Clearly, "The Market" had some participants who had a bout of anxiety about four more years of Obama, if that seems overreacting to the author by a large measure, because the structure of the situation facing whoever takes office, absent actual hostility to the country, dictates a large measure of what that person can, and therefore will, do.
That is obviously the case with the budget, as there is no way to do the sequester in its current form, plus other policy changes by default, absent a massive macroeconomic shock.
That is why it would seem like some circles in the military were not averse the the re-election of Obama, to wit Colin Powell, as to the second structural element that favors The Street not overreacting, namely the interaction of our budget with world politics.
Unless a President of the United States actually wanted to damage the country, not the case, then it is the case that he will have to maintain certain military balances that have large economic implications and vice versa, e.g. relations with China and Russia over Iran and Israel.
As to why people shouldn't line up to kick Romney, he ran a good campaign, if one can see some constraints on his campaign that probably cost a very good person a chance to have the hardest job in the world.
As to those contraints, immigration clearly blew up in the Republicans face, as can be seen in the Latino vote, as did continuing to follow the most hardline pro-life policies a la Akin, if everyone ran from whatever that was: hello, can you say "uncomfortable not good?"
On the brighter side of things, and important for both Romney and Obama, and therefore everyone else, Romney pointed out to the need to to a budget deal that is real, finally, which the President acknowledged in his acceptance speech, along with an immigration reform act that probably skewers some sacred cows in the Republican Party, but, how's that strategy looking now?