I agree that the possibilities you cite exist. But we get into this conflict between what is “truth” and what is “reality”.
The question is, what are the dynamics that are likely to exist *at the moment* of the election. With the proviso that “nobody can predict the future”; My recollection of the 2008 election is that McCain probably would have won except for the seriousness of the financial crisis AT THAT VERY MOMENT of the election. Meaning, one week earlier, IMO the finan crisis was not especially bad enough to cause McCain’s defeat. And then McCain returned in that dramatic move (which I felt at the time could have sealed the election EXCEPT he ratifed TARP and thus assured us he was part of the problem) So the first thing I would say is that with our polls we can get into the ballpark of the operative percentages of voting, but there are events that can warp things out in THAT WEEK of elections.
Now, you say that folks will remember a crappy 2011 holiday season, and I think that is 100% valid, but not necessarily all-controlling. With these obamabots, if it gets 4.3% better, they will be back on board.
We/you have to remember, that for many of the obamabots, for them to flip GOP, they are going to have to turn their FSA and redistributist thinking inside out. They are going to have to inflict upon themselves the notion that “we were dead stupid wrong”. And I say, you have to ask yourself, is that flip-around more likely, or, is it more likely that those folks just say “what the hell, he inherited a turd from GWBush and he really needs 4 more years to shine”.
I don’t know the answer, but I suspect the hard core left will not flip to GOP. They may stay home, and I am happy with that. But I sense that plenty of Repubs will stay home too.
If things get really bad, and I mean incredibly bad, worse than we can imagine it now, civil-disorder bad in the US over the next summer, we/you could see the rise of a movement that demands that government come to the rescue. 0bama appoints three new czars for “National Park Renewal” and “Public Arts Programs” and whatever other New Deal nonsense redux and you and I do not know and cannot predict how it will play.
We could see the gutting of most supervisory agencies charged with overseeing Fed elections. I mean, this is now a pattern, this notion of gutting supervisory agencies so that laws on the books have no effect. This is what happened in large part to the OTS Office of Thrift Supervision in advance of the current banking fiasco. Most of the FBI agents who were charged with looking at financial fraud were looking at terrorist stuff just when financial fraud went hyperbolic. Where is the prosecution of Corzine? Or Mozillo? What about Fast & Furious?
All I am saying is, we could have a LOT worse economy than we have now and still re-elect the zero. Is it likely? Maybe not. Is it possible? Oh sure.
I personally do not think the economy will improve to any degree, but it just might get 3-4% better just as a matter of noise and people might “buy” it as an indication of pending improvement. WE JUST SAW (even though it was a false signal) the stock market flip around from doom to quasi-exhuberance about a month ago. The stock market has an INCREDIBLE amount of influence on the nation’s mood. Few people are talking about it, but we had an ENORMOUS stock market rally over the past 6 weeks or so. 1500 DJ points. Probably one of the top 10 rallies of all time on a percentage basis. IF THAT HAPPENS right before the election there is nobody on the planet who can apply logic and analysis and history and deep consideration to what might happen and come up with an accurate result.
We are not dealing with logic and rationality. If people get panicked enough, I believe they will beg (vote) for salvation. You and I, we may think that is stupid. It being stupid means nothing probative.
You've advocated your points quite well and are worth adding to the analysis of what may happen (and be in the mind of the electorate) one year hence.
Most salient is your comment that "We are not dealing with logic and rationality." At the risk of offending some here, I think that Tom Tancredo's idea of a civics literacy test for voters is not without merit. I'd hate to devise the scheme whereby it would be implemented -- far above my pay grade. Still, the idea that those who cast votes solely on emotion and without knowledge of the issues has long been troublesome to me. I dare say that if only those who were intelligent and had a genuine investment in America, a Democrat would never again hold office.