One Term President or Not?

[HOZ]

An interesting take in the Awfully Right Wing Washington Post by Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents.

Read the rest in the Washington Post

If Obama does one of the things they want him to do I think he would easily become a 2 term President.

[HOZ]

Related:

Liberal Crisis - from Commentary Magazine
A nice history of Presidents being challenged from within their own party.

[Caged Great]

The republicans don't really have anyone that appeals to the moderates like Obama does. Palin and the rest of the Tea Party gang might get great reviews from republicans, but the moderates would not think they're suitable for president.

If Obama takes care of any republican issue that they might have a similar ideology with, like immigration reform, then he'll easily win the election. If the republicans turn away from one of their core issues just to be uncooperative, Obama will win the election.

Unless something significant happens in the next two years that is really bad for Obama, he'll be a two term President.

[Hemi-Cuda]

the electorate always sides with the incumbent when all things are equal, they'd rather stick with someone they know as long as they aren't too bad over a complete unknown. how else can you explain Bush's re-election? i don't see anyone on the republican side that is anymore charismatic or qualified than John Kerry

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

the electorate always sides with the incumbent when all things are equal, they'd rather stick with someone they know as long as they aren't too bad over a complete unknown. how else can you explain Bush's re-election? i don't see anyone on the republican side that is anymore charismatic or qualified than John Kerry

This pretty much sums up the possibilities for the next election.

either

a) Obama is neutered by the state of Congress since the midterm election. He doesn't screw anything up because nothing can really get done. He wins by default.

b) Obama gets stuff done, despite gridlock. He wins.

c) Republicans somehow manage to get Obama to self destruct. They also somehow manage to find a candidate who isn't a complete idiot. Then it might be a close race.

[HotHotHeat]

If Obama wants to win the next election he has to stop being a on the issues. The more liberal his agenda, the better his chances of winning.

It's really that simple.

[d_phaneuf]

Obama will get in because the republicans are too split right now

Fiscal conservatives are supporting people like Romney

and then Tea Party supporters/Religious right are supporting people like Palin

barring something completely unforeseen coming, like he would have to mess up as no other president has before, Obama should have a slam dunk in 2012

[CaptainCrunch]

The big if is if the Republican's steal a page from the Democrat playbook and start positioning their candidate now and effectively block anyone like Palin.

Romney would probably be the best choice to market as a moderate republican and played right could beat Obama in an election.

American's are angry right now, for want of a better term, while Obama makes pretty speeches, he's failed to get the rail road running on time, and his economic policies aren't doing much to bring the American's out of their malaise.

I think we are in the death throes of the U.S. and even Europe economically as a power players and that death started about 30 years ago.

I think Obama has to try and push through his policies so that he can blame the republican's for the failures of his presidency.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Two mental midgets write a logically bankrupt editorial in the Washington Post and guess who thinks it's interesting?

Anyways, why do Schoen and Caddell not follow their logic through? If the President has lost consent of the governed, and they want him to be practically nonfunctional during the remainder of his term, then why do they want him to finish his last two years? Just ask him to resign. At least that would be intellectually honest.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Romney would probably be the best choice to market as a moderate republican and played right could beat Obama in an election.

I'll bet you $1000.00 that Romney can't beat Obama, or any other opposition party candidate for the presidency.

He's not anywhere near the ballpark of being electable for the right, or meaningful for the left.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

If Obama wants to win the next election he has to stop being a on the issues. The more liberal his agenda, the better his chances of winning.

It's really that simple.

An interesting take because the last election was the rejection of His and the Democratic Party's Liberal agenda.

He is facing Bill Clinton's dilemma. Can he pull off what Clinton did? Or is he about to be railroaded by Clinton?

[Calgaryborn]

I could see Mitt Romney winning the nomination the next time around. He might not be liked by Christian conservatives but, their hatred of Obama will keep them motivated come election time. He was seen last time as someone who would bring good ideas on the economy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'll bet you $1000.00 that Romney can't beat Obama, or any other opposition party candidate for the presidency.

He's not anywhere near the ballpark of being electable for the right, or meaningful for the left.

Obama is no longer the juggernaut that he was in election time, the pre-midterm presidential polls showed that his approval ratings were plummeting, due to his ineffectual presidency he actually allowed a fringe group of lunatic in the tea party to get a foothold in American politics.

Obama's tossed all of his good will away, while he was a very good and very prepared candidate he's been less then inspiring as the President.

Give him two more years, and the Republicans can probably run a parrot that continually promises change and the next president of the United States will be that bird.

[tjinaz]

Bobby Jindal

He could easily beat Obama on the republican ticket. He has better credentials and cannot be seen as the "typical" republican candidate. Obama ran as a moderate but his policy since getting into office can be accurately classified as "Liberal". Democratic candidates are running from him now. All the repubs have to do is learn from the 1994 election and attack on a narrow front. They lost to Clinton as he was a true moderate. Jindal coming from the South and as a minority is their worst nightmare.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by HOZ

An interesting take because the last election was the rejection of His and the Democratic Party's Liberal agenda.

He is facing Bill Clinton's dilemma. Can he pull off what Clinton did? Or is he about to be railroaded by Clinton?

That's not true. The polls indicate a lack of enthusiasm of liberal voters, not a huge swing of independents. The United States is far more left than conventional wisdom believes it to be.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

That's not true. The polls indicate a lack of enthusiasm of liberal voters, not a huge swing of independents. The United States is far more left than conventional wisdom believes it to be.

Interesting. I can't find any voting demographics. Only polling ones. 60+ seat loss seems to be an indication of more than what you are saying.

If what you are saying is true I doubt there would have been such a historical loss of seats.

[tjinaz]

What killed the Dems this fall was not that they were too liberal but that they were not moderate enough. That is what kept Clinton in was he was a Southern (read Blue Dog) Democrat like Johnson and Carter before him. Obama came from Chicago but is playing like he is from Mass or NY and that will be his demise. The True liberals are maybe 15 to 17 % of the total population and for every one of them there are 3 that will vote them down. Look at the demographics from 2008 and 2010. Obama carried a ton of independents and moderates. With his voting record and stance on the issues there is no speech he can read off a teleprompter that will bring them back.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Interesting. I can't find any voting demographics. Only polling ones. 60+ seat loss seems to be an indication of more than what you are saying.

If what you are saying is true I doubt there would have been such a historical loss of seats.

Well there was definitely a swing of independent voters. I think the historic loss of seats is due to lack of left enthusiasm and the worst economy seen for a midterm in a long, long time.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

What killed the Dems this fall was not that they were too liberal but that they were not moderate enough. That is what kept Clinton in was he was a Southern (read Blue Dog) Democrat like Johnson and Carter before him. Obama came from Chicago but is playing like he is from Mass or NY and that will be his demise.

That's absurd. Do you realize how much more liberal Johnson was than Obama? And stronger. The Dems lost the midterms because they were never, ever going to win those midterms and because they alienated the left by being way too moderate and corrupt.

[tjinaz]

Read your history. Who really passed the Civil rights amendment? Was it the Dems in the 60s or the Repubs? Whose side was Johnson really voting against? I think you will find it was the Dems in the south that favored segregation and that was their Waterloo. What are now considered Republican and Democrat core issues have switched remarkably since then.

In vast swaths of America not called NYC or LA, Liberal is still a dirty word. Especially in the south. Texas and Florida are just as big as NY and CA voting wise and the demographics favor the Sun belt. Not to mention the giant swing in local elections that will decide the borders of congressional districts. There is trend here that looks a lot like 1994, but it seems the Repubs have learned and are specifically targeting Obama unlike Clinton.