Lately, I've been wrestling with a paradox. Many the polls, especially the PPP's polls of the individual states, point to a very good year for the Democrats next year. Yet, I've begun to feel uneasy. The economy seems to have taken a turn for the worse, the glow off the killing of Osama is wearing off, and I'm beginning to think it's more likely than not the Republicans will nominate someone not completely ridiculous, such as Romney or Pawlenty. Which doesn't mean I still don't see Obama as the favorite next year. But I don't have the confidence of the various posters who are already talking about contesting Texas, as if states like Virginia and Ohio are guaranteed for the good guys. What follows is some musings on my part as to what kind of election we are likely to see next year. I'd be curious as to other peoples predictions too.
As I see it, there are three possibilities for the election next year:
The 1980 or 1992 scenario - Basically, the Republicans win. This is the most unlikely of the three scenarios. It's not impossible, but it would require the Republicans to thread quite a needle. The economy would have to be in the dumps - I'd say it would have to be verging on or in a "double-dip" recession. Either Romney or Pawlenty would have to win the nomination of the declared candidates - I don't see any of the others (including undeclared Rick Perry) as real possiblities even if the economy goes South. And they'd have to run a strong campaign - arguably stronger than the 1980 Reagan campaign or the 1992 Clinton campaign (Obama is no Carter or Bush Senior). That's not to say it couldn't happen - it looks more like a possibility to me now than it did a month ago. But you're still not betting the odds on this one. By the way, if this does happen, the Republicans take the Senate, and probably gain seats in the House (although with the Illinois and California redistricting, the former is more likely than the latter)
The 1984 scenario - This one is easy. Economy gets better. Obama wins a landslide. In this scenario, all the fantasies about Dems winning Texas and Georgia come true. Dems also either gain seats or stay even in the Senate, and win the House back. (I know, that didn't happen in 1984 for the Republicans, but these are different times with a much more polarized electorate)
The 1916 or 1948 scenario - I had to to reach back almost 50 years to find a situation that would be the equivalent to what I think might be the end result in 2012. Obama wins, but it's a close one. Note that in 1948 Truman was not running as an elected President, so it's not exactly analogous. The 1916 scenario is closer to the mark - Woodrow Wilson went to bed thinking he had lost the election. It was that close. Basically, this scenario suggest an economy that is not healthy, but not dismal enough to let the Republicans win either, and still requires the Republicans to nominate somone palatable, although if the economy truly sucks, this scenario could happen with a Sarah Palin or Herman Cain type nominee.
The problem with thinking the last scenario likely is that it would probably require Obama to get less votes and win less states than he did in 2008 and still triumph, and as commentator Conspiracy has pointed out, that has really never happened - every president running for reelection has either lost the race or won more votes than the last time they ran. Again, 1916 might provide the closest example, in that Wilson would have probably won in a bigger landslide in 1912 had Theodore Roosevelt not been in the race as a third party (I have heard an argument this is true of Bill Clinton in 1992 as well - he would have gotten more votes that year than in 1996 without Ross Perot). Still, history is made to be broken. This is the most polarized electorate we've had since arguably the late 19th century, and if a race was ever going to break the mold, this might be the one.
Other wild card factors:
The Ryan Plan - Most commentators on this site think this plan will badly hurt the Republicans in general, and the Republican candidates in particular, in 2012. It probably depends on how much distance the nominee can put between themselves and the plan (neither Romney or Pawlenty has enthusiastically endorsed the plan). As far as the Dems chances downballot, I'm not sure. It certainly hurt Jane Corwin, but on the other hand Republicans were tarred as Medicare cutters in 1996 and still kept control of the House (and won a couple of seats in the Senate),
Foreign Policy - Obama should be strong on foreign policy, and he'll still be able to use the killing of Osama (with diminishing returns), but the one cautionary note is looking at Carter. Camp David was viewed as a huge foreign policy triumph in 1978, but it's glow clearly did not last, and foreign policy ended up to be a net negative for Carter (again, though Obama is no Carter).
Third Party and Tea Party - Here's something to think about: in 1991, at this time, virtually no one had heard of Ross Perot and he had not even suggested he might run for President. He didn't annouce an interest until February of 1992. It's easy to say there's no Perot on the horizon now, but Perot wasn't even on the horizon at this point in 1992, and he played a big role in the 1992 race. Especially if the economy goes bad, it's entirely possible a Michael Bloomberg could see their chance. Don't forget the Tea Party movement, too. If they are unhappy with the Republican party, it's unlikely but not beyond the possibility someone could try to upset the apple cart and run as an independent.