Until just over a week ago, President Obama’s campaign was on the cusp of doing something unprecedented in modern presidential politics: turning the election into a referendum on the challenger, Mitt Romney.
Why is that so special? Because every prior example of an incumbent running for reelection in recent times has wound up being a referendum on the guy in the White House.

Comments
Do you not care that Gov. Romney's "crisp" performance included a fair bit of "malarkey" about the President's positions nd his own proposals?
Obama's attacks on Romney were not borne of an electorate which did not want big ideas. It was the result of of having no successes on which to justify a second term. If you have no accomplishments, painting your opponent as radical is all that is left. That was working up until the debate. Romney had access to the electorate without the media to stand in the way and distort. He proves himself competent, likeable, and very serious.
This comment has been removed.
Obama has managed to keep is out of any new wars in the Middle East; that alone is enough for my vote. He's still batting clean-up.
Your expectations are very, very small.
All elections are referenda on incumbents. Who writes the titles of these op-eds?
This election has never been a referendum on Obama. You have to love these nonsensical positions taken by some opinion writers. I suppose they are necessary to have something to write about every day. This election has from the very beginning but an election about "change", not Obama's hope and change, but change. Do we change President's in mid=stream.
Two segments of the population would vote for a cheeseburger if it had an R or a D next to it. A rather useless group, but there you have it. The balance has always recognized the disaster left to Obama. The question has always been are his corrections working? Does the new guy have better ideas. Truly this election reminds me more of Nixon - Humphrey than anything else. Nixon's secret plan to end the war. Mitt's secret plan to fix the economy. Although Mitt isn't as secret it's kind of a secretive Bush II if you will.
Mitt is to the right of those of us in the middle. I mean true middle not R's or D's who like to call themselves I's but real independents. My problem in this election is I have never like the man, Mitt Romney. Forget policy I just don't like him. I think in the end that may be the biggest problem and the main reason Mitt loses, if he loses. He lacks integrity and it shows. He is somehow incomplete.
If this is a referdum election and I don't believe it is, but if it is. It is a referendum on Mitt.
Those R and D labels are not final. Plenty of Republicans--old-school New England Republicans--will be voting for Obama. They understand that Obama took office after a melt-down caused by extreme George W. Bush policies, including not one but TWO unfunded wars. They understand the point of stimulus package, that an economic crisis that took 8 years to create isn't going to be fixed in 4 years. They know that fiscally, Obama has been a careful steward of the nation's budget. Obama has shown the slowest growth in the federal government since World War II! (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22)
again, Kate, what caused the financial crisis?
so tired of this "inherited a big mess." Welcome to being President. Put on your big boy undies. George Bush took office in a recession and 10 months in an unprecedented terror attack and anthrax attack. That was easy?
I can't say that I did it often, but I did occasionally defend W early on. He had a lot on his plate and wasn't necessarily all that well equipped to deal with it. More attacks did not take place in this country, to his credit. I would maintain that the Iraq was ill-conceived and fell short of its objectives, however (lying, or not, about wmd aside). And that the war(s) were/are a massive drain of capital which, it seems to me, have been a significant source of economic decline in the us, on a par with financial institutions, credit, predatory lending etc.
I am torn on the wars. Have a hard time w/ Afghanistan. Going into a country that kicked the %%%% out of the USSR is a scary proposiiton. I supported, and still do, Iraq.
Americans can now understand the dissent & grid-lock in Washington.
Biden is obnoxious, condescending, and boorish.
Obama cannot debate/discuss or talk without a TELEPROMPTER.
The two in a meeting, must come across as Frat boys.
A response so brilliant that you've pasted it into five separate articles! How frat-boy like is that !?
This comment has been removed.
Today the Catholic Bishops have issued a statement putting the lie to Biden’s whopper:
Ah, the RCC. Take a walk on the wild side: http://www.catholicvote.org/
Did they change their positionthat Ryans budget plan was in opposition to Catholic social gospel.
"begolfing" What cause the meltdown was Wall Streets and the bankers involvement in derivatives. Now you can go on the Fannie Mae nonsense, but if you are voting for someone who will allow the banks to once again get into parceling and derivatives then you will get the same result. Fine supprt Romney but at least try to recognize what caused the problem. You don't like Obama, that's fine. I don't care. You and others just ignoring what happened and allowing to happen again will cost me money. So try to stay informed. I'd appreciate it. Like him or not it took four years of Obama to get my portfolio back to speed.
No, It was not just derivatives. it was easy lending supported by dems. Housing crash. Derivatives hurt, but it was one of many that was started under Clinton's desire to get more ppl into home s (red lining) The quality of the loans was not what was advertised.
play well this weekend