2012: Analysis From The Left

[mudwhistle]

I personally felt that McCain ran a very poor campaign in 2008, hopefully whoever the repub candidate is will do much better. You would think with an economy and UE this bad that Obama would be toast, but I wouldn't count any chickens. The repubs also need a majority in the Senate too, as well as keeping it in the House. One wonders how the gop will do in their primaries if the TPers push unqualified candidates into the general election.

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

The OWS is going down in flames fast and with them goes the Democrat's chances.

Somehow they have to create separation from them or Obama and many others will be sent packing.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think the OP is pretty good, and shows why Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. It is a reflexive action of electorates everywhere to defeat the ruling party during tough economic times.

I think it will be a Republican sweep next year. However, it also represents a trap for the GOP. Many in the Republican party will view the victory as a resounding mandate for their philosophy. However, even though Americans support cutting spending, when you dig deeper, they have consistently opposed cutting anything that matters, i.e. defense, Medicare, SS, etc. They also have consistently supported by a 2:1 margin raising taxes on the rich, which the Republicans vehemently oppose.

Republicans pining for a repeat of the early 1980s will be sorely disappointed. The structural problem the Republicans have is the truism that if the vast majority of people aren't seeing gains from the economic arena, they will try to extract them from the political arena, which is diametrically opposite of GOP orthodoxy. Republicans also generally do not understand the problems in the economy. The problems stem from the collapse of asset prices and a credit implosion. Cutting taxes and regulation and being more friendly to business will help on the margin but won't alleviate the fundamental problems of excess supply. These problems will start to work themselves out by 2013 or 14, but the economy is likely to be weak as the economy slowly lifts out of the morass. Cutting spending and focusing on the deficit will also weigh on the economy, which is good long term but not in the short term. Thus, you are likely to see Republicans get crushed in the 2014 midterms.

However, by 2016, most of our problems should be over as the excess housing market gets cleared away, and the economy will be growing smartly. This means that the Republican President will likely be re-elected, perhaps recapturing one of the houses of Congress.

Interesting that you think we have an excess supply problem, while I see it as primarily a lack of demand problem. Excess supply generally means lower prices, but people aren't buying anyway, unless the prices get REALLY low and even then it's only temporary. We may see an upswing a little bit in spending over this holiday season, but it'll be short-lived IMHO and the economy will hit the breaks again when the bills come due in january. A lot depends on external factors like what happens in Europe and what our gov't does over the next few months. Could have another terrorist attack too, or all sorts of domestic unrest with the OWS idiots.

The repubs could very well gain a slim majority in the senate and keep their control over the house, albeit maybe with a smaller majority, and they may put a repub in the WH. But I don't see them getting a 60-vote bullet proof majority in the senate, and there's the rub. I can see them using the nuclear option to repeal ObamaCare if the SCOTUS doesn't rule it unconstitutional first. But otherwise the democrats will obstruct the repubs in the senate and they may not get much done to their liking.

Upshot - if the above scenario plays out, I think the economy will improve a little bit but I wouldn't say most of our problems will be over by 2016. One would assume by then we won't have troops fighting wars anywhere, and have made some serious inroads into cutting gov't spending. But I'm not at all sure we'll have made any significant changes to the entitlement programs cuz the dems will fight that tooth and nail. If that doesn't happen then all we'll be doing is still trimming around the edges.

 

[Mad Scientist]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

Stopped reading right there.

 

[mudwhistle]

1. The economy is growing and will continue to grow. Whether it will surpass expectations depends on expectations. Many people don't even know we're in a recovery.

Stopped reading right there.

Pretty soon they'll claim unemployment dropped to 8%, but they have to erase all the folks who's unemployment benefits ran out first.

Which is how they count unemployment these days. Totally false of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Galston goes on to discuss the electoral college and how it will play a role (my second link above.)

Here's part...

1. As Gerald Seib rightly reminds us (Wall Street Journal, September 27 2011), presidential campaigns are won and lost state by state in the Electoral College, not in the nationwide popular vote. (Once in a while, this turns out to be a distinction with a difference; just ask not-quite President Gore.) Based on state results from the past five elections, Seib argues that the Electoral College gives Democrats a distinct advantage: they’ve won 18 states plus the District of Columbia, totaling 242 electoral votes, in each of those elections, compared to only 13 states with 102 votes for the Republicans.

2. In 2008, Barack Obama beat John McCain with 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Now let’s do alternative history based on two assumptions: (1) the two-party popular vote was evenly divided; and (2) Obama’s margin in each state was reduced by the same amount—7.26 percentage points—yielding an equal division of the popular vote. Under that scenario, Obama would have lost five states that he actually won—Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia—with a total loss of 86 electoral votes. Under this scenario he still would have prevailed in the Electoral College, 279 to 259. That would seem to validate the hypothesis that Democrats enjoy a structural edge: they get 10 more electoral votes when the popular vote is evenly divided.

3. But not so fast: the 2008 presidential election was the last to be carried out based on the 2000 census, and the distribution of Electoral College votes did not reflect population shifts that have occurred in the ensuing years. The 2012 presidential election will, and it makes a difference. Reapportionment shifts 6 electoral votes from Democratic to Republican states. If we rerun the 2008 election with the 2012 electoral vote allocation plus an even split of the popular vote, Obama wins by a very narrow margin—273 to 265. So the current Democratic structural advantage is 4 electoral votes—not nothing, but not much either. The probability that Obama could win reelection without a majority of the popular vote is extremely if not vanishingly low.

Yeah, I read that analysis when it first came out. All very true, it's hard to see Obama getting the support from the independent voters this time, I suspect he'll lose some swing states.

One wonders if the increasing numbers of unemployed will stick with Obama thinking they'll keep getting their gov't handouts or instead vote GOP thinking they'll have a better chance of getting a job. Big Gov't vs Small Gov't. And the OWSers could have a detrimental impact on the repubs if Obama can paint them as the party of the rich guys. I think it's gonna get nasty.

The OWS is going down in flames fast and with them goes the Democrat's chances.

Somehow they have to create separation from them or Obama and many others will be sent packing.

"Somehow they have to create separation ..."
Absolutely.

The bad news is that the leaders of the Democrat Party supported and encouraged same, the Old Left Media tried to claim that they were the Left's answer to the Tea Party...only better: the voice of the people, and the numerous posts by our lefty colleagues in support of the ill-informed and hygiene-challenged. Hard to amble away.

But the good news for their side is that they have the abilty to ignore events that don't work out for them, and pretend that they hardly even noticed the events.

I can't think of any recent Lefy posts that acknowled that they were wrong about these culprits and/or that it made them suspicious of this administration.

Learning from events is hardly a métier of these folks.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I disagree, the repubs just have to nominate a candidate who is the lesser of two evils compared to Obama, which will not be difficult to do

No, that won't work at all. Not in a re-election year. Kerry was the lesser of two evils in 2004, but the people are not willing to vote out an incumbent for someone who is more or less the same. People prefer the devil they know over the devil they don't know.