In the short term, should Romney win and the GOP gain 50 or more Senate seats, the economic outlook will strengthen. As the tax cuts under Reagan and Bush II proved, lowering tax rates stimulates economic growth and actually causes tax revenue at all levels (Federal, state, and local) to increase. The supply side model, which liberals call trickle down economics, works.
The longer term prospect is not nearly as good. We are still working with a $16 trillion deficit, and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. There is little political will to cut entitlement programs, and since the days of Eisenhower, the Republicans when in power have not done so, nor generally retracted Democrat advances in government power generally and indeed, under Nixon and both Bushes, modestly increased these areas, under the rubric of compassionate conservatism. Even if Obamacare goes away, the existing structure of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., is unsustainable on an actuarial basis.
A second, though lesser, factor is military expenditures. Wars and interventions are expensive, and Romney appears inclined to be more proactive than Obama. We can afford a larger and better equipped military if social programs were cut. History shows that the GOP will not do so. We cannot afford "guns and butter." When the deficits are not reduced, and our ability to borrow declines, our military and prestige will be sacrificed to preserve the benefits of seniors, the poor, retired Federal workers, et. al., not to mention making interest payments on the national debt.
Absolutely true. The price of energy permeates through everything in the economy. Approving the Keystone Pipeline, ending the (illegal) Obama restrictions on drilling in the Gulf, increased development of domestic energy resources, and many other things have at least a chance of happening with Romney. It is for certain energy prices will continue to rise with Obama in office. That is a serious drag on economic activity.