If Obama loses, he can blame the utter failure of his extreme left wing governance.  His stimulus cost hundred of billions, and failed to stimulate the economy.  He pivoted to health care reform, and talked about it too much, rather than working with the people on both sides of the aisle who would have supported a different approach.  He has diminished the office of the presidency by acting peevish and thin skinned.  He is the most UNpresidential president we have ever had.

His policies have led to slow growth,and extreme unemployment If he loses, this will be why.

The fact that this race is even close is a testament to the failure of the President to use all the powers of the Presidency to reform, transform and reshape the nation and tne nation's economy. As Vice President Biden so eloquently paraphrased Shakespeare, the Great Recession didn't come down from out of the heavens (stars) but from the failure of our institutions (us). This teachable moment was his to teach as the foundation for reform of the overfinancialization of the economy and undue influence of Wall Street, the overreliance of the housing industry and real estate for economic growth and household wealth, the deindustrialization of America and reduced investment in manufacturing innovation and reseach, wage stagnation and its dysfunctional relationship with health care insurance as provided by private employers, deregulation and the cost to public health, a bloated defense and security industry, the risks and costs of global climate change and environmental pollution. President Obama is also not a great touter of his considerable accomplishments such as the Affordable Health Care Act and the Stimulus Program. For example, it is remarkable that Obama did not visit sites where billions of dollars of stimulus funds were employed to improve infrastructure for local communities. He never really cited the billions invested in research and development and how important these Federal monies are to improve our economic competitiveness in the world. Obama should have known that he is a people's president and not a Washngton Beltway insider. He got too deep in the weeds with Congress and lost touch with his base. Nevethless, I believe he will get a second chance to have his first Presidential term on his own terms and not dominated by having to clean up the mess left by the Bush Administration. Obama will move us forward and America will prevail.

I would frame this very differently: if President Obama were a 6'2" white male--let's say he looked like, hmm, a George Bush (Sr) or Ronald Reagan--then, after four years of getting this country out of a free-fall and stabilizing it, he would be cruising toward a landslide victory. This is a close race for one reason, and one reason only--the color of a man's skin. This tells me everything I need to know about the moral integrity of this country.

First of all, if he wins, it's not because of Hurricane Sandy. It's because of the utterly DISHONEST news media, who avoid printing any real NEWS like the plague. Joan Venocci says "Those forces of nature gave him the look of leadership and bipartisanship when he desperately needed it"...EXCUSE ME?? This was just a photo-op. NY and NJ people are STILL underwater, no food, no electricity, no gasoline for their cars. Michael Bloomberg blames the storm on "Global Warming" Are you SERIOUS?? The fact that Janet Napolitano and her Homeland Security dept. were forced to waive the Jones act in order to allow foreign ships to come in and help, is an ADMISSION of the INCOMPETENCE and BUREAUCRACY of the federal government when there is a natural crisis...And notice that Joan says "gave him the LOOK of leadership and bipartisanship". That's exactly the problem. It's all a "LOOK"!..Obama is nothing but Smoke and Mirrors,,Barack Obama has NEVER been bipartisan (starting with his early smartaleck remark "I won"), and he has NEVER been a LEADER..His utter lack of leadership shows in his complete failure in Foreign Policy leadership, with the Benghazi attack.It tells us that all of the backslapping about the bin Laden raid at the DNC in August was lie after lie. ..And note, folks that Joan actually printed something about Benghazi. But even then, she just says barack Obama failed to fully explain what happened...Not really. Just call a spade a spade. It's a deliberate COVERUP by blaming the attck on a Video. Joan and the Globe KNOW it...And quite simply, it's the outrageous COVERUP by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton which is the REAL reason for Barack Obama's defeat.

To deny the depth of racism in the country is to deny every study we've ever done from sociological to psychological.  The numbers don't lie.  America has a deep streak of racism.  Every time we hear socialist, muslim, communist or not born here it is nothing but code words for racism.  However, that would not be the main reason he would lose if he lost.  It would be a contributing factor, a major one, but merely one.

Throughout his term he failed to sell his successes and to fight back against the background noise and the Republican obstinance in the Senate and House.  It has not been until now as the campaign wraps up that he and his surrogates make his case.  But again this would only be a part of why he lost.

If he loses he will lose because the American public has a very short term memory.  Imagine if you will that Bush was allowed to run again.  He would run on his previous time as President and still get 47 or 48 percent of the vote.  Even after all he had done all the suffering during his Presidency, the R no matter what voters would still vote for him.  Mitt is offering these very same policies, no differences, no changes, no alterations.  And here he sits because he has a name not Bush.  It is actually pretty amazing.

So first, Obama won't lose.  I think from everything I've seen this is baked, done.  But if he did the major reason he would lose is the American public has no patience and has no memory.  I remember because Bush cost me a lot of money and I imagine Mitt would too if I let him.  But I'll get out of the American market if Mitt gets in.  I don't like getting hurt by the same policies twice.

Actually Joan - if Obama loses I'd blame you!  You and other jounalists giive the right wing a pass.  The press giving equal billing to real facts and the countervailing fake facts that Fox and others use out of some sense of supposed fairness?  The Globe has single-handedly given Brown 3 fake issues with which to slam Warren...out of some warped sense of balance?  The press is now full of folks more concerned about image than substance.  Why don't all of you actually look at what you did over the 8 years of W, basically nothing, and then the 4 years of blather you have given to McConnel and Cantor over these four years!  Yeah...you left yourself out of your own blame article!

What a cynical, lazy column. If Obama wins, he can thank a storm, a loud mouth Republican governor and one too many twists of an opponent centered by a fickle gyroscope? If he loses, it's on him? Sorry, Obama is no Dukakis. Much as I like Dukakis, he lost because of his inability to think big, and he is simply not nimble. Maybe Obama's vision is too big, but he has one and the core beliefs to pursue it. Romney believes in one thing....winning. He is a parasite whose fame and fortune derive from exploiting weakness in companies to his own and his buddies' advantage. He's a Monopoly player on a bigger stage, and he knows how to exploit. If this is the kind of person anyone thinks is 'good' for the country in any way, please understand, at least, that you are the other players, playing against a master at the game, and he will do nothing, but nothing for you; you will lose. This is not governance. It is Mitt Romney's obsession with winning. That Obama has even survived in the climate of hostility, aggression, subterfuge, and downright obstructionism of the last four years is a testament to his staying power. So please, no matter what, understand that Obama's values and work enhance the chances of democracy surviving. Republicans like to talk about 'bringing democracy to the world' but it's not democracy they mean. They seek power over rather than power from the people.

The "racism" of blacks in voting for Obama now there is an intellectual contortion.  Were Catholics "racist" when they voted for JFK because he was Catholic or were the Irish when they voted for JFK.  Of course not, they were tribal.  If one is to use a certain individuals definition of racism then every ethnic group is racist.  It would be more accurate to describe the black vote for Obama as African-centric.  Blacks didn't vote for Obama because they were anti-white they voted for him because he was of the same grouping. 

On the other hand a statistical portion of whites vote against Obama simply because he is black, purely out of racial prejudice.  That is racism.  There is a huge difference and if one is too dim to see that or to partisan or to racist then I would suggest some heavy reading in the areas of psychology and sociology. 

So, "System" let me get this straight.  After 8 yrs the Republican policies put this country in the deepest recession since 1929. The "Recession" ended in June 2009.  This had nothing to do with Obama or his policies - it just happened and if W was still president it would have happened anyway.

Are you kidding ?

TheSystem, I am repeating this from a reply to your 7:04 post to more clearly get your attention: "attaturk, I appreciate the good word. My guess would be that the Globe removed the comment, rather than that "TheSystem" clicked "Report Abuse" (it would be interesting to hear what "TheSystem" has to say). After all, quotes may be available on the public record, and negative deconstructions of liberalism may not be "out of line" but there are limits to what a newspaper will publish, and, besides, "All the News That's Fit to Print" was never the Globe's motto. Some things are just too powerful for the public to be able to see."

I have a step-son out in Wyoming, near Cody to be exact, who had serious stomach problem and landed in the hospital during 2010 for a three-day stay. When he got out, 19 years old at the time, he was immediately sent a bill for full payment of $25,000.00. Estranged from his mother, he had no family to turn to help him pay the bill. I couldn't pay it. The hospital refused his offer of 300 as a first payment and sent the check back to him. The bill went immediately to collections and the collection agency went immediately to court for a judgment. Guess why? Because he works, two jobs. His day job working for the State to take care of a mentally and physically handicapped man offers no health insurance. His night job is working for a national motel chain as a clerk also offers no insurance. His garnishment is now 25% of his monthly take-home of about 1200 dollars. He was forced to move in with his grand mother and after baking payments for a year the balance hasn't been reduced because he's being charted interest. The Affordable Care Act won't help my son because it will be too late for him, but if Romney wins this same nightmare scenario will continue on. Wyoming will never pass health care at the state level.

By the way, I am not opposed to contemporaneous liberalism. I just support the original meaning of the word (openness, fairness, and tolerance) as opposed to the current orthodoxy of intervention to support parochially annointed victim-group members. I also don't support contemporaneous conservative. It's original meaning was conservation of money, nature, freedom, individual rights, and individual responsibility and accountability, as opposed to the current meaning of the imposition of pseudo-religious moral codes and and accountability jive-talk as a smoke screen for the rich ravaging the country for their own gain.

Actually, I wonder who does control the comments section. Would you guess it's the article author, or some low-paid clerk types, perhaps like those grandmothers in Las Vegas who are the ones who actually linguistically fill the role of the hot young things on the adult dating pages? And, I wonder if there is an established procedure for whacking comments. Is there an approval chain or is it up to the censor, robo or otherwise.  (I do suspect that there is a robo-censor but only to pick out certain "bad" words, but that is speculation on my part.)

Absolutely accurate that W intiated the first TARP, and kudos for him.    Obama, the second stage.  For this Obama was excoriated by the Right who thought this was the road to socialism.  One of the few good things to come from the 8 yrs of Republican stewardship. Difficult for the R's  to take any credit for this since they were for it before they were against it.

I think I can make my case against liberal and conservatives more succinct. Human being are human beings. We all know that. And, human beings act, and feel, and think like human beings. (Be, careful, I am up to something sucking you in this way.) So, now along comes logic, math, and principles. And they are not human being-ish, but human beings learn about them in order to live better, more harmonous, more productive, happier lives. But here's the catch, the fly in the ointment. Like a rising tide, human nature tries to take over said logical and principled structures and use them as an excuse, a rationalization, for what is good, old fathioned human nature. So, the modern "liberal" actually violates liberalism (freedom and equal opportunity, especially) to make progress on liberalism, and the modern "conservative" actually violates conservatism (being controlling and wasting resources all for self-gain) all in the name of conservatism. Face it, human being are just another animal in the jungle.

"jkupie"  Don't let anyone kid you.  You can delete anything you want simply by clicking on the abuse button.  It happens time and time again and system does it all the time.  I can prove it.

"jkupie"  See I told you he'd make it disappear.  Nothing civil going on with that guy.   As I said note that you, system and HHK disappeared.  It is easily done.  However few folks do it.  I can only think of a couple.

Speaking of intellectually bankrupt get honest with 'Jkupie" and tell him you deleted his post.  We both are long term subscribers and both know all you have to do is hit the "abuse" button.  Show some "core principles" for once and admit it.  Everyone knows you do it. 

OK, test...test.

So, on my "OK, test test." post below I added "a particularly vicious and nasty reply" and then reported my alter ego as the guilty party, got a "reported" timed popup back, and I can still see the nasty reply, so, it appears that one can only recommend deletion but the Globe is the only one that can erase history, not the perpetrator.

Thank you for proving my point and your lack of "core principles."

What a ridiculous column. There are usually multimple reasons a candidate wins or loses, and often it has little to do with the candidates themselves.

I suppose if you want to involve yourself in ridiculous but ultimate reasons for losing, you could say if they hadn't run they wouldn't have lost. Hey, you could even say if they hadn't allowed themselves to be born, they wouldn't have lost.

Your columns are all over the place and have zero amount of intellectual rigor. It appears that you think up an angle and then search for "evidence" that more or less (usually less) makes your point.

Gee, I thought it was a pretty good column.

According to the polls, it's a close race.  With all of the hard work Obama did to prevent this country from continuously crash diving while fighting the right-wing who wanted him to fail - thus the country fails - I wouldn't be surprised if a simple photograph would make a difference to the uncommitted.