By Harry Lambert — February 2, 2012

With such attention focused on who is the least unappealing Republican presidential candidate, it has been easy to forget that whoever wins faces an increasingly formidable challenger in incumbent Barack Obama.

As RealClearPolitics’ poll shows, the President’s approval ratings have improved to 46 per cent, from 42 per cent in September – a sizeable gain. Unemployment has fallen from over 9 per cent to 8.5 per cent. Moreover, a close look at the maths shows a tough electoral map for the eventual Republican nominee.

Nine candidates have tried to oust a incumbent President since the Second World War. Only two have succeeded, and Presidents Reagan and Clinton were both natural communicators, orators and leaders. The latest batch of hopefuls are not.

After last Thursday’s combative debate performance, Mitt Romney looks to yet again be favourite to lock up the nomination; Newt Gingrich’s latest resurgence appears to have been short-lived.

Whoever the Republican presidential candidate is in 2012, they will have to overcome three electoral challenges. First, they will have to win back the three traditionally Republican states Obama stunningly won in 2008 – North Carolina, Virginia and Indiana.

Second, they must compete in the seven states the President turned from battleground states to reliably Democrat ones in 2008.

And third not only must they win both Florida and Ohio, the two largest swing states, but also one of the smaller ones – Colorado, Iowa or New Hampshire – all of which the President carried by at least 9 per cent in 2008. A quick look at Gallup’s half-yearly state polls indicates that that first challenge – recapturing those formerly Republican states – has not proven as likely as one might suspect. Only one of the three – Indiana – has clearly swung away from Obama.

Competing in the states which swung solidly Democrat in 2008 is imperative for the nominee, but the need to cater to the Tea Party makes it exceedingly difficult. The most moderate of the Republican candidates, the ever malleable Romney, is possibly being forced to position himself too far to the right to challenge the President in these states.

The need to compete with those candidates pandering to the Republican Right has forced Romney to renounce the moderate healthcare plan he passed when Governor of Massachusetts, and drop many other positions on social and economic issues which once endeared him to crucial independents.

Not competing in these previously battleground states both puts the Democrats on the brink of victory and allows the President to devote his funds elsewhere. This is crucial because elections are won in the US by outspending your opponent in the swing states.
Bush won in 2000 partly because he was able to outspend Senator Gore by more than 3:2 in such states.

The glimmer of hope for those challenging Obama is the state of the economy. Of the seven incumbent Presidents to be re-elected only President Reagan won with unemployment higher than 5.4 per cent. If Obama was to win re-election with unemployment of 8.5 per cent it would be unprecedented. But there is a reason he is odds-on to do so.