I don't think he will be reelected. I have read that US presidential elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money on the campaign 9 out of 10 times, and Obama has angered some very influencal groups since he was elected.

By the way, just the other day I read that Meg Whitman paid 71 million dollars from her own fortune just to win some californian republic primary election. Can someone from the US explain to me what makes the position of governor of california so profitable that the chance of being elected alone is worth 71 million dollars of your own fortune? I somehow doubt the wage for being governor of california is anywhere near that number.

It's won by the candidate who spends the most money, because the candidate who is more popular is much more likely to receive more money. 

Heck in a primary for Senate some poltician just lost to some guy who didn't even run a campaign!   He jsut spent his 10 grand listing fee and that was that.

Nobody wants to give money to a loser.  Statistical Analysis of US elections have actually shown that money spent actually doesn't effect votes much. 

As for Meg Whitman... some people just want lots of people want lots of power I guess.  Besides, if she can spend 71 million dollars on her election... chances are she wasn't going to use that money for anything anyway.

And the funniest thing is, they probably don't know what they're talking about.

I do see him winning.

He should win easily.

And yet Haley and Lincoln both managed to win their primaries event though they were incumbent.  Haley is also from SC so to say that the whole state is furious with incumbents because they went with a relative unknown isn't entirely true.  Also Rep. Rob Whitman, Scott Rigell, and Sen. Robert Hurt all were victorious over their Tea party challengers even though they all had massive establishment support.  I personally think that this will not be incumbency armageddon as the media proclaims.  Sure some people will lose to up and coming challengers, but we aren't going to see the hill populated entirely by new faces.

had to quote this casue it's so true. how mutch change can we realy expect? i still think he's doing a great job with what he has to work with in the house and senate.

i enjoyed the paragraph.

he didn't have a chance. it took 8 yr's to get a surpluse under clinton, one yr' to blow the surpluse under Bush, 8 yr's to kill not just the American economy but the global economy under Bush. (and several large finacial firms)

dito

Lincoln BARELY won... and had to win by pulling out all sorts of high profile visists.

For a primary.

You practically never even have a primary when your an incumbent.   Because some people held on to their positions just barely, whent there shouldn't of been an election isn't promising.