First, when the electorate gives power to one party they expect things to get better. If they do get better, they reward that party. If they don’t get better, they tend to punish them by putting more of the other guys into office. That’s what we saw in 2008, when Obama was elected and a large number of Democrats were elected to Congress (the apogee of Democratic enthusiasm). When things didn’t get better- and in fact, when they got worse- a large number of Republicans were elected to the House in 2010.

In 2012, I think the public still views Obama’s first term as a qualified failure, but the question is whether the wave that gave Republicans a majority in the House was also an apogee. Will voters look at the last two years and be satisfied with Republican opposition to Obama, or will they partially blame them for the stagnant economy and the lack of action on the debt? There may be more enthusiasm on the Republican side because the incumbent is a Democrat, but there certainly isn’t the same kind of enthusiasm as there was in 2010.

Second, 2010 was a midterm election, and turnout is lower in midterm elections than it is in presidential elections. That favors Democrats largely because, at least historically, lower income people and minorities tend to be less politically engaged, and therefore are less likely to vote in midterm elections that get comparatively less cultural and media play.

So while I think it makes sense to expect far less enthusiasm for Obama than we saw in 2008, we also can’t expect the same kind of enthusiasm we saw among Republicans in 2010. If the feeling of the electorate is still that we need new leadership to fix some of our problems, then there ought to be enough enthusiasm to elect Romney. If the feeling is that Republicans didn’t do enough with their House majority, or if the electorate is beginning to feel like nobody could’ve fixed our problems in the last four years, then Obama will win.