I think Charlie Cook is wrong. I don’t care what the polls show right now, next year’s election is not going to be close and whichever party wins the presidential election will have huge wins in the House. The Senate is a different matter. The Republicans are largely inoculated against any big losses in the Senate simply because they are only defending 10 seats and most of those are in extremely red states.
It’s possible that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination and he could conceivably win or lose in a close election that mirrors the near-ties we saw in 2000 and 2004. If Romney does not win the nomination, the odds are that Obama will win reelection in a fashion more reminiscent of Nixon and Reagan’s reelection than Clinton or Bush’s. But even a Romney/Obama matchup is unlikely, in my view, to be close. I think, ultimately, that people will reject one or the other of them rather emphatically.
I don’t think the economy will be the deciding factor. At least, not if it stays the way it is now. I think the election will be decided in much the same fashion as the 1980 election. That contest was close until mid-October, when it tilted heavily and decisively in Reagan’s direction. Carter probably would have survived even in the face of a pathetic economy if people had the sense that he had our foreign policy under control. But he couldn’t solve the Iranian Hostage Crisis, so people really had nothing to point to argue that the president was doing a good job. They rolled the dice on a B-List actor.
I think the same conditions will apply next year. Obama will have to face the voters and defend a record that has not been able to significantly reduce the unemployment rate or the housing crisis. But his opponent won’t have much credibility as an alternative. I do not believe that the people will be convinced that electing a Republican is the solution to our economic problems. But, if we’re suffering some crisis in our foreign policies in addition to tough economic conditions, people may just decide that Obama isn’t getting it done on any level.
I think people are beginning to realize that the Republicans really have only one viable candidate, meaning only one candidate who could avoid a complete blowout. But Mitt Romney is an extremely flawed candidate. He is performing pretty well in the debates, but he just doesn’t inspire anyone and he can’t decide what he believes. He’s probably the worst flip-flopper in the history of politics, going all the way back to Greek city-states and including all races down to unincorporated hamlets. He’s also the unlikeliest champion imaginable for the anti-Obama crowd. He could still win and win big. But he’ll need some divine providence to make it happen.
You’re leaving out the third option, which is chickenshit “swing” voters reelecting Obama while being squeamish about giving Democrats control over both chambers. A lot of suburban districts could fail to flip back as a sort of political hedge, since the Democratic base is so urbanly centered. Even if Democrats win 25-30 seats back in the House, that barely leaves them with a working majority in 2013.
I leave it out because I think it is so unlikely.
Set aside the Senate, where we could lose control even while winning 80 house seats and 400 electoral votes.
Obama is running against Congress. He has no choice, and he should be running against Congress, because they’re the biggest problem we have in this country and everyone knows it. Congress has its lowest approval ratings in the history of polling. Obama will either win or lose that argument. But it won’t be a split.
Now, to put the Senate back on the table, we should lose it just by the numbers. But we could hold on or even add two or three seats in a Nixon-McGovern type of situation.
If we take your 1980 example, Republicans “only” won 34 new seats that year. Which wasn’t enough to flip control of the chamber. Now, you can say that’s because the D–>R southern strategy transition hadn’t progressed quickly enough to shift the former confederacy, but still.
Republicans only flipped 16 seats in the 84 blowout. Incumbency trickles down and weirdly enough, across party lines. Voters are usually conservative in their thought processes.
Only 1948 resembles your thinking.
Obama is running against Congress now. He won’t be running against Congress next year; he’ll be running against a Republican nominee.
Remember the 2000 election, in which Bush actually triangulated against the Republicans in Congress. Romney would very likely do the same thing.
How would all this calculation change, do you think, if Hillary Clinton were to be Obama’s running mate?
Obama/Clinton would run the table. Pissed off dems may get off the couch and vote for this ticket. I think Obama’s biggest problm will be turnout-indies and dems. The rethug base is fired up to oust Obama but they hate Romney. The question is, if Romney is the pick, will rethugs turn out, just to get rid of Obama?
But Biden won’t step aside so I guess the point is mute. If Clinton did get on the ticket it would set her up beautifully for 2016. But she says she won’t run; however she is stepping down as SofS in 2012.
I think we will gain seats in the House-tea party freshmen will be gone. We lose the Senate I predict. The only seat I see us getting is Scott Browns. Warren will prevail. Kaine may overthrow Macaca, but it will be close. I wish Warner would go away and maybe run for governor again of VA. Then Perriello could take his seat. I am trying to be optimistic but I am gloomy about 2012.
Obama/Clinton gets six, maybe seven thousand votes more votes than Obama/Biden gets.
Bad VP choices matter. Otherwise, not so much.
Clinton on the ticket would add considerably more to the Obama total — far more than a few thou, possibly well into the six figures and even higher by my rough estimation. Quite a few Ds and indies out there from the Hillary 08 camp who are so disappointed in O that they may not show up to vote for him next time.
But it would have to be a smooth handoff from a willing Biden, and the groundwork for such a major change hasn’t been laid. Au contraire in fact — Joe has been out there fielding Qs about his possible run for the presidency in 2016 and not discouraging the talk. That’s hardly the basis to prepare the way for a huge shakeup in the ticket — and the MSM would have a snarky field day if suddenly the “sneaky opportunistic” Hillary were to appear in the political arena again.
Ain’t gonna happen short of some sudden serious medical or family (or heretofore unknown ethical/legal) issue with Joe which compels him to step aside.
That said, O does have to be concerned about the enthusiasm level in the base because of the bad economy and his too-moderate by half policies.
He also has to be concerned about a close election — we know how close elections in the modern era of the win-at-all-costs GOP turn out for our side.
I don’t see how adding an architect of the DLC to the ticket would energize a base disappointed by Obama’s “oo-moderate by half policies”.
Right. If there is a constituency that would flock to an Obama ticket because Hillary Clinton is on it, it’s the hardworking Americans, white Americans she campaigned so hard for in Pennsylvania.
Not OWS progressives.
I think people like Biden, so it wouldn’t help a whole lot. Clinton would marginally boost Obama’s performance in Appalachia, from Upstate New York to eastern Ohio to northern Arkansas. She could make a difference in Pennsylvania or Ohio, I suppose, although Biden is very popular in Eastern Pennsylvania.
I don’t know, Martin. I think it would be a big booster. So many people have lost their enthusiasm (on the Dem side) that this might provide a real spark. A serious woman on the ticket … not a nutjob, could bring many of those indy suburban women into the Dem column. I wonder what Nate Silver would say. As for Biden, we all like him. But I think the shake up would be exciting news — and Hillary really amped up her campaign game at the end of the 2008 primaries. If it turned Ohio, Arkansas, and few other places, the coat-tails might be significant.
There are just as many reasons to hate Mrs. Clinton as to hate Obama — Mena rhymes with Kenya.
Oh, and no Democrat will carry Arkansas in a presidential election in either of our lifetimes. The state had more got-redder-despite-the-wave counties in 2008 than any other state.
I think Arkansas is a tough nut to crack at this point. It’s probably in the top ten toughest states for Obama to win. Clinton would help, but it’s not a state we need. If we win there, we’ll have won in Ohio and Florida and maybe even Texas.
She could help in Ohio. That would be where I’d predict the biggest bang for the buck.
Personally, I think it shouldn’t be considered unless internal polling shows he’s doomed with Biden. Biden hasn’t done anything to deserve a demotion, and he brings warmth and humor to the ticket, which would be lost with Hillary.
Also, remember that Obama’s core supporters went to war with Clinton for months and months. They’s be pretty upset if he put her in position to be his heir.
Yes Joe brings more warmth and humor than Hillary, but she brings far more enthusiasm, not to mention actual media coverage.
Not to mention more voters to the polls in more key states voting for the O/H ticket — OH, FL as you mention, plus a few others where we could force the Rs to spend time/money to keep the state in their column.
Otoh, Joe only gets covered when he makes one of his delightful gaffes or when the VP Debate rolls around. Hillary on the ticket would be covered nonstop.
Disagree with your last comment: O backers who feel that way (few in number I suspect) about Clinton presumably would put that aside if it meant her being on the ticket enhances O’s chances for another term. They really would prioritize at that point.
Hillary won’t be on the ticket however because, even assuming O and H might privately tend to want such an outcome, a purely political move of that sort would lead to a media firestorm and public backlash that would wipe out any positive gains. Fun to speculate about, however.
It’s a switch. Joe becomes Sect of State… what he has always wanted. Kerry has to wait his turn. Hillary is set up to run in 2016 if she wants it. People respect her anew these days for being a team player with Obama. She’s been talking good talk about him. Biden’s comments are a feint. He’ll be too old in 2016. I absolutely think that the table is being set. And a Hillary win in 2016 puts Obama on the Supreme Court, where he really wants to be too.
It might have been true at one point — prior to 2008 — that Joe aspired to be Secy State in a Dem admin, if he couldn’t be elected prez that is.
Then the VP slot came along. Not bad. In fact, given his wide-ranging portfolio with O, dealing substantively in both domestic and foreign policy, taking State at this point would be considered a step down from Veep.
As for his age and the table being set, wouldn’t it make more sense in your scenario for Joe to, say, talk up his “advancing years” and how long he’s been at the game in D.C., instead of what he’s been doing lately, namely talking up how great he feels. Odd way to set the table for a major switcheroo.
Finally, re O on the SupCt: only if somehow, miraculously, the CJ’s position comes open during a Dem admin. Otherwise I can’t see him going from president to one of eight associate Js who are led by RWer John Roberts. Actually, I have trouble picturing Obama robed and cloistered in the lofty and remote SCt environment, especially with the (conservative majority) crowd there now. O doesn’t strike me as Supct material, not because he isn’t able but because most of the deep jurisprudence work they do I think he would find profoundly boring.
I just think it’s weird the fact that the woman lied about being in danger and Sinbad called her out on it in 2008 is absent from this conversation; she has no political career outside (possibly) New York right now and she’s leaving politics in ’12 for a good reason.
Clinton back in politics is a campaign against mendacity and power-hungry liberals that the Republicans know how to run in their sleep; and it’s the antithesis of the Obama brand.
Hillary Clinton is doing a great job in the cabinet and seems happy; and Joe’s a great VP. Switching them would cause and create headaches the party doesn’t have time for or needs.
the challenge is the economy. If you are going to get rid of Joe, the best choice would be someone who had started some sort of technology company.
The head of Google comes to mind.
Another politician isn’t going to matter.
Lately I’ve been thinking that the Rep middle might be thinking that perhaps Obama is the only reasonable one in the room and that it’s time to end the Birtcher influence that’s cratering their Party.
Just a thought, but the reasonable ones are out there somewhere…hopefully. So where’s that teach ’em a lesson spirit?
There are no ‘reasonable ones’. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, any of them, have a floor under them of 42.5% of the popular vote. No Republican, no matter how flawed, will draw less than that.
It’s the power of the brand.
do I disagree with this:
“I don’t think the economy will be the deciding factor. At least, not if it stays the way it is now. I think the election will be decided in much the same fashion as the 1980 election. That contest was close until mid-October, when it tilted heavily and decisively in Reagan’s direction.”
I have spent a good amount of time researching the 1980 election – and I was active during it. This link will take you to the monthly approval ratings for President since 1977. Carter’s approval rating was mid-30’s from June on. He was close in the trial heats, mostly because people were scared of Reagan.
Carter was never above 45 in the trial heats. He was close, but the undecided did not like Carter. they just were unsure about Reagan.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AntBZ5YD–zQdEpwTS0xN1hqcFhla0o3QnNUOTF6dEE&hl=en_U
S#gid=0
The killer blow was delivered in the debate, when people looked at Reagan and decided he was not crazy. Given the choice between more of the same and change they chose change.
This is, by the way, the way debates with unpopular incumbents usually play out. The challenger gets on the stage with the President and appears Presidential. As a result they usually address the fears of the undecided, and go on to win if the President is below 45.
Right now Obama is between 38 and 45. The State polling suggests it is closer to 40 than to 45. In any case he is unlikely to outperform his approval rating by much.
If the economy recovers, people may be surprised that the margin. If it doesn’t, then it may very well be close. Or a blowout.
Bottom line: I think there is incredible volatility in the electorate. The economy is in the tank, and people have very real fear about China and globalization. Neither party really has a convincing answer on what to do. The Democrats are miles better, but haven’t really come close to coming to grips with the impact that globalization is having. That underlying sense of fear, and the feeling that no one quite knows what to do, means this election is the hardest to predict in my lifetime.
raising taxes on the rich is not, by itself, an agenda. I support it, but that isn’t going to address the underlying concern people have.
Boo, I understand the logic of what you’re saying, but I think your argument is based on a model of the electorate that is no longer accurate. You are imagining that there are still large numbers of swing voters, who, when faced with two completely contradictory ideas (the Republican Party is crazy and unacceptable; Obama has been a complete failure) will inevitably have to choose one of these ideas, and will do so en masse. Just as they did in 1980.
But I don’t think the electorate is the same way anymore. There are plenty of people – in the readers of this blog – who would not imagine voting for a crazy Republican under any circumstances. And, amazingly enough, there are also plenty of people who have been indoctrinated so thoroughly in the story of Obama’s perfidy, that they will vote against him even if the candidate is Bachmann, Perry, or Cain.
So I think this potential argues for a close election – perhaps turning on which group manages to get more of its supporters to the polls. Insofar as there are still a small group of swing voters, they are likely to be swayed mostly by the state of the economy.
I agree. Barack Obama beat John McCain by 7.2 points.
I think that’s what passes for a landslide these days. We’re not going to see any 1964s or 1984s for a long time. The electorate is too polarized.
I predict that Barack Obama will be reelected with fewer electoral votes than he won in 2008. This will make him the first President to do so since FDR, and that’s only because he ran four times.