In any case I think he is unlikely to improve enough to gain more than Missouri, Montana, and Arizona, and, perversely, if he presides over (perhaps even effects) a good economy, it could cause him to loose Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio. Many voters will feel free to give vent to racism or social issues based voting once their economic condition is made a bit less insecure.
No no, you seem to misunderstand me. I'm saying that they voted for Obama because of how they see themselves - in the current situation most working class people (people who are not wealthy owners) see themselves as insecure and dependant. This of course is the accurate view, and one which requires voting relatively left, or at least what passes for left in american politics.
But once the economy improves, they will indulge once again in hubris. Prideful workers can become irritated by many things which don't really matter, from the colour of the candidate to the 'social issues'. So there is certainly the opportunity for some of Obama's margin in states like North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, and others to melt away due to his success.
Looking at the whole history of liberal democrats in american governance it is reasonable to say that they always create their own electoral troubles - all those ordinary toilers voting Republican in the seventies, eightiest, and nineties, where only enabled to do so because the liberal Democrats gave them sufficient security and prosperity to indulge in their hubris.
