Economic forecasting model predicts Obama will lose in near-landslide

American Enterprise Institute ^ | August 2, 2012 | James Pethokoukis

[kingattax]

Political scientist Douglas Hibbs looks at two factors when forecasting presidential elections: a) per capita real disposable personal income over the incumbent president’s term, and b) cumulative U.S. military fatalities in overseas conflicts.

And he’s predicting a near-landslide win for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, with Obama losing by about as big a margin in 2012 as he won back in 2008. Under Hibbs Bread and Peace model, Romney wins 52.5% to Obama’s 47.5%.

[StAnDeliver]

"Why I certainly hope Obama loses, I wouldn’t really call 53 - 47 a landslide. I think that was the same margin by which Obama won."

Obama won states he wasn't supposed to (and in all likelihood didn't), like North Carolina and Indiana. That ended a GOP streak in the latter that went back to LBJ!

53-47 = 300+EV win, up to and including states like CO, IA and WI. It wouldn't just be an '04 map, it would be '04 plus WI & NH, and possibly even inroads into blue territory that a GOP candidate hasn't made since '88, perhaps winning razor-close ones in MI & PA. That's a landslide.

[StAnDeliver]

"....I wouldn’t really call 53 - 47 a landslide"

"Popular vote doesn't mean much. You have to look at the Electro College results. George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000."

And yet look at the last 53-47ish election won by a Republican:

53-47 is such an advantage in the PV that it dictates certain blue states go red simply because there isn't enough PV to account for the margin in '08 or even '04 red states! Add in a very favorable EV reapportionment for the GOP in 2010, and this is a landslide within reach. Minus Cali, of course -- hopeless.

I'll settle for the win in my sig...

[a fool in paradise]

[cynwoody]

Under Hibbs Bread and Peace model, Romney wins 52.5% to Obama’s 47.5%.

That's no landslide, but it'll do.

Of course, given such a result, what will Congress look like? It had better look very red, or else the new president will start reaching across the aisle to get things done, don't you know. That's what I fear.

[DoughtyOne]

Since when is 52.5% vs 47.5% a landslide? How old is this guy?

A landslide is close to 60% vs 40%.

IMO, we’re not headed quite that far, but it’s going to be a route unless the GOPe and Romney do their damnedest to blow it.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, unlike McCain, Romney wants to be President.

And the GOP wants control of the WH with all of it's perks.

Both are going to be very motivated to win this.

[DoughtyOne]

You know, I tend to agree with you. I have observed what the party has done over the last 16 years though, and it isn’t encouraging if you like winning by big margins.

Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain... None of these guys was a barn-burner, and we’ve got another Maverick on our hands right now.

Lefty guys have not taken us to the promised land in a big way since Reagan left office, but the GOPe has no interest in having another Reagan. Evidently it was so traumatic him not listening to them, that they can’t stomach a repeat.

Romney is taking it to Obama right now. I think the RNC has it’s heart and soul in this, because he’s their cup of tea.

So he wins. Then what? Ug...

It’s going to be a long four years.

[Netz]

“Landslide”? Looks to close to call actually and let's not get to over confident at this point. Statistics are great for an electorate that is informed and involved but the US population falls for empty platitudes like...”Change” so I would not go so far as to predict a Romney victory. If he wins, it will be very close because...we ARE that stupid to put this amateur back in the White House.

[fortheDeclaration]

One problem at a time my friend.

With the increase of Teaparty Senators and House members, we are going to make the RNC very uncomfortable.

If Romney wants 2 terms, he is going to have to deal with us.

[ronnie raygun]

The danger here is he and they will not go quietly. Like a child in a temper tantrum he will do so much damage to national security and the economy before he is officially removed from office. Lets see if he will be forwarned

[sima_yi]

My response is "Don't count your chickens..."

There are a couple of mitigating factors:

1.) The MSM smear campaign has not yet kicked into full gear.

2.) The GOP is not called The Stupid Party for nothing.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the thought, but removing an incumbent from your own party is almost impossible. With the primary and caucus rules as they are today, I don’t think there’s any chance at all Romney would be cut off at one term by his own party.

[fortheDeclaration]

They are always afraid of a strong competitor rising up within the Party.

The Teaparty owes nothing to the RNC.

[DoughtyOne]

They are always afraid of a strong competitor rising up within the Party. 

And they should be.  You have to garner both the support of your rank and file members, as well as your large contributors.  You don't generally want a rogue.  But when you swing so far that you no longer can keep your rank and file in the party, you've got to re-evaluate your strategies.  The party simply refuses to face reality.  It's candidates are not sparking the kind of support that will win elections.  If you can't beat the likes of Gore, Kerry, and Obama (for heaven's sake) by wide margins then you're definitely failing.  These three elections should have been blow-outs.  Instead we barely scrape by, and folks like me so angry at the leadership, we're thinking of leaving the party for good.  It does not support my beliefs.  Truth be told, it's not supporting the beliefs of any devoted Conservative.

The Teaparty owes nothing to the RNC.

If something I said made you believe I thought it did, it was unintentional.  I don't believe it, so I wouldn't try to out-right say it or imply it.

If the Tea Party were to go formal, start lofting candidates under it's own banner, it would have to register in all fifty states.  Then it would have to compete with another party that likes to think of itself as the true representative of good values for America.  A good number of people would remain with that other party.  The result would be a unified Left, and a splintered Right trying to vie for votes.

My comments were intended to address this reality without going into detail.  If you change the Republican party from within, and change it's leadership and it's goals, it's better than starting a formal third party.  At least that's my take on it.

The heart and soul of the party could still remain the Tea Party group.  This seems to be what is taking place right now.  I'm all for it.

[1010RD]

There’s a ton of smoke swirling around right now. The state by state EV count is all that matters and right now it doesn’t look good for Romney:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2914659/posts

[EEGator]

I don’t see Romney winning California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Connecticut, or Maine. Perhaps Virginia as well.

[RetiredArmy]

I don’t see him getting NY either.

[EEGator]

Definitely. I can’t believe I forgot to put them in.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

This is the most pronounced economic and social downturn in generations, and my model shows a clear landslide loss for the Kenyan.

[fortheDeclaration]

I think the nucleus of a new Party is forming, if the RNC continues to waffle, they will fade like the Whigs did.