The reason why it was hard to imagine 1996 outcome, was because in 1994, people only knew (or remembered) the Carter scenario. The difference in 1996 was not only because Clintons were better politicians (despite personal baggage accumulated before and during the WH term) than Carter ever was or Obama will ever be (despite his "rock star" and Messiah 2008 tour) but because of political ineptness of Republicans - demonstrated time and time again - and the "blame game" that Carter couldn't mount even if he were as good a politician as Clintons.
If the House Republicans are even moderately successful in undoing some of the Big Government damage passed in these 2 years (despite Obama's and Senate Democrats' best efforts), just the perception of relative stability could lift the economy and market up a bit, and it could look relatively better than 2008 ("Bush's financial crisis") and 2010 ("high unemployment as consequence of Bush's financial crisis")... after all, economy is always relative to some timepost or another.
I am not saying that Obama will win in 2012 (we don't even know what stupid things or candidates the GOP will come up with) but he is already practicing the "blame game" rhetoric, and he needs a "Republican Congress" to complete Clinton scenario, to have even a chance at reelection in 2012... and having a small but ineffective, token majority in the House and Senate denies him both the potential for a bump in the economy and the markets (the still dreaded "Obama factor" / "Obama effect") and the plausible "blame game".
In other words, he will benefit far more from Democrats losing the House in November than having Democratic Congress, and while he is not a good or sympathetic politician, he has people around him who are (former Clintonistas) and he is not stupid enough not to understand that being reelected will do more for his "prestige" and his Marxist agenda to be more entrenched, i.e., the only way to get there is the Clinton scenario and he is already half-way there. Whether he will be successful in the end depends on many factors, many of which are unknown at this time and some that don't depend on him or Democrats... but that's the way to bet, as the saying goes.
That's a mighty big IF, predicated on even bigger IFs.
IF everything you hypothesized were to come true, the US economy will not return to even Bush era levels by 2012. Not even the appearance of similarity will prevail. There's just been far too much fundamental destruction of jobs, income, personal wealth, markets, and consumer confidence, for it all to be so quickly rectified.
Democrats are suddenly realizing this, and are now making plans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (at least) to stave off a political disaster in 2012. That will go a long way to averting a catastrophe of even greater proportions than the one we're now facing, but it does nothing to alleviate or turn around what damage they've already done to the economy.
In fact, the full pain and effects of their meddling hasn't even been felt yet. As I said earlier, Republicans in Congress are going to have their hands full trying to neutralize as much of the Marxist agenda that's already been passed. They won't be able to stop it all. Much of what's been done is beyond their ability to repair, and will have to heal over time in the free market.
Unemployment now stands at close to 10% (and is probably higher, in truth). It is not going to go back to Bush era levels of around 4.5% by the time of the 2012 primary. That much is fairly certain, so the Democrats will not be able to claim that they've improved economic conditions for average Americans.
That's the bottom line on their meddling, and they won't be able to run away from it.