Is Obama a one term prez ?

cajunkiwi wrote:

Kraven wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

The names being bandied about make the party look like a circus sideshow. If they want to seriously challenge Obama they'll have to do it with somebody not named Palin/Bachmann etc.

It would be interesting to see their response to Romney though - after inventing controversy with the whole "Obama isn't a Christian" rubbish, how will their base deal with someone who actually IS a non-Christian?

Uh last time I checked Romney is a Mormon, which is definitely a form of Christianity.

You're right - totally poorly worded on my part. I was referring to the more "mainstream" movements like Methodism, etc, and bungled it (I'm not religious myself so I don't know the correct name for the different branches/variations).

So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?

The term you are looking for is "denomination" I think.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist environment. I am not one now. From personal experience Southern Baptists and most other evangelical Christian denominations do not consider Mormonism to be a form of Christianity at all, but rather, a cult.

cajunkiwi wrote:

So I'll rephrase the question... will the same people who complained about Obama being the president because they thought he was a Muslim support a Mormon candidate?

i'll take a stab at this, and i would say that they would take a mormon over obama because the mormon was actually born here...

actually, i think most of those who were opposed to obama were opposed because his middle name was hussein, and they equated that with "he must be a muslim". and they were angry about his past association with Rev. Wright, who is a christian by the way. a good number of those on the right are "values voters" and if a candidate does not share their values, especially with regard to religion, most likely you do not vote for that person.

Godfather. wrote:

I would laugh my azz of if huckabee ran and got elected... this place would be a burning hot bed of dem's and raspy remarks.

Godfather.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/08/b ... ml?hpt=C1#

I don't think the opposition will really matter. So here's my answer...

Yes, Obama will unquestionably be a one term President, unless he finds a way to get unemployment below 8% by the election. I will further that, he probably won't win unless he finds a way to get unemployment close to 7%. This election will boil down to the economy and nothing more. And the statistic people will look at is the unemployment rate.

The problem I see with Obama first few years is all the average voter wanted was a return to a level of normalcy within the economy. Within the first few months of his office, the economy worsened further and he was left with the worst economy since the Great Depression. His focus was immediately on health care?? Say what you will about the merits of health care, but the average U.S. citizen does not link the economy to health care. Therefore, a large amount of people were left scratching their heads. The typical voter doesn't over-think things.

I think one reason Obama was so well received was his foreign policy stance was a refreshing change from the Bush administration. But now with Libya, I think once again the "average" voter is going to not connect the dots on why Libya's different. They most likely will wonder why a President that said he would not get us involved in another military conflict in the middle east is getting us involved in a new military affair in the middle east. Say what you will about the merits of the Libya military affair, but the typical voter will not over-think it. They will scratch their heads.

Finally, I think the credit crisis has changed peoples opinions on budgets. I certainly would agree with anyone who says the Tea Party takes it too far in blaming one side. The truth is a lot of the problem stemmed from Republican Administrations. But, once again, the average voter doesn't over think things or really even blame anyone, they just vote. I believe the average voter believes they have tightened their belts, so should the government. That means if there are layoffs in the private sector, layoffs should probably occur in government sector if they are needed. It basically means that cutting back is something the average voter most likely wants because they are doing it. Obama has not really had a good record "thus far" of cutting back on spending. So, if he claims to have cut back during his run for a second term, an average voter may scratch their heads.

All that said, it will come down to the economy and I think the one indicator to highlight is the unemployment rate. If it drops below 8%, he has a shot. If not, you could run any Republican against him and they will win.

This is not rocket science and, if you're honest, you'll admit he is going to have a tough time against anyone unless the economy improves. If it worsens, he is almost certainly out.

Flagg wrote:

Very very difficult to unseat an incumbent president.

I just don't see anyone one the Republican side that can do it. There is no face to the Republican party. No one figure they can all get behind like Bush or Reagan.

Palin is too polarizing.
Gingrich doesn't have the numbers.
Romney may be the best bet, but I don't see that happening. Is Mitt Romney going to fire up the Republican base and win over the independent vote?
Huckabee is a very conservative evangelical Christian who isn't going to win too much support beyond his base. He basically disappeared in the 2008 race for the nomination after winning Iowa.

I am not educated in this, just making guesses, but I don't see a clear front runner here.

Gingrich would be a good option, I think. But, like you say....

inlet13 wrote:

I don't think the opposition will really matter. So here's my answer...

Yes, Obama will unquestionably be a one term President, unless he finds a way to get unemployment below 8% by the election. I will further that, he probably won't win unless he finds a way to get unemployment close to 7%. This election will boil down to the economy and nothing more. And the statistic people will look at is the unemployment rate.

The problem I see with Obama first few years is all the average voter wanted was a return to a level of normalcy within the economy. Within the first few months of his office, the economy worsened further and he was left with the worst economy since the Great Depression. His focus was immediately on health care?? Say what you will about the merits of health care, but the average U.S. citizen does not link the economy to health care. Therefore, a large amount of people were left scratching their heads. The typical voter doesn't over-think things.

I think one reason Obama was so well received was his foreign policy stance was a refreshing change from the Bush administration. But now with Libya, I think once again the "average" voter is going to not connect the dots on why Libya's different. They most likely will wonder why a President that said he would not get us involved in another military conflict in the middle east is getting us involved in a new military affair in the middle east. Say what you will about the merits of the Libya military affair, but the typical voter will not over-think it. They will scratch their heads.

Finally, I think the credit crisis has changed peoples opinions on budgets. I certainly would agree with anyone who says the Tea Party takes it too far in blaming one side. The truth is a lot of the problem stemmed from Republican Administrations. But, once again, the average voter doesn't over think things or really even blame anyone, they just vote. I believe the average voter believes they have tightened their belts, so should the government. That means if there are layoffs in the private sector, layoffs should probably occur in government sector if they are needed. It basically means that cutting back is something the average voter most likely wants because they are doing it. Obama has not really had a good record "thus far" of cutting back on spending. So, if he claims to have cut back during his run for a second term, an average voter may scratch their heads.

All that said, it will come down to the economy and I think the one indicator to highlight is the unemployment rate. If it drops below 8%, he has a shot. If not, you could run any Republican against him and they will win.

This is not rocket science and, if you're honest, you'll admit he is going to have a tough time against anyone unless the economy improves. If it worsens, he is almost certainly out.

I think you make excellent points. :thumbup:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

I guess he's too young to understand that this problem wasn't caused by the president... it was caused by 30 years of Republican trickle-down bullshit and corporations going unregulated for almost as long.

That's it! It wasn't the last 80 years of growing Democrat entitlement programs. You know the programs that remove all incentive to work hard, and bleed dry those that still do?[/quote]

---

Care to back up your theory about entitlement programs removing incentives to work with any facts? It's like 1990 again, where the welfare mom and Murphy Brown were the cause of all the problems in the U.S. No wonder Gingrich is surfacing again, he's not about to miss an opportunity to ride the hate wagon.

As a side thought to all the whiners complaining about a 'generation of entitled people', the ones I see who are thoroughly feeling entitled are the "taxed enough already" crowd. The basic definition of entitled is expecting something with little to no work or sacrifice. What do the tea people want? They want to bitch and moan about their high taxes, all the while not expecting any cuts in services. They want their medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. Those are the people who are entitled.

---

"I could be wrong here but all those things we want, Medicare untouched, the best schools, smooth roads, protected borders, social security checks, a strong military where we can bomb/invade at will, the police/fire/ambulance to arrive in minutes, clean water...etc etc.. with the amount of tax's we pay we should be able to have all these things..even the strong military so we can bomb or invade at will...
but it seems with all the bullshit our government spends money on or skim or what ever they do with the money...we the tax payer seem to get screwed and a good example of that is our schools, maybe you like giving in excess to the government (then getting lied to) but I'm freakin tired of high tax's and high gas prices...I can't afford to pay for the bullshit our money is spent on.

Godfather.[/quote]"

We "should be able to pay for all these things"? I'm sure you've heard of the deficit. No, we can't have these things with amount of taxes we're paying. Unless you think the entire deficit is a result of government waste exclusively. I hope you don't think that.

I'm trying to get at what you think the "bullshit" is that our gov. spends money on. What would you cut and how much would it save? How are schools screwing taxpayers? Please explain. You pay high taxes compared to what? U.S. citizens pay on the low end when compared to other modernized countries. Is government fixing gas prices? Adjusted for inflation, gas prices are pretty close to what they were in 1981. I see driving as a choice and I'm not going to complain about choices I make.

I don't agree with everything our government spends our money on, but in a democracy I don't always get my way.