45-48 percent. I still think Obama's an underdog, but with the decent economic news and the sort-of successful focus on jobs, I feel like we've got a fighting chance again...
I'd say the Dems have maybe a 40% shot of winning next year. I just don't think there'll be the kind of growth we'd need to get the unemployment rate moving in the right direction--this is another jobless recovery.
I say 60%, but that would/will be a good bit lower if/when Romney closes the deal with the Republicans: i.e., factoring in the probability that the Republicans don't nominate him, or that movement conservatives prove unenthusiastic even if he is the nominee.
99.9%; particular without some budget agreement that includes a tax increase on top earners while cutting Medicare.
Well, it depends on who the GOP nominee is: Obama vs Romney -- 60% -- He's got a moderate record (admittedly one he's been kind of weird with of late), but if he's going to run on the economy, he's going to have issues with his corporate experience essentially consisting of laying off workers. All in all, this would actually be a pretty boring race. Obama vs anyone else -- 90% -- And not only that, but I've got money on saying Obama wins by double digitsNow, considering that I'd say Romney's "frontrunner" status combined with his being really disliked by a good portion of the base, combined with the chaotic search for an "anti-Romney" -- I'd say that leaves Romney's chance at nomination at around 50-50. So 75%
40-45%One of the big problems is that, aside from a brief period after the OBL killing, Obama's approval rating has been pretty consistently in the 40s. It'll have to be at least in the 50s for him to be the likely winner. Bush managed to win a second term with 48%, but it was anything but an easy victory. And there seems to be little chance of the economy improving to the point that Obama's rating would be likely to increase to the 50s anytime between now and next November.I believe, as I have for a long time, that Romney is probably going to be the nominee, and it would be foolish for Republicans to nominate anyone else. The other contenders hold views that are toxic to much of the voting public--Perry's views on Social Security, Cain's views on unemployment and a host of other things. I agree with JB that the primaries are basically down to Romney and Perry, and that Cain's current polling strength is very likely an illusion that won't translate into actual votes. But if Cain somehow nabs it, it'll be a great gift to Democrats.So, I guess what I'm saying is that there's a very strong chance that on January 20, 2013, the U.S. will swear in its first Mormon president. I'm not thrilled by the prospect (of a Republican winning; I honestly don't care about his religion), but we're probably going to have to get used to the idea.
Whatever the number is, it is going up.
45 percent, BUT I get the sense that average people don't believe the Republican Party will do anything to help raise their standard of living. I expect that Obama and the Dems will push very hard on the fact that Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for rich people tax cuts, and on the fact that Romney himself has advocated privatizing Medicare. That makes for a very powerful method of attack (way more effective than the "flip flopper" attack, I think) and may be enough to swing a few thousand folks in Ohio and Florida. people jus aren't going to vote for someone who is going to lower their standard of living. If obama can successfully frame the narrative that way, his chances are probably closer to 60 percent.Incidentally I firmly believe that, if the Republican Party had not allowed Fox News and the far-right to hijack the Party in '09, Obama would have closer to zero chance of winning re-election.
I agree mostly with Kylopod though I don't think hitting 50% is necessary. The economy needs to keep moving in the right direction and Democrats need to harness the energy of OWS the way the GOP did with the Tea Party. They can't let it die out and must keep it civil and meaningful. Who the Republicans nominate will also matter. Romney will be tough to beat unless he alienates the base so much that they refuse to support him. I don't see that happening. Perry doesn't look likely to do much through the first five primaries but when things move south he could revitalize his campaign. Unlike others I think Cain may have some staying power but likely fizzles out after South Carolina. So, given the economy grows at a moderate 2.5% rate I think the following percentages apply:Obama v. Romney--Obama 51-49Obama v. Perry--Obama 55-45Obama v. Cain--Obama 57-43If the economy slumps or major negative international events occur, all bets are off.
Some will depend on whether there is a third party that enters the competition but overall 50-50 considering so many lefties are not ready to support him and would sit out the election rather than see him win. That seems self-defeating to me but if you read left wing sites, you see the thinking they have about a lot of the issues that they care about and Obama has ditched as impractical.
>I agree mostly with Kylopod though I don't think hitting 50% is necessary. I didn't say it was necessary. As I pointed out, Bush won with a less than 50% approval rating. (Of course we don't know for sure since it was within the margin of error.) I'm just saying that as long as it's below that threshold, the odds are against the incumbent. It may depend on the candidate, of course, and 2004 is an interesting case for that reason. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I actually think Kerry was the strongest Democratic candidate that year--a Howard Dean or John Edwards would likely have lost by a greater margin. But he did lose a race that was within his reach, and I believe one of the reasons is that Republicans successfully convinced a certain number of voters on the fence that however disappointed they were in Bush, Kerry would be worse. I'd be cautious about comparing that race to the current one since it centered around foreign policy rather than economics. But it's a useful example of how a relatively unpopular president can win a second term.
80%.The Republicans are nominating a weak candidate. Whether it's Romney who can turn off their religious base because he's in a "cult" (their words), although he has a chance to pull it off.Rick Perry, he's a proudly stubborn ignoramous from Texas. If that doesn't inspire Democrats to turn out, what will?Santorum, Cain, Gingrich -- the President could sell California to the Iranians and he would still win a second term.
70 percent because the economy will be strong enough, meaning good but not great. The vote and electoral college margins would be slim against a moderate GOP candidate, like Romney, with a good campaign. (If I'm wrong about the economy, and it looks bad come Spring/Summer, the answer is 50 percent, slightly over or under depending on the GOP candidate and campaign.)
If the Fed gets its act together and finally commits to achieving full employment, then 80%. If not, then 45% against Romney and 55% against any of the other schmucks running.
Most of us see it similarly. I have Obama at 80% if the Republicans manage to balls up the Romney nomination (which would almost certainly mean Perry), but 40% otherwise. In total, I have it 52-48 Republicans.
25%I believe that economy -> election results, and I don't think there's much chance of it improving significantly by next summer.
Anonymous @ 3:40 makes an interesting point that if the noisy, crazy, Foxy right hadn't seized control in 2009 Obama would be running much closer to a zero percent chance. I'm not sure that I agree with it for two reasons - first of all, Republicans were at pretty low ebb and there wasn't much central strength around which to rebuild the party. The insanity gave them an opportunity to look more like nuts than losers, and that helped a lot. And second of all, the obvious candidate would still be Romney - I don't see an alternative who would have come through in a saner and less fraught pre-midterm period - and he's far from a perfect candidate.Ultimately, there still needs to be a guy who people will pull the lever for, and I don't see anyone with strong national appeal on the Republican side, not who was plausible for 2012.
67 percent (i.e. 2:1). The Great Recession is stale - at some point Americans will suck gut and start buying big ticket items again. And how many more times can Europe give investors the vapors? They will begin to realize that a) Greek (etc.) government debt is never gonna be repaid in full, and b) European is fundamentally still rich.And Obama is a skilled pol, an advantage in a close race. Romney has some skills, but he obviously has trouble closing the sale with conservatives, while Perry doesn't have much time left to show that his brand sells outside Texas.@Rain - lefty websites are only read by a pretty small fraction of the electorate, and probably most who do read them are less purist than the sites' posters and commenters.
45%The economy is horrifically bad. Furthermore the prospects for corrective policy is highly unlikely given Republican refusal to even consider any ideas that could improve the economy in the short run. The electorate is quite myopic as demonstrated in Larry Bartels thoroughly awesome Unequal Democracy. If somehow economic performance improved during the first three quarters of '12, then Obama has a chance.That said, the Republican field seems exceptionally weak. Romney is the weakest frontrunner in my lifetime, and the rest of the field is not even close to ready for primetime. The President is a far better politician then any of them, so that is I believe his saving grace.
Next week's question: What are the prospects of an Obama presidency and a GOP Congress? And what would the consequences be?
@tybalt I think that the GOP could have followed roughly the same oppositional strategy without letting the far right and the Fox News profiteers hijack the narrative. Maybe it was inevitable... The Koch bros and their ilk have been exerting influence increasingly for years. Still, if the party leaders had shown more resolve in '09 when the media was proclaiming the death of the party, maybe they could have steered away from the far right fantasy world. As it is, the party appears committed to several disasterously fanatical policies... Privatization of the safety net, tax increases on the middle class in the form of a flat tax, etc. In a world where the far right and the profiteers hadn't taken over, Romney might still be the candidate... But he'd be leading a party that hadn't committed itself to suicidally bad policies. And Obama would be doomed.
100% certainty that Obama will win. Economy is actually improving, contrary to naysayers. See the latest numbers. I see better numbers in 2012 and a revulsion with GOP nominee, resulting in a narrow win by Obama. Narrow win, but with 100% certainty. Remember Lichtman's 13 keys -- they tell all.
Not a liberal, so I won't give a number of my own. I think everyone but Matt Jarvis is over-estimating. It seems Japan's 'lost decade' actually lasted about thirteen years. The odds of recovery in time to save Obama are not good.To American Sensei, I answer that the bottom of an L-shape recession isn't as uniformly flat as the metaphor implies. There will be be good monthly numbers from time to time, which may or may not be revised later. So far I'm not seeing any sustained trend of recovery.
I'd say the chances of Obama winning are something like 47%. The economy is poor right now and there's a very good chance Europe will fail to fix its problems and take us down with them. Either way it's difficult for any President to win re-election in bad economic times.
Remember the crazy crowds at Palin and McCain appearances that drove people to vote Democratic; they were just a warm up act for what we will see this time around.President Obama in an electoral landslide.
If Romney is nominated, 30%. Anyone else, closer to 50%. But even Perry or Cain could win if the economy continues to stagnate, which it probably will.Most people here are way too optimistic about the economy. News flash: it sucks, and the weak recovery we've had has done little for the vast majority of voters. Obama is going to get the blame for that, fairly or not.
I'm with Tom at 30-35%. Economic numbers are leveling off or improving, but not enough to lower the unemployment rate significantly. Moreover, I do not think the President will have the turnout rate among young people he had in 2008. Virginia, North Carolina, etc. are increasingly harder for him to win in 2012. I also think that if it is Romney, even with the unenthusiastic response he is currently getting Republicans will turn out to support anyone against President Obama.
Many people are considering the economy and whether Romney is the GOP candidate, but isn't a third major variable whether Romney wraps things up quickly or not? If the GOP primary is a long haul, Romney's more likely to have to at one point or another say deeply crazy, unpopular things to gain support or as a mistake under pressure. That makes him a weaker opponent against Obama. (Or does political science literature indicate that things like that are minutiae?)
If Romney is the Republican nominee, close to 0%. If it's Perry, maybe 20%, but that's probably optimistic. If it's anyone else, Obama has a very decent shot at winning despite the economy, but it won't be anyone else.
66% (That assumes a Romney nomination, otherwise 95%)The economy stinks. But Obama has a great record and will start to use it. And the GOP is truly, deeply dysfunctional...
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
At The Washington Post
At The American Prospect