Pres. Obama won in 2008 by about 53% to 46% for Sen. McCain.

He persuaded a sufficient majority of the middle 10% to take a chance on his promise of "hope and change."

That same promise can't possibly work this time -- you can't really sell change if you've been in office for almost 4 years.

You have to figure that both candidates this time start out with about a 45% floor.

So the real question here is whether enough of the "persuadable middle 10%" will stick with Pres. Obama, or whether they'll be willing to take a chance on Gov. Romney.

When the middle 10% ask themselves whether the experiment has worked, whether they're better off, whether their future is as bright as they expected . . . how many can answer that those questions in the affirmative?

Precious few, I'd wager.

"So the real question here is whether enough of the "persuadable middle 10%" will stick with Pres. Obama, or whether they'll be willing to take a chance on Gov. Romney."

There is another factor - how many will stay home. I think that factor squarely favors Romney. Having said that, it's extremely difficult to beat a moderately popular incumbent, so we're probably looking at 4 more years regardless.

"Pres. Obama won in 2008 by about 53%"

That is more than Clinton received in either of his elections.

Am I better off? I can answer that in some ways with a no. But since you are posing that question for political purposes.. should not the question be - Do you think the country is better off? Or are you suggesting that only a very narrow self interest of the individual matter over all else?