OBAMA REELECTION SHOWS SIGNS OF MAJOR WEAKNESS

To listen to Barack Obama and many especially liberal pundits the reelection of this failed President seems almost certain. In fact there are many conservatives who because of the weaknesses of the likely GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, who will tell you that Obama is a shoe in and Republicans have no chance at The White House so its better to just concentrate on the House and Senate only.

Yet numbers do not lie and the numbers for Obama are dismal at this point in his Presidency, and as an incumbent who is running for reelection at this point during an election year. First Obama faces the problems he has caused that are resonating with voters through his failed economic policy especially two factors that have always signaled defeat for a sitting President. No President has ever been reelected with skyrocketing gas prices and unemployment above seven percent. Obama has both these pocket book robbing problems to face come November with little prospect for either to make much if any improvement before voters head to the polls on Tuesday the sixth.

When compared to previous Presidential reelection bids, Obama's poll numbers also signal signs of defeat when his numbers stand with those of Romney. Most polls have it a dead heat with the majority having Romney up by as many as three points. Most damaging to Obama's prospects are the Independent voter numbers which are consistently showing Romney with a six to eight point lead and that even in the polls showing Obama with the overall lead.

Looking back to past elections and comparing the numbers in April to those of other incumbents at this point and the picture takes on an even dimmer prospect for Obama. In 1976 Gerald Ford was in about the same position as Obama in a face off with then candidate Jimmy Carter and Ford lost to Carter in the General Election. In 1980 Carter was leading candidate Reagan by six points with a third party candidate John Anderson showing 22 points in the polls to Reagan's 32 and Carter's 38. Reagan won in a landslide.

1992 has George H.W. Bush leading candidate Clinton by 20 points in April yet when November came Clinton defeated Bush by six percentage points. Another H.W. Bush comparison comes with the current slow economy. While Bush 41 did not have nearly as bad an economy as the one we have under Obama, he was using a similar tactic as Obama by claiming that the economy was improving while the vast majority of Americans were not only NOT feeling the affects of an improving, (a situation like Obama that was a political move not an economic reality),  economy but their personal economic situation was worse than it was when Bush was elected. This strategy backfired on Bush and helped usher Clinton into The White House and will likely do the same for Obama.

Although as always with any election nothing is ever set in stone but historical fact and precedence do show trends and give strong indications of possible outcomes. Based an these factors and the poor economy as well as Obama's dismal numbers his reelection bis in 2012 looks very poor, yes very poor indeed.

Ken Taylor