[TomGuy]

Grim? Looks rosy to me,

Yes.

2012 is Obama's to lose, just like 1996 was GHW Bush's to lose.

People tend to resist change, unless there is a good reason. If Obama can decrease the unemployment numbers and show a modest improvement in the economy, and keep inflation relatively in check, he is a shoe-in.

Of course, it does depend on whom the GOP nominates. If they go with nearly any of the major and minor wannabees, they are going to see a repeat of 1996 and 2008.

Look at how Obama improved his numbers just during the lame-duck session. If he can repeat that in late October 2012, he can win against almost anyone the GOP puts up.

Incumbency is difficult to defeat. Remember JD Hayworth in the AZ Senate race?

Unless they intend 2012 as another throw-away year, the GOP needs to present a strong, bold, youthful candidate. Anyone old 'white'-haired guy ain't gonna do it for them.

[Frantzie]

I see too much of Clinton’s second run. Bill blanketed with ads early and endless. Dole had no chance.

This will be like USSR Tv which almost ALL TV is like that now. They all love the muslim. TV will fool many women and anyone who voted for him before.

Alternatively it could be like Scott Brown and Crokaley in MA. Brown turned out to be a RINO but people were mobiled.

Vote fraud will be rampant in 2012.

[Fledermaus]

You mean 1992.

[LibLieSlayer]

jimmah catah... ‘nuff said.

LLS

[RipSawyer]

“If Obama can decrease the unemployment numbers and show a modest improvement in the economy, and keep inflation relatively in check, he is a shoe-in.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It is shoo in, not shoe-in and he has two chances of doing all that, slim and none, Slim is marooned on an uncharted island somewhere. If he gets another term it certainly will not be because he accomplished those three goals. Every effort will be made to lie about all three but I think that it will be too much of a lie to sell. Only the terminally stupid believe official government figures any longer.