Every time I talk to a Democrat or see one on TV talking, I hear time and time again…”Obama has it in the bag.” Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be re-elected in a landslide victory.

I’m sorry to break the news to the Democrats — there’s nothing in the bag. And nothing can be taken for granted. Even if you kill 10 bin Ladens, save 20,000 banks and 30 car companies, and pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don’t think that you are helping them economically and are fighting for their interests, they will vote you out of office in a split-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill’s election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush’s in 1992.

Currently, the unemployment rate is at 8.1% and no American President has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate above 7.2%. It’s highly improbable that unemployment will be below 7.5% by the time of the election.  

In the 1930s, voters rewarded FDR at the polls not because his programs worked, but because people had a sense he was giving the major issue of their times his undivided attention and that he really cared about those to whom life had dealt a rough time. 

On the other hand, Obama can hardly concentrate on any issue for more than a day or two, and all the tax-funded political trips he takes to the Rust Belt will not persuade people in Middle America (those he needs most) that he really understands their situation, or, frankly, “gives a damn.”

A spike in taxes, a government health-care reform program, a federal deficit that currently stands at 9.1% of GDP and prospects of a government downgrade in its AAA bond rating has killed Obama’s promises of hope and change he advocated in 2008 and lessened his chances of winning in 2012. 

When it comes to reducing the deficit and cutting spending, he has fewer options for both short-term and long-term fixes such as  stimulating the housing sector and modernizing infrastructure programs, respectively.

The Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 210,000 people, has doubled its size since Obama took office. There are about 20,000 people who are hired just to listen in on phone conversations and other communications within the United States. Somehow Obama must have missed the course at Columbia or Harvard where they learned that the founding of America was based on a distrust of government, and its Constitution was created specifically to limit the powers of the federal government. This inherent distrust of government remains in the DNA of America; as much today as ever — as evidenced by the 2010 Democratic electoral massacre.

Furthermore, Obama’s base feels he hasn’t done enough for them when it comes to liberal initiatives, and has serious concerns about how he negotiated and capitulated to the Republicans on key issues confronting him during his tenure in office. I know the presidential elections are 5 months away and a lot can change but I would argue that there is a great disparity in the energy level of his base now as compared to that energy level in November 2008.

Moreover, most independents and moderates believe that he is indecisive and unprepared for the job and don’t think the policies in place are working and don’t believe the country is on the right track. He has created the impression among these former supporters that instead of pitching in to find solutions, Obama hovers and criticizes those who are doing the work. The more Obama talks about the economy and jobs, without doing anything to make things better, the more voters tune him out.

Once an incumbent loses the support of his voters, he or she has a tremendously difficult task to get them back in the tent. Look around the world; incumbents have lost in small elections in Germany and Britain, and recently, in big elections in France and Greece.  

Of course, sometimes being the incumbent can represent a safe choice for voters and can certainly help a candidate’s fundraising efforts. However, elections are all about turning out your base and then trying to move enough “independents” to get to 51 percent.

The polling is also not that encouraging. The president is only up by three-tenths of a percentage point over Romney in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. If Mitt Romney could return to his previous persona as he was as governor of Massachusetts during the general election, even a phony re-birth of Obama as the reformer he ran as in 2008 wouldn’t save his presidency.

Of course the president can be re-elected. He remains a man of personal charm and a “great communicator,” who will be unique in the pages of presidential history. But that sums it up for him and his presidency. The mismatch between Obama’s lofty hubris and the reality on the ground has always been frighteningly stark to the middle-class in America. 

Obama will need more than rhetoric and posturing to win the elections in 2012. He needs to show performance and results — the two things that a campaign, no matter how skillful or well financed, can’t create.