The bailout happened in 2008, and it really helped me realize how insane the Republicans were. They can play conservative and sometimes downright libertarian, but when it is all over and you could just do what you want, well, Bush chose to cover some corporate criminals.
I suppose, to get to the point of this post, that before winning the second election, winning the second election is a big deal. You just have to do it. But afterwards? The enemies outside your camp are already arrayed against you, and all those punks you let in your camp are now arrayed as well. There's good money in selling you out, and chances are, they didn't like you much anyway. Lest you lost the thread, I'm talking about Obama guys (or gals, given the butch contingent he has laid himself up with) sabotaging him. It is a similar thing- before the election, the enemy outside the camp is the big threat. After the election, they immediately scheme to make O a powerless idol and squabble amongst themselves as to who will be the shogun.
The whole game is rather insular, as politics in general is. I see so much analysis about the election which basically comes down to telling Romney to behave a bit more like Obama in order to get a few more votes. Meanwhile there are about 40% who could vote but did not- a far larger pool than the 20something% that voted for either candidate. The logical view would be that, if you want to get elected, make yourself different enough to entice some of those potential voters.
That's not an incumbent's game though. The incumbent plays a different game. But now the incumbent has won. It is game over for him, and power grab time for the people in his camp, chafing under his leadership.