Well, no. The smart money[1] is on Obama being re-elected, but likely not by the same margin as he saw in 2008...when he won 52.9% of the popular vote. However, it's too soon to tell what the effects of a couple developments will be:
1. A systematic effort in 'swing' states (the states that are not predictably behind one candidate or another) to disenfranchise as many poor and minority voters (traditionally reliably voting blocs for Democratic candidates, such as Obama) as possible by implementing stringent new voter ID laws just months before the election (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-vote...). The nominal purpose of this is to prevent voter fraud, but between 2002 and 2006 there were only 86 convictions related to voter fraud out of 200 million votes cast (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_o...). Another (self-described conservative) source indicates the number as being 400 in the last ten years (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/sore-losers/).
2. A relentlessly negative and admittedly not-reality-based campaign from the Romney campaign to re-litigate welfare reform, which hasn't been a real issue in sixteen years, since Clinton gutted the system (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/peter-edelman-mit...)
Also, please note that a poll conducted last year indicated that 25% of Americans believed that Obama was born outside the United States and, therefore, ineligible to be President[2]:
While 25 percent of all Americans in this new poll say
Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S., 57 percent correctly
said he was born in the United States. Another 18 percent
said they did not know where he was born.
To say that the United States has a massively uninformed electorate would be an understatement[3]. And the problem is getting worse now that the US Supreme Court allowed corporations and high net worth individuals to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of money to so-called 'SuperPACs'. SuperPACs are supposedly not allowed to coordinate directly with the candidate(s) they support, but that doesn't matter for two reasons:
1. Their ads are overwhelmingly negative[4], and it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to run attack ads against the opponent.
2. The 'firewall' between candidates and the SuperPACs is so narrowly defined that it might as well be non-existent[5].
[1] 538, TPM, Sam Wang at Princeton, etc. etc. I can provide citations if necessary.
[3] http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/09/brains-and-ballo... -- my favorite quote: And here’s where it’s interesting, and a little scary. “The dirty little secret of American politics is that the least-informed people are decisive in elections,” McDonald said. This is because the most well-informed voters, the highest on the socio-economic and educational attainment ladder, tend to be partisans and not up for grabs. They know how they’re going to vote.
1. A systematic effort in 'swing' states (the states that are not predictably behind one candidate or another) to disenfranchise as many poor and minority voters (traditionally reliably voting blocs for Democratic candidates, such as Obama) as possible by implementing stringent new voter ID laws just months before the election (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-vote...). The nominal purpose of this is to prevent voter fraud, but between 2002 and 2006 there were only 86 convictions related to voter fraud out of 200 million votes cast (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_o...). Another (self-described conservative) source indicates the number as being 400 in the last ten years (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/sore-losers/).
2. A relentlessly negative and admittedly not-reality-based campaign from the Romney campaign to re-litigate welfare reform, which hasn't been a real issue in sixteen years, since Clinton gutted the system (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/peter-edelman-mit...)
Also, please note that a poll conducted last year indicated that 25% of Americans believed that Obama was born outside the United States and, therefore, ineligible to be President[2]:
To say that the United States has a massively uninformed electorate would be an understatement[3]. And the problem is getting worse now that the US Supreme Court allowed corporations and high net worth individuals to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of money to so-called 'SuperPACs'. SuperPACs are supposedly not allowed to coordinate directly with the candidate(s) they support, but that doesn't matter for two reasons:1. Their ads are overwhelmingly negative[4], and it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to run attack ads against the opponent.
2. The 'firewall' between candidates and the SuperPACs is so narrowly defined that it might as well be non-existent[5].
[1] 538, TPM, Sam Wang at Princeton, etc. etc. I can provide citations if necessary.
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056061-503544.html
[3] http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/09/brains-and-ballo... -- my favorite quote: And here’s where it’s interesting, and a little scary. “The dirty little secret of American politics is that the least-informed people are decisive in elections,” McDonald said. This is because the most well-informed voters, the highest on the socio-economic and educational attainment ladder, tend to be partisans and not up for grabs. They know how they’re going to vote.
[4] http://kantarmediana.com/cmag/press/study-negative-campaign-...
[5] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79854.html