Do you really believe President Obama will get a 2nd term?

[LeftyAndProud60]

I just think too many things are against him. Republican Governors will probably find ways to guarantee unemployment is over 9% come next election. Bankers and big business are obviously against him, despite some of you saying otherwise. And watching 5mins of Morning Joe depressed me.

[yourout]

1. If he messes with SS I am not sure I care if he does.

I am not sure what is worse....a Dem behaving like a Republican or a real Republican.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. That could be his third-rail.

Not good.

[Enthusiast]

91. I feel it is worse having Democrats that behave

like Republicans because it damages the future of our party. Already polls show people think Republicans would better protect social security. Now if that isn't the most repugnant thing I have ever heard I don't know what is.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OwnedByFerrets]

4. Touch SS and he wont have a chance. Repugs are

on their knees PRAYING that he will do ANYTHING to diminish SS. It will destroy any chance of a second term.

[costahawk1987]

83. Correct

I would still vote for him because of other issues, but I wouldn't put any effort into getting others to vote. Then again, voting wouldn't even be an option if the president were to boot me to the street, leaving me with no home address.

[Uben]

5. Absolutely

Republican governors will not find ways to guarantee unemployment is over 9%. That is slicing their own throat.
It brings in less revenue and spends more on unemployment. They spend most of their time trying to get jobs for their state. I don't believe any politican is willing to sell out their state unless, of course, there was more money in it for them...nudge, nudge,......say no more!

Obama will be re-elected based on his performance. He has a nice list of accomplishments that can be appreciated by both dems and pubs. His approach to bi-partisanism has been masterful and fruitful, and I believe will be reflected in the next election.

That's my opinion......it's non-negotiable.

[Exilednight]

10. When Obama took office, unemployment was at 7.4%. He has to get it

under 7 if he wants to run on his record. Republicans will hammer him with the unemployment will not rise above 8% rhetoric that members of his administration touted when he asked for the stimulus bill.

If it's above 8, he's toast.

[Uben]

17. That, too, is opinion.....

I remember when Obama was elected, all too well. Even as a Clinton supporter, it was probably one of the proudest days of my life. Of course, I would have voted for Shimp Howard before McCain/palin. I'm not sure what you think he should have done different. The tax cut compromise was a necessary evil. The alternative was let them all expire, which would be a reversal of the slowly improving economy. No brainer, IMO.

[LeftyAndProud60]

20. Is that even possible? I don't think it is. NT

[Exilednight]

24. We'd have to create nerly a half-million jobs per month over the next

year and a half to get it down to that level.

I highly doubt he can do it with his current economic policy.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

98. Stop extending unemployment benefits

That'll drop a bunch of people from the unemployment rolls, and the unemployment percent will plummet.

This will be the Republican "success story" if they regain control of the White House.

If we had a Democratic president with the gall to tax services performed overseas, the unemployment numbers could also drop.

But, we have Obama, and yes I'll vote for him, and yes he will be re-elected. FWIW.

[Sheepshank]

42. I don't think that will be a tipping point.

I doubt many will think that the previous unemployment rate is realistically attainable.

I think Obama will win a 2nd term. I think the GOP will attempt to throw a lot of things against the wall to see what will stick to harm Obama, but most at this point realize that those sticking points were there prior to Bush leaving office.

[vaberella]

53. Get it together. If that was true...it's because the fall out wasn't happening.

Everyone knows, or some people need to be reminded the economic collapse was on the brink of despair about 6 months before Bush went out of office. Unemployment skyrocketed when Obama "came into" Presidency---not while he was in it. He managed to level it and bring it down.

[quiller4]

105. I disagree. His approval rating is over 50% now in the poll of polls

He leads all the current Republican contenders by a greater percentage now than he did in November. I'd love to see unemployment below 7% but I think Obama will be re-elected. If the unemployment rate drops below 7% it will just increase his margin of victory.

[ThomThom]

94. the people that put him over the top last time may not turn out

real progressives and young people might not be so thrilled to vote for him a second time

[Exilednight]

6. It really depends on who gets the nomination. I will say this

many believe that the Republican nominee will be Palin, Romney or Huck. Odds are, it will not be any of those three. Polls have consistently shown that Obama beats all three with ease. They are going to move to a more centrist candidate and probably someone who has no name recognition outside of hard core political followers.

[RZM]

11. I don't know about that

I'd say the most likely nominee is one of those three, though I have my doubts that Palin will run. It's hard for a nobody to win primaries, since name recognition definitely matters. I also wonder whether a more centrist candidate could do well in Republican primaries, given their recent obsession with 'purity.'

I'd say the Huckster and Romney are the most likely nominees, though a lot could happen between now and then.

[Exilednight]

14. Yes, but along with name recognition comes a history. One of the big issues for Republicans

in the upcoming primary campaign is not really going to be about policy, but rather who can beat Obama.

[RZM]

18. That's certainly possible

There will be a lot of complicated dynamics swirling around the Republican primaries and 'anybody but Obama' will certainly be a part of that. But name recognition can also be cast as a positive in that regard. Look at the 2004 Democratic primaries, where Dean and Edwards lost to Kerry on both counts -- they were considered less electable in part because they didn't have Kerry's history or name recognition.

Obama's a larger than life figure. I don't see Republicans being able making a convincing argument that an unknown like Mike Pence or almost-unknown like Tim Pawlenty could go up against the Obama juggernaut. The Huckster and Romney will have baggage on the Tea Party purity tests, but I just don't see an unknown consistently beating them in primary after primary, partly because they both will do well in different regions (the Huckster in the South, Romney in the Northeast and Midwest), which might deprive some of the lesser known candidates of oxygen.

[Exilednight]

19. Comparing a Democratic primary to a Republican primary is like comparing

apples and oranges.

It's two completely different systems. Name recognition has more power in the Democratic primary because of super-delegates, which is something that Republicans do not have.

A Democratic candidate can have nearly a quarter of the delegates pledged to their support before the first vote in Iowa or NH is even cast.

[RZM]

21. True, but

There are some similar dynamics. Obama and Bush are/were both incumbents that the other side really, really dislikes. That's always the case to some degree, but s lot of people on the right despise Obama in much the same way that the left really hated Bush, hence the 'anybody but' thing. 'Anybody but' certainly won the day in 2004 -- we'll see if it does in 2012. It'll be interesting to see where the Tea Party comes down on that. My guess is that there will be serious fractures over there on this question, with the 'anybody but' crowd carrying the day in the end.

[FSogol]

7. Of course he will. The majority of voters don't pay attention to politics at all until

the last minute. He'll be reelected in a landslide.

[bowens43]

8. unfortunately yes

the way he's going he'll certainly get the republican vote...............

[JoePhilly]

9. Yes

[Perky]

12. The President will cruise to victory

Largely because the GOP will inevitably not find someone who will appeal to someone who has appeal beyond the base (The Tea Party is going to insist on a Goldwater) and the Hispanic vote is going to be overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee,

[RZM]

16. The hispanic vote already is pretty democratic

It won't change much in the near future -- there's not much further the Republicans can fall in that regard. The idea of the Hispanic vote being large enough to be a critical game-changer is a long, long way off and it's nowhere near as solid for the Democrats as the African-American vote.

[Perky]

22. They are a large enough group in Texas to make it competitive

and the GOP can not win without Texas.

[RZM]

25. Not yet

Though that is definitely in the cards if immigration continues at current levels. If Hispanic Texans voted Democratic like African-Americans then it would be closer, but they don't do that right now. The white vote is still where Texas is won and lost. The kind of change you're talking about will take decades and happen incrementally.

[cecilfirefox]

103. Texas would have to do a switch of a million votes to Democrat based off the 08 numbers. It's-

possible. But we're not there yet. However, you are right. I think Texas is on a slow turn towards being a more competitive Democratic state if we play our cards right there for a couple election cycles.

[treestar]

59. It was cited as a major factor in 2008

[RZM]

13. I'd say it's more likely than not

Obama may have some unhappy people on the left right now, but that dynamic will change when there's a clear choice between him and a real human being representing a specific set of Republican policies.

He probably won't win with 2008 or 1996 numbers -- it will look more like 2004. He'll give up a few states no matter who the nominee is, but it's going to be very tough for a Republican to get over the finish line. I'd say the chances are 75-25 for an Obama win.

[Laelth]

15. I think he will be re-elected.

He's doing everything he can to make himself palatable to the power brokers in this country, and that may be just enough to get him re-elected, despite the fact that he calls himself a Democrat.

As I argued here: http://laelth.blogspot.com/2010/12/kissing-butt-and-taking-names-obamas.html

-Laelth

[BeyondGeography]

23. You are right to mention the unemployment rate

If he gets that down to 7%, he should be safe. Anything higher, and he's in grave danger of losing.

[RichGirl]

26. Absolutely, positively...no doubt in my mind.

First...I think his accomplishments alone will get him there. Yes, he's made some progressives unhappy...but they aren't the only ones who vote. He needs votes and will get them from all sectors.

Second...The GOP is getting very fragmented. Sure there could be a governor her or there...but you now have a group of lunatics AKA tea baggers...who are all or nothing. And know governor is going to please them. If they did, they'll lose everyone else. Conservatives as a group have put themselves in a lose-lose situation. A third party will kill their chances. Even one as uninfluential as Nader, killed ours in 2000...tea baggers are much more influential, but not enough to get the sane republican vote.

They only way we lose is if we have a third party. I trust that our fringe-groups are not stupid.

[divineorder]

87. I can certainly see a Teabagger Like Third Party

especially if the Republican nominee tries to pivot away from pleasing them to trying to be moderate enough to win swing and independent voters. Or if they nominate Mitt Romney, which is the same thing. With that vote split, Obama wins easily. He won't lose any blue state he won the last time, and he may even pick up Missouri.

[ProSense]

27. Interesting

"Republican Governors will probably find ways to guarantee unemployment is over 9% come next election."

I suppose that will bode well for Republican Governors? Is it because when anything bad happens, even when Republicans are in charge, it's the Democrat's fault. How will Republican Governors survive if they hinder job growth? What will Democratic Governors do? Is this a situation where blue states will thrive and red states will struggle?

[LeftyAndProud60]

30. They'll find a way to blame Obama's policies. NT

[ProSense]

28. Oh, here is something that complicates the Republican Governors' theory

Republicans: Job, Economic Growth The Result Of GOP Victories (VIDEO)

The new Congress is only days old and they're already pushing the meme.

[impik]

29. Boring.

[Sherman A1]

31. Hard to say at this point

I am not optimistic, but neither am I pessimistic, pretty much don't care.

[msongs]

32. depends on whos is the democrat in the race lol nt

[laugle]

84. I say

let's draft Wes Clark, I like to have a choice!! Imagine the fire we could lite under there complacent butts if there was a challenger.....they might even listen to the people! What a concept!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. I believe so

if for no other reason than the presumed weakness of the opposition. Whatever else might be "wrong" with President Obama, people do like him personally and he presents himself well. The Republicans are not only going to have to bank on the economy still being in awful shape (and avoid any blame for it) but they will also need to be able to produce a candidate who is both capable of (somehow) managing to demonstrate the necessary Tea Party-approved credentials to win the primary AND obtain more widespread appeal to win in the general election (and somehow "outshine" Obama). At this time, I can't think of any Republican candidate who can win against President Obama in 2012. :shrug: Personally, I think we're more or less looking at a replay of the 1996 election. The Republicans, unless they see a real opening for 2012, will put up a lackluster candidate and save the *better* candidates for 2016 IMHO. Obama almost certainly won't enjoy the kind of "blowout" victory he achieved in 2008 but it will be by a comfortable margin.

[Safetykitten]

34. No. A republican will be elected.

[elocs]

35. Al Gore lost in 2000 when we were not at war, the economy was good, unemployment was 4%.

Gore should have won that election in a landslide, but many on the left happily accepted the meme that there was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and voted accordingly. It was only afterwards they went "oops" and learned that choices do have consequences.

Will Obama get a second term? Who knows? It depends.

[truebrit71]

37. Except Gore didn't lose in 2000. It was stolen.

But you are right to the degree that it shouldn't even have been close..

[elocs]

45. The point is that it should never have been remotely close enough to have been stolen.

Florida should not have made a bit of difference.

The bigger point is that you never know and even good or better national circumstances do not necessarily point to an Obama win. Who knows that if come the 2012 election that there might not be a prevailing mood among many of the left that Obama really was not as progressive as his promises in the first campaign in their sense of betrayal by him now (the reasons for how people may feel may not be true, but if their feeling is one of betrayal then it is real to them for whatever reason and they will act upon that feeling), or if again there will again be the notion that there is no difference between the parties.

This may again present a scenario where even if the economy is improved over 2009 and 2010 that events will conspire to bring down the election, the reelection, of a Democratic candidate. But, who knows?

[CakeGrrl]

68. Exactly. An informed public would never keep the Repubs close enough to steal anything. n/t

[ThomThom]

95. but campaign dollars from corporations will

they will spend millions to put out their garbage and keep the people confused

[vaberella]

54. Stolen or not history won't remember that. They'll remember Bush became Pres. n/t

[treestar]

58. Gore was not an incumbent looking for a second term.

[elocs]

64. A two term sitting vice president is as close to an incumbent as you can get without being one.

It certainly wasn't an open race like 2008.

You cannot make a determination of certainty of victory or defeat solely based upon the economy, good or bad. Lots of factors determine who will win or lose and this is certainly too early to predict the outcome of 2012.

[treestar]

80. The average voter hardly knows who the Veep is

No veep running in the wake of his President is advantaged much over an incumbent.

[Enthusiast]

92. AL Gore won.

No question.

[slackmaster]

36. I think it depends on how many people are unemployed on Election Day 2012

That's going to be the biggest single issue in the election.

[Phx_Dem]

38. Yes. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

39. Sure. He just needs to get out of Iraqistan.

[Jennicut]

40. His poll #'s are going up. Any President above 50% has a good chance of winning an election.

And the Repub field is still terrible.

[zulchzulu]

41. Obama will win by 10%

There is no one who can get close from the Republican side and if anything, they might split their vote with a third-party Tea Party candidate. It's the Senate races I am worried about.

[otohara]

43. Let Me Look Into My Crystal Ball

it says, we won't know until Nov. 2012

[frustrated_lefty]

44. It seems likely.

There aren't any serious republican contenders that won't scare the crap out of independents and the few contenders who might at least help shape the debate in a primary have expressed no interest in running.

Unfortunately, I fully expect a second Obama term would be worse than the first and will probably result in it being another 20 years before we have a chance of getting a democrat in office.

[damonm]

46. Yep. Just look at the field of GOP "Contenders"...

and I see him winning in a walk.

[old mark]

47. Yes. If he cound have a 3rd term he would get that, too...It is after he is through

that I fear the GOP will own the WH again, and I dread that.


mark

[Ter]

48. Yeah, no party these days seems to hold on more than 8 years

12 at most. President Rand Paul in 2016?

[oasis]

49. He's got to earn it with his actions, not just words. (eom)

[Arkana]

50. Yes.

The GOP has no one that can beat him unless they nominate someone we've never heard of.

[BlueIris]

51. No.

He's simply lost too much ground in too many areas in too short a time for me to believe that is a realistically achievable goal. Also, I do not believe, at all, that he wants to be president now, let alone until 2017.

[vaberella]

52. I think he'll have a second term. Or I'm hoping for it. a Repub President scares me. n/t

[Blasphemer]

55. Yes, I have never doubted it. 2016 is my concern.

His lowest ratings aren't very low historically speaking. While the burden of fixing the economic mess is on his shoulders, the blame has never been fixed there. I am 100% sure the GOP expects him to be re-elected. Their goal is to choose a nominee who will help with the down-ticket races so they can take control of both houses of Congress. That is why they started turning on Palin. She would get slaughtered and take the GOP's hopes of Congressional control with her. I am far more worried about the Senate than the Presidency in 2012. 2016 is another story entirely. The Republican party is very patient in their machinations. Getting total control of Congress would help set them up for 2016 and whoever gets control of the Presidency will likely have more of a chance to impact the makeup of the SCOTUS than Obama will in the next 6 years.

[CakeGrrl]

56. Those here who don't want him in 2012 will say "No" despite logic

He beats all big name Republicans in polling right now.

Who's challenging from the Left?

[TBF]

96. There's no challenge from the left and President Obama knows it -

his goal now should be connecting to moderates and I think he is focused on that.

For those of us firmly on the left (and far left) we've got to look beyond electoral politics for our answers.

[JVS]

57. No. Things are not improving enough.

[golfguru]

60. Watch unemployment rates in sept-oct 2012 and you will

know for sure if Obama gets a 2nd term.
It is no more complicated than that.

[Beaverhausen]

61. Yes, I do- if for no other reason than who the hell will the republicans run against him?

I really don't see anyone on the horizon that can beat him.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

62. Definitely.

And I'll enjoy (at least) half of DU's heads exploding over it.

[babylonsister]

63. Ain't that the truth. nt

[politicasista]

65. +1 n/t

[Imajika]

66. Yes, Obama will win in 2012

It will be incredibly difficult for the GOP to beat President Obama in 2012. The odds are seriously against them.

If I had to guess right now I'd say Obama wins by at decent margin. The concern is the Senate. I think it likely that the Republicans retain the House and may take over the Senate simply because the landscape favors them so much.

But as to the Presidency, Obama will have a 2nd term.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

67. He's got a 53% approval rating with 9.1% unemployment.

If it's ~8% he wins no question. Bankers, businessman and markets in general want to make money. They are desperate for it after the debacle we've had. If a business can grow to make more money it will, politics or not.

[whosinpower]

69. It will come down to jobs, jobs, jobs

The GOP will not help him. But, if he has a vision of job creation - other than asking pretty please to CEO's to hire more....and if he comes up with some sort of specific program to address unemployment, then he will easily be re elected.

Messing with social security will not create jobs.
Austerity programs will not create jobs.
Tax cuts do not create enough jobs.

The US government was very agile to bail out the banks. How agile can they be when it comes to helping out main street?

You need a 2012 NEW DEAL that grows back the middle class. The elites do not require assistance. And I fail to understand why a person would seek out advice from those who profited from outsourcing jobs in favour of lowering labour costs to increase profit. The advice is out there for him - he has only to ask the middle class. I suspect he will accept advice from those who give him the most in campaign funds.....sadly, this is the way of it.

[workinclasszero]

70. If hes running against Palin

its a sure thing. Possibly some other repuke could give him a run for his money but I doubt it.

[craigmatic]

71. Hard to say. It depends on which blue states the repubs put in play.

[nemo137]

72. I really don't know.

On the one hand, the Pugs cruise from moronicity to moronicity, and and it looks like things might not be starting to suck as bad, but on the other, if they suck at all, that'll be bad for him. I really don't know.

[FrenchieCat]

73. If he doesn't get a 2nd term, and Republicans take the WH......

as a people we are fucked....in more ways than one.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. Two years is a long time in politics. Anyone who bets far from 50/50 is probably out. N.T.

[Dawgs]

75. If Bush could win in 2004 after going into an illegal war then anything can happen.

If Republicans can get voted back in power in 2010 then anything can happen.

If people still rank Republicans higher than Democrats on national security, the economy, and almost everything else then most definitely Obama could get beat.

[robcon]

76. His popularity is strong - especially among independents.

Unless something weird happens, he will win more easily than in '08.

[JimGinPA]

77. I Think We Lost So Many House Seats In 2010 Because Obama Wasn't At The Top Of The Ticket

I believe Obama is going to not only be re-elected but pull many Dems along with him in 2012.

[rko_24550]

78. probably

[HeroTwins]

79. He'll be reelected handily.

[AtomicKitten]

81. Yes, of course. nt

[ncteechur]

82. 2nd term no doubt

[ebbie15644]

85. Not if he touches S.S. benifits!

[ProudDad]

86. Who cares!???

Here in the Corporate States of America the result is the same no matter which right-wing of the Corporate War Party is "in charge"... :shrug:

[emanymton]

88. Yes

.

Two major reasons,

one, Mr Obama is a good man doing a good job.

two, the Republicant Party do not have any one capable of winning in the Fox Network 2012 Presidential Primaries.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

[quaker bill]

89. easily

watching any minutes of morning joe would depress me, which is pretty much why I never do it.

President Obama will win larger in 2012 than he did in 2008. This was always true, and is more true today than it was January 20, 2009.

[Enthusiast]

90. To insure a loss for President Obama in 2012

all they need to do is push gasoline prices to over $4.00/gallon. They know this.

[socialshockwave]

93. Nope!

He's already dug his own grave by showing himself as someone who caves to the slightest pressure.

[AzDar]

97. Yes. But I don't think he deserves it.

:(

[mikekohr]

99. President Obama will get 52.4% to 56.1% of the vote depending on the tool

the Republicans nominate. A moderate like John Huntsman of Utah would be the most dangerous but the batshit crazy base of what is today's Republican Party will probably give them a nutjob in the Bachman/Huckabee/Palin mold.

A blow-out victory by the President is far likelier than a close win by President Obama.

[robcon]

100. The president will win easily.

Bigger margin than 2008.

[tammywammy]

101. I think if the economy picks up and unemployment drops he's a shoo in

If it's the same as now, it will depend on who the republicans nominate in conjunction with how the republicans in Congress act the next two years. There are a lot of variables, and I could see someone like a Pawlenty having a shot at winning.

[cecilfirefox]

102. I believe he is the person, at least now, who has got the race on his side.

As everyone here has said a lot can happen in two years. If you told me in 04 that that black man who gave a speed at the DNC was going to be the next President- I'd have laughed. If you'd have told me would have completely ROFLSTOMPED the Republicans in 06 and 08, I'd have believed that to be an unlikely change in fortune. And subsequently if you told me we were going to get WTFBBQ pwned in 2010, I'd have said that was unlikely.

If you actually go here- http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/ you can play with CNN's electoral vote calculator. Go to Wikipedia to look up the actual map results of the 08 election. I actually know them by heart now after playing with that thing. <_^ But, you can tinker there and postulate which states we'll keep, which ones we will lose, etc. I think it's fair to say that North Carolina and Virginia are gone- it's probably that Indianna will go, Ohio is still winnable but that really depends on how things go in the coming months. Iowa could still be winnable but the Republicans made massive gains there in the last election. Colorado still has a Democratic Governor, which is good for us, Nevada is secure, New Mexico is probably also going to go for him, and I think Florida will stick with us contrary to the Republican gains there.

A lot of this hinges on who the Republicans run though. I think Romney is the front runner now, but as often is the case the front runner isn't necessarily always the winner in these convoluted primaries. Look at Hillary? She was clearly the front runner and it didn't turn out the way she wanted. Let's not forget that if Romney is nominated the health care debate gets a lot more interesting considering what he signed and supported when he was governor of Massachusetts. Huckabee could potentially win, and potentially be a strong candidate- but I think his swagger comes off a little hokey, and I don't think he can put on the best front that the President can in terms of campaigning. Now, contrary to how we all feel about her, Sarah Palin(even though her popularity is at an all time low) could absolutely win the Republican primary. Republicans and conservatives adore her, she could rally them with the right campaign and win it. However, I don't know if she's as seasoned at doing something like a campaign as would be required. She would have to rock the caucuses, where she'd probably be the strongest, and still hold through in the ballot casting states. But she could pull it off. That being said her running as the Presidential candidate would unquestionably be catastrophic for the Republican ticket. She's unintelligent, undereducated, not particularly articulate- if anything she'd alienate voters and the debates between her and the President would be off the hook. I could see the President's electoral win of 08 repeating.

I actually think Tim Pawlenty is a bit of a darkhorse but viable candidate. I think the toughest person that could run against the President would be a sitting Governor, not sure if he can win the primary though- he's a bit of an unknown.

The Health Care Reform debate will actually probably start to wear thin on some voters. It's been hashed and rehashed, eventually I think people are going to get tired of it. Depending on how the showdown of the debt cap goes it's very possible that the President can come out on top publicly or the Republicans can squeak by and be all right in the eyes of the public. The best thing for us is for them to go off their rockers and have a showdown that is catastrophic in the eyes of the voters.

The economy is getting better, and as long as unemployment is under 9% and perhaps around 8% I think the President will be all right. But, this is all crystal ball speculating. A lot of it depends on the unknown things that can occur between here and there, but most importantly who will be the Republican candidate.

Lastly... If there is anything the 2010 election taught us it's that our electorate has the attention span of a gnat. Who knows what could occur.

[InvisibleTouch]

104. Yes. n/t