I'm very sorry you're struggling, Dear. How may I help?
The magic number is 50%. In the last 40 years, a president who is at 50% or higher on January 1st of the election year has won re-election. Those under 50% on that date, have lost. Period.
Bush is anywhere from 49 to 58% now. He needs to shore up his numbers by the end of the year. This is important for several reasons. First, fundraising. People stop giving money if they think it will be a waste. Secondly, the inevitability factor. People like backing a winner. You would be amazed at some in the mushy middle who will vote where they think most people are, because they like being on the winning side, and it doesn't really matter to them too much which side they are supporting. Thirdly, media coverage. The media are fear mongers, hype mongers, and pack animals. If the president appears unbeatable, they keep repeating that. If they sense weakness, they pound on him, and ignore the opposition's weakness. They are hyenas. Literally.
His point is that all of the things on his list could be said about Ronald Reagan in 1983, and Reagan won in the biggest landslide in electoral college history. These things can also be said about GWB today.
Citing unnamed Google.com sources is a rather low standard.
Why hold him to a higher standard than a professional newspaper columnist or editorial board? How often do you see footnotes in the op ed pieces of the WSJ? Heck, some of these facts he cites are so widely known that you probably wouldn't have to footnote them in an academic paper. In fact, I was only 12 in 1983 and I remembered all but one of them first-hand. So why be anal about it?