Obama:  Wins Nobel Peace prize - runs re-election campaign on killing someone.

I'm sorry but asking which of these two is better than the other is like asking which quadrapalegic suffer would fare best against Jackie Chan?  Or which midget can high jump the best?   Or which rock can float better?   Or which Kardashian sister is the least slutty?

Pretty sure pumice floats better =P

This is based on the assumption that the Republicans will have somebody better than Romney in 2016.

My bets on 2016 candidates:

Dems: Hillary Clinton

GOP (if Romney is not Pres): Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin.... maybe Jim DeMint.

If you're thinking tactically like you are, you've got to consider this. Some of those candidates are definitely better than Romney, but could they beat Clinton?

----

As for the OP. If those were the only two on the ticket, I wouldn't bother voting (if I could vote, anyway).

After four more years of Obama? Yeah, I think so.

I'm torn between whether it's better for Obama to go ahead and destroy progressivism once and for all (and potentially the US with it) and hope the Republican party finally takes a more libertarian turn for 2016, or for Romney to win on the basis that he's the less economically suicidal of the two and doesn't blind the chattering classes with faux-cool so that he would actually be held accountable for the things he does. I can't really see myself voting for anyone but Johnson at this point, though, so I guess I'm not that invested.

obama.

i actually like romney enough. if i had any faith that he would lead the country like he lead massachusetts i'd be quite fine with him. but the people behind him, the tea-partiers, offend me on every level. so i'll vote for obama but if romney wins and actually governs like i know he could then that would be okay too.

Obama because once you go black, you never go back.

Obama, just because somebody needs to stand in the way of the nuts in the House and their "cut everything but the military" attitude.

No great fan of Obama personally, but its a sad case of Democrats being categorically better than the alternative.

i hope a women gets elected in the next election cycle or two.

Why doesn't the Dem controlled Senate propose a budget (you know, like they're supposed to) that actually cuts stuff that the Dems would want to cut? You know, like some forms of military spending?

Oh, yeah, that's why: because, despite all their rhetoric, Dems like military spending as much as the GOP.

Clinton is even withdrawing as Secretary of State if Obama wins re-election. She's aged more visibly than Obama has in the current term, and its fair to say she's fairly burnt out.

That said, i don't really know who else the Democrats even have. I don't know whether it's the fact that media attention on "good presidential candidates" has focused solely on Republicans in the last four years, but i'm not aware of who the real up-and-comers are on the side that i favor. On the Republican side, Christie is a possibility, the party was flirting with Jindal in the first year of the Obama Administration but they seem to have ignored him since. Palin is moving beyond "has-been" status at this point. DeMint is also possible.

I'd say Christie, Pawlenty, Jeb Bush (for some reason, despite the fact that no Republican candidate even likes to mention his brother), Scott Walker (if he survives his recall election), Rick Santorum again, and Rand Paul.