Assume 538 is right and Obama wins with about 330 electoral votes.
How does the GOP react? I’m guessing this has been addressed, but I’m curious.
The GOP will move to the right and assume the reason they lost is because their candidate didn’t reflect the tea party enough (the tea party makes up about 9-11% of the electorate), which (ideally) would make them even more prone to losing in the future.
But evenso, just because the GOP moves to the right doesn’t mean they won’t win elections. If turnout is higher and lower for various reasons like voter suppression or desire to vote, it could make a difference.
The GOP seems to think there is every reason to get rid of Obama (the same way democrats felt that way about Bush in 2004). If they find out people prefer him, and not by razor thin margins like Bush had in 2000 and 2004 but by a 60 or so EV margin, what happens then? If an election is razor thin like 2000 or 2004, that is one thing but if Romney loses several states he’d need to win, how does it affect the party?
Edit: that should be ‘what if’ not ‘what is’ in the title.
They will do exactly what they did in 2008. Blame the candidate for being too old, too moderate, too liberal, out of touch, unexciting, etc. They will say that the field of candidates was extremely weak. That people were only voting out of hatred of Bush and not Obama (Bush is still largely blamed for the economy). They will claim Obama is a good campaigner who was able to trick people into voting for him.
I’m pretty liberal. I’ve never voted for a Republican for President (although, I’ve only been old enough to vote in three Presidential elections so far!). And I happen to think that if the Republicans blame their candidates and Bush for a bad loss in November, they will be correct.
I mean, even with all the Tea Party insanity the party has, they are still very likely to hold the House and are about even money to take the Senate, and that’s with a weak candidate at the top of the ballot. If the GOP stopped moving to the right and actually put forward a candidate with, you know, charisma, the Democrats might be in trouble.
I agree. They will just say “this is what happens when you don’t elect a true Republican” and continue to be convinced that electoral victory depend on bringing out their fanatical base. They will continue to lose Hispanics, women, and young people.
The only alternative is to have a real moderate (like Huntsman) lead the party back. But I don’t see that as very likely. There aren’t that many around, and none in positions of power.
Anyone who doubts that this would happen should explain why they picked someone as VP to the right of Romney, when they clearly need to appeal to the center to win elections. And not just anyone on the right, someone with Medicare poison.
ETA: I’m a former Republican, and never even voted for a Democratic presidential candidate until 2000. They sure lost me; they will lose even more. The demographics are against their direction.
I would say they’ll blame the candidate. The more nutty fringe will blame the Bainstream media, however. I think Brian Williams nailed it the other night in an interview with Paul Ryan, when Ryan said Romney’s speech would be a chance for him to tell America who he is. Williams responded “He’s had six years to do that; why wait until now?”
The candidate will have to shoulder at least part of the blame. Given that the man has been running for the office for 10 years and has virtually bought the primaries with his own money, he was not the darling of the extreme conservative wing, but he proved he’ll undermine his own policies and his positions on social issues when he was governor to get elected. Selling one’s soul for the Presidency will come at a cost.
While I think the vocal contingency will continue to be the farther Right group 538 predicts a bit less than that right now and a narrow popular vote result. I do not believe the premise suggests a blow-out loss for the party to react to.
Well, the hate for Obama is so palatable that I think any loss by the GOP will be considered catastrophic. But if the party becomes more temperate as a result, then maybe some work can get done in Washington.
I’m going with optimism. Already, a few Republicans are backing out of the “no tax” pledge that Grover Norquist persuaded them to sign. A few others are using code language like “All means for reducing the deficit are on the table.” i.e., higher taxes can be part of the solution, so long as spending cuts are also part.
I think they’ll have learned the real lesson: the good of the country comes first, and the people know this. Excessive partisanship is bad for us all. A few at a time, they will start to take up the mantle of responsibility, and come to the table (damn, that’s one big table, boss!) and show us the role of true leadership.
We won’t see another Mormon nominated for awhile. Most of the people in the GOP know that Romney isn’t a very good candidate. They needn’t move right or left to pick someone who is more likable, more able to relate to middle class folks and more acceptable to the Evangelicals.
The Republicans seem to have a seniority system for the presidential nomination.
Didn’t Dole came in second to Bush 41 in 1988? He got the nomination in 1996. McCain came in second to Dubya in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008. Romney came in second to McCain in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012.
That seems to put Rick Santorum in line for 2016 or 2020. Scary thought.
I would imagine the party would continue in the same obstructionist course as 2009-2012. With a larger number of Senators, perhaps even a majority, they will be able to stop presidential initiatives and nominations even easier than the last term.
As a corollary, I think it would be very wise of Obama to campaign hard for Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates if he wants his 2nd administration to have even a prayer of being effective.
It’s called a hypothetical. I don’t see a crushing victory for Obama with the info I have now, the incumbent is vulnerable, but it doesn’t realistically predict a walk for the challenger, either. The candidate and his backers are being reasonable and prudent men in ***not ***acting/speaking/spending like they’re counting on easy pickings.
Truth be told, in 2004 I (and I think many many liberals) were similarly deluded about Bush’s anticipated defeat. In my defense I was in my early 20s, didn’t follow the campaign as closely as I do now, and I realized Kerry was consistently behind in the polls. I just couldn’t believe that things wouldn’t turn around as the election got close.
I think a lot of every day Obama hating conservatives will react similarly… just utterly shocked that someone they hate so much could crush Romney, even though Romney is so disliked and so clearly losing in the polls.
What happens if Obama wins by 60 electoral votes? It’s a huge achievement for Romney.
That’s because Obama won in 2008 by 192 electoral votes. For Romney to pick up 132 electoral votes against a sitting president indicates the level of unhappiness with the economy we’re in.
But expecting Romney to pick up 193 electoral votes, more than double what McCain garnered? Nearly impossible. And every Republican leader knew that going in, which is why the field of candidates came down to Romney and a group from a reality show. I started predicting that there was a 0% chance Romney would not be the nominee more than a year ago for just that reason. The national party is still in control of the presidential race.
What the blogosphere says after a Romney loss will be ignored by everybody in a leadership position in the GOP, just as it was over the last four years. The party won’t change at all. It’ll have built this into their calculations just as a bad earnings report is built into a stock price. The same candidates who ducked this year’s near guarantee of a loss will be maneuvering starting November 7. One of them will be the nominee.
Oh, and there won’t be a second ballot at the 2012 convention. Or a floor fight either.
I don’t know. If a significant number of moderates continue to leave the tent like they have the first four years, GOP will have to re-evaluate. This hard right agenda is a gamble and if doesn’t pay off heads gotta roll to stay viable.
Good post, but for what it’s worth, if you give Obama every state 538 has leaning Obama and Romney every state leaning Romney, it turns out to be a 126 vote lead.
538’s 60 point expected electoral vote win comes from it being more complicated than that. The 60 point win Nate predicts is more like a 2.5 child household. Not that it’s impossible for someone to literally win with a mere 60 points, but Nate’s 60 point prediction is not that black and white - it’s not a winner take all expected value.