Yeah I know, "nice" - the guy hasn't even been inaugurated and I've already questioned whether he's a one-term president.

But I've had a theory that no matter which candidate won the presidential election, he'd be a one-term president. My thinking is that the economic situation would dictate that, not being particularly better in 2012 than it is now. And right or wrong presidents are given credit or saddled with blame for whatever economic conditions prevail at election time.

James Pethokoukis has much the same thought and concludes:

Reagan worked his magic with tax cuts. Obama is trying to do the same with government spending. But stimulus packages are only supposed to keep the recession from getting worse or morphing into a mini-depression. I don't think anyone expects that $500 billion in hot money to return America to prosperity. Only time (and the private sector) can do that, especially with a downturn caused by a credit crisis and deflating asset bubble. And four years may not be enough time for the Obama presidency to traverse that long road or complete that steep climb.

Read the whole thing - he lays out a pretty good case, economically. Politically, who knows? Obama might weather it. There's always Bush to blame it on. I just have to wonder if he's good for 4 years?

[Crossposted at QandO]