Obama: More than one term?

Honest question here;

Party lines aside, does anyone see Obama as a 2-term president?



I mean in just the recent months he's not only forced healthcare on a majority population that doesn't want it, but he's also fighting an immigration law that the majority DO want.


I guess the question lies in if people will remember these feelings in a couple of years.

Despite the massive flood of shouting and faux-outrage from the right about how everyone is outraged about Obama's outrageous policies, his popularity still sits on a pretty average line for where presidents normally are at this point in time in his presidency. 

My hope? Republicans take enough seats in November to restore balance. Then I actually hope he gets re-elected...I don't like one party controlling the whole thing.

Linus, just remember that the "majority" of 1930's German's were in favor of the Nazi party.  :o

usafpilot07 wrote: Benjichang wrote: Well, as my political views continue to evolve, I've decided I hate our 2 party system I don't see a better option though, what would you suggest?** I realize this sounds snarky, but I couldn't figure a better way to phrase it. Don't take it as such.

It's not "technically" a two party system, but Dem/Rep are the prominent parties. When you go to vote other options are on your ballot, such as Libertarian, Green, Independent and Nade..er, I mean Independent Party. The focus is always on the big two as they have the most funding, resources and power. Not to mention a third party hasn't won a Presidential election since around 1864 (correct me if I'm wrong).

I totally agree though. The politics arn't chaging, just the person in the big house. I'm all for giving someone else a shot, my choice would put a Libertarian in there and see what happens. The majority of American vote along party lines, that's going to be a hard change to make. But unfotunately it is what it is and until enough Americans get fed up enough with the system to elect someone that hasn't goine prime time, we're stuck with it.


Edited by PAINTBALL1 - 06 August 2010 at 8:09pm

Despite some of its flaws, I believe the two-party system is inherently good. 

tallen702 wrote: Actually, technically the Democratic and Republican parties of today are infact, "third parties" due to the fact that the original Republican, Democrat, and Democrat-Republican parties dissolved at one point or another in their history.

Linus wrote: I mean in just the recent months he's not only forced healthcare on a majority population that doesn't want it, but he's also fighting an immigration law that the majority DO want.

Well the healthcare reform was one of the main points of his platform for election, an election he one a pretty substatial majority in so initially a majority of people did want health care reform. The only problem with it was once they started the process they let the republicans control the message which turned into very negative press and lead to massive confusion about the health care bill. Death panels, rationing, manditory prostate exams for 5 year old boys by priests and what not.

Also, I don't put that much faith in polling of the majority on specific issues during a none presidential election year since it typically pulls knee jerk reaction questions rather than long thought out questions.

Benjichang wrote: Well, as my political views continue to evolve, I've decided I hate our 2 party system and as a result I think I'm done voting for good. So I can tell you he isn't getting my vote if he runs again.

The two party system forces moderation in our countries politics which is a good thing and leads to slow gradual change that is good for business rather than fast unpredictable change. Two parties make us pragmatic no matter what the far fringes of each party would have you belive. Obama is a socialist, Bush is a fascist, or more confusingly, Obama is a communist fascist.

agentwhale007 wrote: Economy will probably be the deciding factor. If it goes up from where it is now, it'll be hard for Obama to lose a second term, I think.

Agreed. So far Obama has been getting most of his major campaign points passed or done (except gitmo, rendition, warrentless what not, etc) At this point in Reagan's first term things looked about as good for him as they do for Obama. Reagan also had the massive outrage from the other party that Obama has. I read an interesting article comparing the two presidents at this point a few months back. It revolved around a quote from an author in the New Yorker who wrote in 1982 that she had never met a person that had voted for reagan so she doesn't see how he could ever be reelected and how the same was true for republicans in 2012 where they are in their on little bubble.

It'll also depend on who the Republicans run. If it involves Palin, then Obama's chances go way up.

Palin has been polling so terribly over the past two years that I do seriously believe she could win enough primaries to get the nomination but she could never win a general election. If she ever does win the nomination you can bet your sweet behind that the repubicans will finally switch to proportional delagets for their nomination system despite the possibility of long drawn out primaries.

tallen702 wrote: We've got our first black president, history's been made, it's going to be tough to get the historically apathetic inner-city minority vote going now that history has happened.

That's a great point. That will be a huge issue but I think "organizing for america's" grassroots machine is big enough and smoothly running enough where they should be able to overcome most of the apathy.

As far as the Rep. Party, it's too fractured to put forth a blow-your-mind candidate right now. They need a Reagan to put up there, but they don't have one. Mitt Romney is a big no, Guilliani blew it last time to really make any kind of impact this time around, and Palin is a farking joke.

I'm banking on Pawlenty. He's my favorite type of republican. He sounds honest and genuine and is will to make compramises to achieve his ultimate goals.

Really the ability to compramise is the main thing I look for in a politician regardless of party.

Eville wrote:  Didn't he already say that he wouldn't seek reelection anyway?

No, he said he'd rather be a great one term president than a mediocre two term.

Edited by MeanMan - 07 August 2010 at 12:25am

As I've always said: America, which foot do you want to shoot yourself in?