Spin is the art of presenting facts in such a way as to make yourself look good. The best spin, IMO, utilizes accurate facts (to avoid being shown a liar), but utilizes cherry-picking and carefully worded descriptions to paint a picture much more favorable than another view might present. In the coming election, spin is going to be critical because the economy is not in good shape right now and Obama is going to have to present it as getting better and 'not my fault'. Romney, in turn, will have to present it as 'his fault' and not getting better fast enough. All four of these positions will have defensible facts associated with them, however I believe that the less spinn-y facts go against Obama. In other words, Romeny can in a lot of cases state a plain, clear fact and Obama will have to weasel around it, adding qualifications and cherry-picking the date range. This will be big in the election. Case in point, jobs. One important self-label of incumbents is "Job Creator"(though just being a net positive shouldn't be a win, since the population is continuously growing). Obama will not be able to use this label without qualification -- with only one more jobs report to come out before the election, he is virtually assured of having a negative overall jobs record. So he'll have to move the goalposts and cherry-pick sectors in order to present himself in a positive light. Case in point: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ack-obama-says-us-has-gained-half-million-ma/ This is a beaut. It mostly blames his predecessor, including blaming him for job losses in the first year of his own term and turns a net loss (in his term) into a gain (over part of his term). Now the goalposts themselves in this issue are an interesting factor. People tend to like to focus on the exact start of a President's term because it is easy. In the past, that's worked out pretty well for Democrats, but this time goalpost shifting is going to be needed. The reality is, it isn't even necessarily wrong to do: It was October of 2009 before the unemployment rate peaked for Obama, but realistically there wasn't much he could have done for most of that time. But the same applies to Bush and unlike Obama, he wasn't lucky enough to have the job losses of his predecessor start before he entered office. The economic cycle's nadir was ligned-up about six months later for Bush than for Obama's. There are a lot of straightforward issues that separate the candidates (abortion, gay marriage, universal healthcare, etc.), and there isn't much spin that can go into those. But because the economy is still kinda crappy, I think this election will mostly be about how each candidate spins the economic facts in their favor.