It Looks Like I'm Not the Only One Bearish on Obama in 2012

A lot of Democrats are worried that toast in 2012:

Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing to two leading candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who have executive experience and messages built around job creation.

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

“In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

The president’s economic address last week offered a measure of solace to discouraged Democrats by employing an assertive and scrappy style that many supporters complain has been absent for the last year as he has struggled to rise above Washington gridlock. Several Democrats suggested that he watch a tape of the jobs speech over and over and use it as a guide until the election.

At it's core, the problem is that people who choose a bad something over a not-bad nothing.
.
The money quote is that, "Polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections."

There is another name for these voters, low information voters.  They don't tend to vote on policies, they don't vote on "changing the tone", and while they may tell pollsters that they don't like all that partisanship, they say that because they don't think what it means.

These are voters who vote on buzz, and the buzz is generated by the bases, to the benefit Reagan and Bush II, and to the detriment of Carter and Bush I.

If the phrase "Sane Republican" had not become an oxymoron, and if the Republican party were not determined to alienate Hispanic voters, he would have no chance at all.

If one is inclined to look on the brighter side, it should be noted that it would be much less politically tenable for a 'Phant to gut social security and Medicare.  (It's an "Only Nixon could go to China" thing)