves the economy, and is a foreign policy sucess, when will the GOP regain the white house?

Will he walk on water too?

Realistically 2012 with 2016 the latest

2016 at the very earliest, likely 2020 -- if the GOP doesn't disintegrate. Should the GOP disintegrate, we will see a split in the Democratic Party, which will be more relevant.

Haha, I love how nonchalant this guy is about being a hack.  Every one of his posts is so hilariously in favor of Democrats, but the way he phrases it makes it sound like it's so obvious and objective.

Anyway, the GOP should be able to recover by 2012 and if it finds the right candidate (not likely) could win given the right circumstances.  In all likelihood it won't be until 2016 though.  But by then they should have it locked in, unless on the off chance Obama does fantastically well.  If we maintain our standing or improve in 2010 Republicans will be in a pretty good position relative to the past couple years, which will probably happen if we pick up both Virginia and New Jersey.

LOL

Dude, check out the other thread where he nonchalantly claims that Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky will be lean Obama, assuming that we will all accept that as fact.

I find it surprising -- but such is the result of current opinion (approval rating) polls. Mike Huckabee wins those states should he be the GOP or Reform candidate -- because political culture matters. Romney probably loses them. Obama might edge out Huckabee in Utah in 2012 -- and lose 75-25 to Romney there in 2012. That should demonstrate how fluid I consider the environment for the 2012 election. You will be glad to note that those same polls suggest that Colorado is very shaky for Obama and that he would not win Arizona, let alone Georgia, even if he did win Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  That's how my model works with Obama having a popularity rating around 62% -- and keeping it. 

What should be more significant is that almost everything that Obama won by an 8% or higher margin in 2008 looks like a lock (Nevada possibly excepted, and that due to a lack of polls which allow me to suggest that Obama will win it decisively). 

... Of course, approval ratings in May 2009 will not translate into votes in November 2012; heck, neither did polls of August or September 2008. I just find it remarkable that while Obama has lost nothing in the states in which he won by huge margins, he has gained much in some states in which he was clobbered in November. But note well -- votes in 2008 do not translate easily into votes in 2012. Approval polls are the best that we have for now where they exist, and second-best are the results of the 2008 election.  I would have expected Obama to have lost some support in some of the states that he won by large margins but I wouldn't expect him to have gained so much in such places as Kentucky and Arkansas.

The Republicans don't get the White House back until at least 2016, barring a catastrophic Presidency by Obama. He is just too adept a politician to do a mediocre job and not convince people that he did an adequate one (contrast George H. W. Bush). Besides, the low standard that George W. Bush set only endangered his hidden failure as a President. 

Incumbent Presidents can be defeated, as George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford,  Herbert Hoover, and William Taft have lost the Presidency within the last century.  Anyone who says that Obama is a one-term President assumes that Obama has a huge flaw as a politician. 

So let's look at those who got defeated over a century.

1. W. H. Taft -- lost in a challenge from a predecessor who wanted again to be President.  No possible repetition. After 2012 we get to ignore that one.

2. Herbert Hoover -- economic collapse that began five months into his Presidency. Ironically, Hoover was often predicted to be one of the greatest Presidents of his time until September 1929. The economic collapse that began  in September 2008 began four months before Obama took office.  That's an odd parallel, but much has changed since 1929 -- like deposit insurance, Social Security, and a knowledge of stimulus economics. Obama has plagiarized the FDR playbook -- and he is a far more effective politician than Hoover. There are some parallels, but not enough.

3. Gerald Ford.  Entered the Presidency through the back door -- appointed to replace a disgraced VP, and then took over for a disgraced president.  He had much political experience, but all in the House before becoming VP. Most Presidents are ex-Senators or ex-Governors. Ford almost got re-elected on his merits as President.

4. Jimmy Carter. Probably too eccentric to be President.

5. George H.W. Bush. He succeeded a very popular President, did a few good things, but was an ineffective politician. He had lost a bunch of electoral races before becoming Vice-President. Well-respected after defeat (except by Saddam Hussein), he must have been a poor campaigner for re-election.

What's left? Scandal. Obama would be defeated if he ended up with the sorts of willing women that Bill Clinton attracted. That's race. Do you know something that I don't know? Forget ACORN. Strange things can happen.

Bungled response to a natural disaster? Until 2005 I would have never thought that possible.

Corruption? Do you know something that I don't? Somehow I believe that if Obama were intent on making the most money possible out of politics, he would have stayed in Chicago.

International disaster? Your guess is as good as mine.

The other possibility involves the Grim Reaper. I have no indication that Joe Biden is electable. Do you know something about the health of Barack Obama that I don't know?



   

[pbrower2a]

Here's the map of approval ratings, and it allows for splits of electoral votes in Maine and Nebraska:

This map, unlike previous ones, WILL show results for Nebraska and Maine, states that by law can split their electoral votes. Except in an utter disaster for Obama, Maine will not split its electoral votes; Nebraska barely did in 2008. Now that someone has polled NE-02, Obama's shakiest win in 2008, this map supersedes earlier ones: 

Obama's positive approval rating in Greater Omaha (NE-02) is stronger than his bare margin of  November 2008. It looks as if an election were to be held today between Obama and a generic GOP nominee (which could in theory still be John McCain), then Obama would win handily. He would win everything that he won in 2008 (I assume that he would win the District of Columbia, Maryland, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, and Nevada, all of which were far beyond question after the 2008 election). 

(snip)

Colors are green for a positive difference of approval for Obama, yellow for a negative difference.  These are for the latest polls available by state. Green is positive, yellow negative. There are no ties, so that has no color assigned. Bold is for bona fide battleground states and one Congressional district in 2008.

Darkened yellow (examples AL, AZ, TX, the three)  -- Approval rating above 40%, disapproval rating above 50%

Pale yellow (examples: KS, OK -- the only two) -- Approval rating above 40%, disapproval rating higher but below 50%)

Very pale green (examples: AR, CO, GA, SC) -- Obama approval above 40%, but larger than his disapproval.

Pale green (examples: KY, SD, UT, VA) -- Obama approval rating 50-55%

Medium green (examples: IN, FL, MO, OH, NC, WV) -- Obama approval 56%-65%.

Dark green (examples:  CA, MA, NJ, NY, PA) -- Obama approval 66%-75%

Gray -- unpolled (examples: AK, DC, HI, MD, MS, MT, NE except NE-02, NV)

I created the map -- not the polls. You are welcome to interpret this map any way that you want -- but I wouldn't advise anyone to expect the Republicans to win Maryland or the Obama to win Idaho. Obama will be far more likely to win Colorado than Utah, and the GOP nominee will matter greatly.  Huckabee, should he be the GOP nominee, will win Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Tennessee; Romney will win Utah by a margin of about 65-35 even if Obama has a 60% approval rating in Utah.

Draw your own conclusions. Of course it is inaccurate and subject to change, and it's not even complete. It tells me enough right now to indicate that Barack Obama is not yet the failure that his inveterate detractors think he is, and that people in states that voted strongly for John McCain seem to think that he is at least adequate as President.

Can he fail? Sure. Herbert Hoover entered the Presidency with the most glowing support that anyone ever had, and he had a catastrophic Presidency. We know why.

 
   

     

[Vepres]

I find it surprising -- but such is the result of current opinion (approval rating) polls. Mike Huckabee wins those states should he be the GOP or Reform candidate -- because political culture matters. Romney probably loses them. Obama might edge out Huckabee in Utah in 2012 -- and lose 75-25 to Romney there in 2012. That should demonstrate how fluid I consider the environment for the 2012 election. You will be glad to note that those same polls suggest that Colorado is very shaky for Obama and that he would not win Arizona, let alone Georgia, even if he did win Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  That's how my model works with Obama having a popularity rating around 62% -- and keeping it. 

What should be more significant is that almost everything that Obama won by an 8% or higher margin in 2008 looks like a lock (Nevada possibly excepted, and that due to a lack of polls which allow me to suggest that Obama will win it decisively). 

If the election were to be held today, than your map would carry some weight. As it is, the President still appears to be in his honeymoon period (which I believe will end when he starts tackling health care reform), which means that approval rating polls conducted during said period, while interesting, have little bearing on the 2012 election. If his approvals are still greater than 50% in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, among others in 2011, than we can start to look at his odds of winning those states in 2012. As it is, we have no idea what his approval ratings will be in 2012, or what the state of the GOP will be, or who the Republican nominee will be. So while the map you posted is very interesting, I wouldn't use it to analyze how an election 3 1/2 years from now will be.

[pbrower2a]

I find it surprising -- but such is the result of current opinion (approval rating) polls. Mike Huckabee wins those states should he be the GOP or Reform candidate -- because political culture matters. Romney probably loses them. Obama might edge out Huckabee in Utah in 2012 -- and lose 75-25 to Romney there in 2012. That should demonstrate how fluid I consider the environment for the 2012 election. You will be glad to note that those same polls suggest that Colorado is very shaky for Obama and that he would not win Arizona, let alone Georgia, even if he did win Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  That's how my model works with Obama having a popularity rating around 62% -- and keeping it. 

What should be more significant is that almost everything that Obama won by an 8% or higher margin in 2008 looks like a lock (Nevada possibly excepted, and that due to a lack of polls which allow me to suggest that Obama will win it decisively). 

If the election were to be held today, than your map would carry some weight. As it is, the President still appears to be in his honeymoon period (which I believe will end when he starts tackling health care reform), which means that approval rating polls conducted during said period, while interesting, have little bearing on the 2012 election. If his approvals are still greater than 50% in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, among others in 2011, than we can start to look at his odds of winning those states in 2012. As it is, we have no idea what his approval ratings will be in 2012, or what the state of the GOP will be, or who the Republican nominee will be. So while the map you posted is very interesting, I wouldn't use it to analyze how an election 3 1/2 years from now will be.

The honeymoon is over. Your caveat is valid -- but this map of approval ratings is all that we have now. The assumption that Obama is in political trouble so early and is thus doomed is even less valid. I can well state the limitations of this model; I figure that Jimmy Carter was about as popular in May 1977 as Obama is now, and I also recognize what happened to Jimmy Carter. I also recognize Carter's political weaknesses that weren't so obvious in 1976; he was simply too eccentric to be an effective President.

Obviously we will better know how the 2012 election will look in 2012 than now. Heck, a year ago, Obama seemed to have no real chance to win the Presidency, and look who is President now.  Can Obama keep a 62% approval rating nationwide, ensuring an electoral blowout? I doubt it.  But as it is, the chance that a GOP nominee will defeat the Democratic nominee in 2012 is now a longshot.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, this is a daring prediction of the 2012 election, and I have no reason to believe that things will turn out quite this way. But such is what the model gives me based on the most recent election (November 2008, which was six months ago) in the absence of subsequent pools, the most recent approval poll, or an extrapolation from a neighboring (and very similar) state or states (i.e. -- ND and MT to SD, and NE as intermediate between SD and KS).  In all sincerity I do not believe that either Kansas, Oklahoma, or Utah will be as close as the model indicates. The model suggests that Ohio is a lock for Obama but Virginia isn't (go figure!), that Obama has no chance in Arizona or Georgia or that Colorado is a toss-up.

From left to right in Nebraska are NE-01 (eastern Nebraska other than Greater Omaha), NE-02 (Greater Omaha), and NE-03 (central and western Nebraska). Note well that the so-called Blue Firewall is as solid as ever, if not even more so, and in view of the large number of states that the model shows in medium red, the GOP has its work cut out.

Electoral vote counts are as in 2008, which surely won't hold true in 2012.  This map is made to change; there will be change. Some of these current projections will of course be rendered silly in 41 months.

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes, this is a daring prediction of the 2012 election, and I have no reason to believe that things will turn out quite this way. But such is what the model gives me based on the most recent election (November 2008, which was six months ago) in the absence of subsequent pools, the most recent approval poll, or an extrapolation from a neighboring (and very similar) state or states (i.e. -- ND and MT to SD, and NE as intermediate between SD and KS).  In all sincerity I do not believe that either Kansas, Oklahoma, or Utah will be as close as the model indicates. The model suggests that Ohio is a lock for Obama but Virginia isn't (go figure!), that Obama has no chance in Arizona or Georgia or that Colorado is a toss-up.

From left to right in Nebraska are NE-01 (eastern Nebraska other than Greater Omaha), NE-02 (Greater Omaha), and NE-03 (central and western Nebraska). Note well that the so-called Blue Firewall is as solid as ever, if not even more so, and in view of the large number of states that the model shows in medium red, the GOP has its work cut out.

Electoral vote counts are as in 2008, which surely won't hold true in 2012.  This map is made to change; there will be change. Some of these current projections will of course be rendered silly in 41 months.

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

It's for the best that you included that caveat.

[pbrower2a]

If in 2012 Obama manages to not only win Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky but also come within 5% of winning Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah while also making Nebraska and Arkansas tossups, I will personally devote my life to your cause and do nothing but promote Democrats.

That map is the single most absurd projection I have ever seen on this website.

I don't expect you to make good on that promised devotion. I don't believe that map myself. It is based on the most recent information, and not upon reasonable expectations of an incumbent President holding a 62% approval rating. If he should achieve his promises without doing harm, then such is possible. I hardly expect that.

It is possible that America will be less polarized along regional lines in 2012 than in 2008. Such polarization began in 2000 with the high point power of the Religious Right, an entity much stronger in some states (particularly in the South, Plains, and Mountain states) but very weak in the Northeast and the Pacific Coast states. I look at Obama's 53-47 win of popular votes and see what would have been a 400+ EV landslide except for the extreme polarization of voting. FDR had a similar split of the popular vote in 1944 and won 432 electoral votes with Hawaii, Alaska, and DC unavailable.  A reduction of regional polarization would itself give Obama more electoral votes with a similar margin of popular votes. That is more statistics than politics. Statistics don't win elections; politics do.

Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah close? That is counter-intuitive. But sometimes truth is counter-intuitive. In 2008 I couldn't believe that Obama could hold leads in either Indiana,  North Carolina, or Virginia... but he won them.  I find it hard to believe that Mississippi and Alabama won't again polarize along racial lines even if such is bad politics (such promotes machine politics and hence corruption even in rural counties and hick towns) for voters. I can't imagine LDS members in Utah, Idaho, or Wyoming becoming liberals.

The polls do not show political failure for Obama -- yet. Were such so, one would see a sort of "buyers' remorse", with Obama support sagging where he won big. I don't see that yet. If anything I see gains in support where Obama got clobbered, suggesting that many people who didn't vote for him give him a chance. If Obama achieves what he promises and does no blatant harm, then those people can imagine voting for Obama in 2012. If he disappoints -- he loses in some of those places, and if the disappointment is extreme he just might lose some of the states that he absolutely had to win in 2008. Any question?   

... In any event, I can understand how America has become so polarized as it did. Before 2000, candidates ordinarily ran nationwide campaigns that neglected the reality of the Electoral College. In 2000 Karl Rove introduced the practice of winning by winning the right "metrics" in elections -- constituencies that might be the difference between winning and losing specific states. (I have disparaged Rove for many things, but such is legitimate politics in this case) and did so again in 2004. In 2008, Obama won by campaigning in the right places that could make a difference given the time constraints,  which implied getting to places where he could find large audience in states on the margin (Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada) -- as a rule, big cities and their suburbs. It's far more cost-effective and time-effective to have a campaign on such an approach.That's not how to govern.

Government is service -- not politics. Any politician who fails to recognize that distinction deserves to be defeated  in the next election and probably will -- even if he is so masterful a campaigner as Barack Obama. We have 41 months in which we get to see whether Obama is a shrewd campaigner and a fine President or whether he is a shrewd campaigner and a mediocre-to-poor President. In 2008 he ran on promises; in 2012 he wins or loses on his record.  What could be simpler as a concept?

[Vepres]

I find it surprising -- but such is the result of current opinion (approval rating) polls. Mike Huckabee wins those states should he be the GOP or Reform candidate -- because political culture matters. Romney probably loses them. Obama might edge out Huckabee in Utah in 2012 -- and lose 75-25 to Romney there in 2012. That should demonstrate how fluid I consider the environment for the 2012 election. You will be glad to note that those same polls suggest that Colorado is very shaky for Obama and that he would not win Arizona, let alone Georgia, even if he did win Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  That's how my model works with Obama having a popularity rating around 62% -- and keeping it. 

What should be more significant is that almost everything that Obama won by an 8% or higher margin in 2008 looks like a lock (Nevada possibly excepted, and that due to a lack of polls which allow me to suggest that Obama will win it decisively). 

If the election were to be held today, than your map would carry some weight. As it is, the President still appears to be in his honeymoon period (which I believe will end when he starts tackling health care reform), which means that approval rating polls conducted during said period, while interesting, have little bearing on the 2012 election. If his approvals are still greater than 50% in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, among others in 2011, than we can start to look at his odds of winning those states in 2012. As it is, we have no idea what his approval ratings will be in 2012, or what the state of the GOP will be, or who the Republican nominee will be. So while the map you posted is very interesting, I wouldn't use it to analyze how an election 3 1/2 years from now will be.

The honeymoon is over. Your caveat is valid -- but this map of approval ratings is all that we have now. The assumption that Obama is in political trouble so early and is thus doomed is even less valid. I can well state the limitations of this model; I figure that Jimmy Carter was about as popular in May 1977 as Obama is now, and I also recognize what happened to Jimmy Carter. I also recognize Carter's political weaknesses that weren't so obvious in 1976; he was simply too eccentric to be an effective President.

Obviously we will better know how the 2012 election will look in 2012 than now. Heck, a year ago, Obama seemed to have no real chance to win the Presidency, and look who is President now.  Can Obama keep a 62% approval rating nationwide, ensuring an electoral blowout? I doubt it.  But as it is, the chance that a GOP nominee will defeat the Democratic nominee in 2012 is now a longshot.

I don't believe the honeymoon is over (though I must say that I am relatively new to politics compared to many on this site. 2008 was the first election I really followed with interest, so I may be lacking perspective), so let's agree to disagree on that one. I didn't say he was politically doomed or even weak, or that health care would blow up in his face. I was simply trying to state that these are possibilities at this point in time. 

[pbrower2a]

Subtle change (Nevada):

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

[??????????]

Tell me what the weather will be like on this day in 2010. Your prediction holds just as much water.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

If in 2012 Obama manages to not only win Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky but also come within 5% of winning Alabama, Oklahoma, and Utah while also making Nebraska and Arkansas tossups, I will personally devote my life to your cause and do nothing but promote Democrats.

That map is the single most absurd projection I have ever seen on this website.

LOL!!!!!

Thank you. What Mr. Long-winded forgets is that approval doesn't directly correlate to a victory in all states. Chafee had a 60% approval or something in RI when he lost his Senate race. But yes, if Alabama is competitive in 2012, I'll do the same thing. I look forward to campaigning with you!

[pbrower2a]

Tell me what the weather will be like on this day in 2010. Your prediction holds just as much water.

As I said in an earlier post,

Some of these current projections will of course be rendered silly in 41 months.

Obama will delight some sensibilities and offend some. There will be historic events that he can meet well or bungle badly. The Republicans will absolutely not nominate a "generic" candidate but instead someone with distinctive strengths and weaknesses as a candidate -- that means regional strengths and weaknesses, too. Utah certainly won't be close if Romney is the nominee, and Arkansas is an almost certain Huckabee win. Some of what is on this map is counter-intuitive -- for instance that Obama has a better chance of winning Tennessee than Arizona. 

Can I translate an approval rating into votes? Of course not. Can Obama maintain an approval rating around 62% until November 2012? Probably not.

Try to figure what this map means: that if there were a snap election without an active campaign, then Obama would win handily. In essence he would have firm wins of every state that he won by a large margin, every other state that he won by a firm margin by a large margin, and every state that was really close (including Missouri and Montana, which were close). He would probably pick off West Virginia and the Dakotas, which weren't. Surely you have no cause to believe that Obama wouldn't win Maryland, D.C., Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont by large margins? Until I have polls to contradict that assumption, I predict that the 'generic' GOP nominee will win Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska by huge margins.   

Elections are of course not held under those circumstances, and you can be certain that the Republicans will put up a spirited campaign in 2012. I don't  expect the electoral map of 2012 to look like this -- but this is the best that I can make with the information available, including:

1. The 2008 election

2. The most recent polls, if available (in all but 11 states) -- and oddly in NE-02.

3. The expectation that certain states move together (examples: MT, ND, SD; ME, VT, NH, MA) if polls do not exist to indicate otherwise.

This map has obvious similarities to the 2008 electoral results, except that it generally increases Obama's likelihood of success in 2012 in most states. For 2008 people generally began with the map for 2004. How many people thought that a generic Democrat had a chance to win Indiana in 2008 back in 2005? (Well, Obama proved to be anything but generic).

Do I expect Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas, or Utah to be really close for Obama? Of course not. Do I expect Mississippi (which has yet to be polled) to vote more Republican than Alabama? Of course not.  Texas? That state will be interesting due alone to demographic trends. 

If Obama becomes an ultra-liberal as his detractors say that he is, then he has no way of winning anything south of the Ohio and the Potomac -- including Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. But if he becomes Reagan-like in pragmatism and gets results that people generally like, then the Republicans had better expect a major defeat in 2012. He might then eke out a bare win.

This map suggests as if Obama will win a huge landslide -- at least on the scale of Eisenhower in 1956, if not Reagan 1984 or LBJ 1964. In May 2009 such surprises me, too. Again,

Some of these current projections will of course be rendered silly in 41 months.

If I were giving odds on the basis of my intuition, the map would have some dissimilarities. I figure, for example, that Obama has a 90%+ chance of winning New York, a 80-90% + chance of winning Michigan, a 70-80% chance of winning Iowa, a 60-70% chance of winning Colorado, somewhat over 50% of winning Indiana, somewhat less than 50% of winning Georgia, a 30%-40% chance of winning Kentucky, a 20-30% chance of winning Kansas, a 10-20% chance if winning Utah...

You are right; my intuition is not entirely reliable.   

[Vepres]

pbrower2a and I had a little exchange about his earlier. While one shouldn't say Obama is invincible because of exit polls (and pbrower2a said this too), it is still interesting to look at. One thing that intrigues me is that the President has relatively low approval ratings in Colorado and Arizona, while he has relatively high ones in the border states and the south.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

In the mega-scenario I have been writing lately, the Republican party regains the White House after President Rory Reid proves to be the worst president in history, (yes, worse than Dubya, Carter, Buchanan, Hoover, et al.) and loses his 2032 reelection bid.

I really should post this some time.

Yes, do it. Seems interesting.

[pbrower2a]

Subtle change (one that I believe [Oklahoma], one on the margin between categories [Virginia], and one that I don't believe [Alabama]):

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

The approval rating for Obama in Oklahoma is 35% with a disapproval rate in the 50's; Alabama comes up with an approval rate in the 50s. Oklahoma fits what I suspect will be so; Alabama violates my intuition. But such are the rules for my model. Virginia approval at 56% combined with a 2008 performance puts Virginia in the "Strong Obama" category.

I told you that the model is at best a snapshot.

As in 2008, popular opinion may yet polarize by November 2012. But what if it doesn't?

[Vepres]

Subtle change (one that I believe [Oklahoma], one on the margin between categories [Virginia], and one that I don't believe [Alabama]):

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

The approval rating for Obama in Oklahoma is 35% with a disapproval rate in the 50's; Alabama comes up with an approval rate in the 50s. Oklahoma fits what I suspect will be so; Alabama violates my intuition. But such are the rules for my model. Virginia approval at 56% combined with a 2008 performance puts Virginia in the "Strong Obama" category.

I told you that the model is at best a snapshot.

As in 2008, popular opinion may yet polarize by November 2012. But what if it doesn't?

0

Isn't it ironic that Colorado is toss-up and Arizona is barely Republican, while Montana, the Dakotas, and Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana are in the Democratic column?

[pbrower2a]

Subtle change (one that I believe [Oklahoma], one on the margin between categories [Virginia], and one that I don't believe [Alabama]):

Projection:
Navy -- Generic Republican strong (10% or more)
Blue  -- Generic Republican weak   (5 - 9.9%)
Pale blue -- Generic Republican, barely (under 5%)
Yellow -- Undeterminable or toss-up
Pink -- Obama, barely (under 5%)
Red -- weak Obama (5-9.9%)
Deep red -- strong Obama (10% or more)

The approval rating for Obama in Oklahoma is 35% with a disapproval rate in the 50's; Alabama comes up with an approval rate in the 50s. Oklahoma fits what I suspect will be so; Alabama violates my intuition. But such are the rules for my model. Virginia approval at 56% combined with a 2008 performance puts Virginia in the "Strong Obama" category.

I told you that the model is at best a snapshot.

As in 2008, popular opinion may yet polarize by November 2012. But what if it doesn't?

0

Isn't it ironic that Colorado is toss-up and Arizona is barely Republican, while Montana, the Dakotas, and Tennessee, Kentucky, and Louisiana are in the Democratic column?

Because the last poll for South Dakota was above 50% approval for Obama (SD and ND move together and MT is a bit more Democratic than either Dakota) -- as are the approval polls for LA, KY, and TN. (They are for Alabama and Utah, too, but on those I draw the line).  How could Alabama be more Democratic than either Mississippi or Georgia?  I don't believe it.

I really need an algorithm.

Could Obama be gaining support in some of the places that voted against him? Could that be how he gets nearly a 60% approval rating?  Is that how a nationwide 60% approval rating manifests itself?

Mississippi could be very interesting.

[Ogre Mage]

Normally I don't like to speculate about something so far in the future.  It depends largely on the strength of Obama's successor and to a lesser degree what Obama chooses to do.  We don't know if he will involve himself in the 2016 Democratic Primary.  The GOP could regain the White House in 2016.  But in a bad scenario for them I could see them locked out until 2024.

[pbrower2a]

One predicts on the basis of either divination  or upon historical precedent. Most of us find divination  of any form too unreliable to be useful; historical analogies involve analogies. One chooses historical analogies on several criteria, one of which is wishful thinking.

Those who want the GOP to win back the Presidency in 2012 (and much else) take comfort in the idea that Obama could be the new Jimmy Carter -- an eccentric who should never have become President whose administration could not prevent events of symbolic humiliation undermining his Presidency -- or George H. W. Bush, well-respected after the fact but who had no idea of what he would do after his successes in foreign policy. Some go so far as to say that Obama is just too left-wing for a "real" America that believes in the Bible, guns, and "free enterprise" and that his election was a temporary aberration.  Such manifests itself in the divisive rhetoric of Sarah Palin whose "Real (name state)" implies that rural, intellect-distrusting, self-reliant America is genuine and the rest is not. Core city and suburban America aren't going to shrink; rural America, awash as it is in meth, is no longer a paradise.

The other side of the debate holds that the GOP is in a death spiral whence it cannot extricate itself and that America is headed to a new Era of Good Feeling.  2010 will be bad for the GOP, 2012 will feature a loss on the scale of Mondale/McGovern/Goldwater/Landon for the GOP nominee, 2014 will be worse, and the GOP will likely end up smaller than the Libertarian, Reform, or Green Party. The Democratic Party will become unwieldy and split into two new parties that can in fact compete.

This is certain: Obama wins with even mediocre achievements in 2012.

The GOP must get its old game back together if it is to remain viable, and it won't be enough to offer the appeal to an idyllic rural America that no longer exists. It needs a new story. 

[??????????]

Are you any good at splitting logs?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The other side of the debate holds that the GOP is in a death spiral whence it cannot extricate itself and that America is headed to a new Era of Good Feeling.  2010 will be bad for the GOP, 2012 will feature a loss on the scale of Mondale/McGovern/Goldwater/Landon for the GOP nominee, 2014 will be worse, and the GOP will likely end up smaller than the Libertarian, Reform, or Green Party. The Democratic Party will become unwieldy and split into two new parties that can in fact compete.

Uh... no.

Though there certainly are some folks in the GOP who won't be satisfied until our Party is as small and "pure" as the third parties you mentioned.

[Citizen James]

Presuming Obama saves the economy, and is a foreign policy sucess, when will the GOP regain the white house?

Given your assumptions, either 2020 or 2024. 

My guestimates on odds:

2012: <5% - Successful presidents tend to get reelected.   Since your scenario assumes success, this one's a gimmie.

By 2016 30-40% Historical data is tricky here, Truman inherited the post and won a narrow victory (in the PV anyway), Nixon and Gore both lost in controversial squeakers - and in both those cases they distanced themselves from their predecessors (Nixon because Ike wasn't fond of him, Gore because he wanted to distance himself from the Lewinski scandal), and GHWB who won handily against a Democratic party which was clinging to old ideological purity.  So with the historical tendencies ranging from narrow loss to decent win, odds tend to favor the Democrats.

By 2020: 60-70%  It gets trickier when you get further out like this.  But by here there's been enough time to become complacent and a fair amount of generational turnover.  Expect the GOP (or whomever replaces them if they continue to cling to socially reactionary views) to be somewhat different and far more pragmatic by this point.  My gut feeling tells me that this will be a watershed election, but I just ate chili, so it may be nothing.

By 2024 - 90% change happens, and the white house changes parties now and then.  No party has held the whitehouse for more than 4 terms since FDR/Truman - and that was because FDR had four terms.

[Psychic Octopus]

Honestly, (and i'm going against my party when I say this) republicans have a little chance to regain it in 2012. They are leaderless, obama is treated like a demigod, the press (don't deny) is in love with him, George Bush is still in the news (somehow...), and Rush has been painted as their leader.


Here's my thinking.


2012: Too soon for a republican/conservative to win. I just don't think it's possible. America (and the press/world) loves Obama. I'd give it 20% chance.

2016: I'd give it a 50% chance. It all depends on if the demcorats can get the ball rolling and if the republicans can find (good, not old or wrinkly) leaders. 

2020: I'd give it a 75% chance. God Knows what will happen in the next ten years though.

[Beet]

Honestly, (and i'm going against my party when I say this) republicans have a little chance to regain it in 2012. They are leaderless, obama is treated like a demigod, the press (don't deny) is in love with him, George Bush is still in the news (somehow...), and Rush has been painted as their leader.

The election is in 2012 though, not 2009.