getting just a *liiiiittle* bit ahead of things, i'm predicting a likely republican victory in 2016
obviously i'm making a few assumptions here.
i'm also leaning heavily on lichtman's keys to the presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House).
i'm a big fan of this framework, especially for predicting the result of elections before the candidates are even known. in effect, the theory is that the things people think make a difference in the short term (convention bounce, debate performance, winning slogans, gaffes, zingers, fundraising, etc.) are actually baked into the cake based on these longer-term background conditions.
here are the keys and my admittedly, highly premature assessment:
The 13 Keys to The White House
The Keys are statements that favor the re election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.
1.Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
i'm assuming obama wins in 2012. incumbents picking up seats in the 6th year of an administration is a tall order. i'm expecting republicans will pick up seats in 2014, so this one is FALSE.
2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
obama can't run for a third term in 2016, so this will be an open primary. contests are the norm, so i'm expecting this to be FALSE.
3.Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
obama can't run for a third term in 2016, so this is FALSE.
4.Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
one never knows, but i see this as sufficiently unlikely to deem this TRUE.
5.Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
rather difficult to say at this point, UNKNOWN.
6.Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
given the anemic growth of the post-shrub debacle, i think 2013-2016 could outperform 2004-2012 even if it includes a mild recession. TRUE.
7.Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
i'm assuming obama wins, and second terms rarely effect major policy changes, especially as we're still a long-shot for gaining control of both houses of congress. FALSE.
8.Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
notwithstanding civil war hystrionics from the right-wing, i see this as improbably. TRUE.
9.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
second term administrations are notorious for scandal, but obama has been astonishingly clean so far. this will remain a wild card, but likely TRUE.
10.Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
with military involvement winding down, this is less likely, but anything can happen. UNKNOWN.
11.Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
with military involvement winding down, this is less likely, but anything can happen. UNKNOWN.
12.Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
hard to tell, but the standards (jfk, reagan, ike are high) so i'm expecting this to be FALSE.
13.Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
hard to tell, but the standards (jfk, reagan, ike are high) so i'm expecting this to be TRUE.
so 1, 2, 3, 7, and 12 are FALSE, putting democrats on the cusp of losing. should any of the UNKNOWNS go against us, the keys would predict a republican victory in 2016. having said that, unless obama's second term completely goes off the rails, the election should be rather close (lichtman would say that the keys aren't intended to predict the size of the victory, but i'm will to suggest that they may suggest that anyway.)
basically, in order for democrats to win in 2016, we need a lot of things to go our way; republicans need only one of several things to go theirs.
i may yet be proven wrong on some of these; for instance, hillary may cruise largely uncontested to the nomination. but as i noted above, this is against the odds in open primaries, and the only ones who seem likely to beat those odds are the sitting vice-presidents, and i don't see biden running for president in 2016. he would be 74 when sworn in january 2017 and doesn't seem like the kind of candidate that party would back uncontested.
bottom line is that democrats still have a chance in 2016, but it's an uphill battle, so for the moment i'm predicting a republican victory in 2016. this really sucks, particularly from the supreme court perspective, as i don't expect right-wing retirements in obama's second term, and some of them (scalia, in particular) might be highly inclined to retire if there's a republican in the oval office starting in 2017.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But that's only according to the Mayan Calendar! 
