"Yes, Obama will serve at *least* two terms!
Posted on 07/13/2010 6:29:45 AM PDT by madprof98
I get a kick out of all these pronouncements that Barack Obama is doomed to be a one-term president. In fact, I’d put his odds of re-election at this point at roughly 2-1 in favor, for several reasons.
One is history.
In the second year of his presidency, Obama’s job approval rating is hovering in the high 40s. The most recent Rasmussen numbers have him at 49 percent approval, 50 percent disapproval. Gallup’s numbers are 47/46. Given the troubled economy, those are actually very strong numbers. For example, compare them to Ronald Reagan’s numbers in 1982, which was the Gipper’s second year in the White House at a time of significant if less traumatic economic turmoil.
As Gallup notes:
“The public’s view of the economy remained sour, and the president’s ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.”
Obama’s numbers are considerably stronger than those of Reagan at a comparable time in his presidency. In fact, by the beginning of 1983, Reagan’s job-approval numbers fell to 35 percent, yet as we all know he went on to defeat Walter Mondale in a landslide in 1984, pulling 59 percent of the vote compared to Mondale’s 41 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...
If Obama = Carter II
Then Biden = Johnson II
Which is too scary to contemplate.
Barbara Boxer..................
Second, I am guessing Reagan gained strength with independents and moderates over time, even though he lost the support of some union Democrats in 1984. Obama has likely permanently lost any Republican support, and certainly has lost some of his independent/moderate support, and does not seem to be gaining any independent/moderate support.
Look at the electoral college maps for 1980 and 2000. Reagan won all but Georgia (Carter's home state), Minnesota (Mondale's home state), WV, MD, RI, HI, and DC in 1980. 489 electoral votes to 49. Mondull would have needed to swing 221 votes to reverse it in 1984. Obama's electoral total was 365 to 173, a 97 vote swing is needed to reverse it.
Then there is the Reagan economic recovery. It kicked in after the 1982 midterm elections, but was strong and fast enough to drive wavering support strongly back to Reagan in 1984. What are the chances of a strong recovery in 2011? What about the perception of Reagan's foreign policies compared to Carters, and how Obama will be compared to Bush in 2012? What about America's return to space in 1981 after Carter had zero manned space flights during his administration, and compare that to Obama's NASA (Not About Space Anymore) ending America's manned space legacy and turning NASA into a Muslim self-esteem organization? My point is, people believed in 1983 and 1984 America was fundamentally heading strongly and quickly in the right direction.
Will the youth vote still be there in 2012? Or will they stay home this time?
Finally, there is the census. The 1980 census put more electoral votes into Reagan's strongholds in 1984. The 2000 census will put more electoral votes into red states and swing states in 2012. This could result in a 14 electoral vote swing to red and southern swing states. Basically, if the Republicans can get the presidential election back to the 2000 and 2004 numbers (a 50/50 nation), with the electoral college changes, the 200 result would be 278 to 259, and the 2004 result would be 293 to 245. With Ohio likely losing another electoral vote, means the Republicans could still lose Ohio in 2012 and win the presidency.
Simply put, Obama has a much bigger uphill climb, and he seems to have no footing whatsoever beyond his shrinking base of true believers.
Palin - probably damaged goods, thanks to McCain’s election minions, though she can repair her image. But likely not before 2012.
Not hardly. The left's unmitigated assaults against her indicate they are very afraid of her popularity. Any allegation of "damaged goods" is coming from the Left. Don't ever accept the enemy's (in this case, the Left) recommendations of who our leadership should be.
Less frightening than this bafoon.
agree
even the Klintons were elected—TWICE!!!!!
a lotta wishful thinking/whistling past the cemetery going on....a broken system isn’t going to work this late in the game....
“He can’t run for a second term.
Arizona, at the very least, will demand a birth certificate. More states are likely to follow suit.”
My friend, you aren’t thinking from your enemy’s viewpoint.
What follows is a FR first — you have not read this anywhere else, nor
seen it in the media — but here’s my prediction re your assertion.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that one or more states enacts laws that require a considerably more stringent “proof of citizenship” than that which exists on the books now (btw, the proposed AZ law never made it to the books, if I recall correctly). Let’s suppose that such laws require things as birth certificates, or whatever.
Now, some questions:
- Which states do you think might pass such laws?
- Liberal states or conservative states?
- The states that potentially might pass such laws, who did they vote for in 2008?
- Is it likely that they would vote for Obama in 2012?
I think you can easily answer these questions.
So, on to my predictions.
If one or more states indeed do enact strict “eligibility laws” for the presidential ballot, my prediction is that in 2012 Obama WILL NOT APPLY TO BE ON THE BALLOT in those states. He will not enter the election there, nor campaign in those states at all. He will let the Republican candidate run un-opposed.
The ‘rats will take pains to ensure that they have “no presidential presence” in those states. Without such a presence the laws enacted to ensure eligibility will be “unusable” against Obama. You can’t “enforce” or apply a law in court, until there is standing to do so.
This is exactly how the ‘rats will “skirt around” eligibility laws. They’ll ignore that those states are even having a presidential election. Heck, they aren’t going to win in them anyway. It will SAVE them money to spend elsewhere.
A FR “you read it here first”!
Very possible, as this is what happened with Clinton, but remember, Clinton used Dick Morris' "Triangulation" to co-opt welfare reform and other issues. Plus Clinton faced a weak Republican ticket and a center-right third-party Perot candidacy. Obama is too politically naive to triangulate as well as Clinton, and assuming a strong Republican ticket and no significant center-right third-party threat, will face a much tougher re-election challenge.
Clinton was heading for defeat in 1996, and the Republicans took over Congress in a landslide. But he bounced back and had a terrible Republican opponent and was reelected.
Blue states aren't 100% blue. Turnout is everything.
Do you think that knowing there is an illegal candidate on the Democrat ticket might motivate non-Democrat voters a little?
No, that would be Pelosi, 3rd in line. If Biden was to become POTUS, he has to choose a new VP, approved by the Senate. Boxer is in trouble in Kalifornia, so she would be the most logical pick........
HRC will castrate BHO before the 2012 primaries. She will not subordinate herself to be his VP candidate.
I am betting that POTUS 2012 will be a woman.
And another thing... the big whoop is over for voting for the first colored president (I say colored because of the NAACP). The big push will now be to vote in the first woman president... emo-voters are so stupid.
We are blessed by Obama’s tendency to go Muslim jihadi when his back is against the wall. His use of “diversity” racism in an effort to keep power is going to do him in big time. He has set it into motion and he is going to progress from smearing racial enemies to hurting innocent people. But when Americans see it, that will be the end of Dear Reader.
Reagan did the opposite by encouraging unity beyond race with a natural and worthy goal for America - expanding prosperty, liberty and justice and getting out from under the boot of liberalism’s poverty, inequality, hate and violence.
“And people in blue states wouldn’t recognize that as an admission that he is not eligible?”
For many — I daresay MOST — of those people, piddling “Constitutional requirements” to be president mean nothing. The only thing that is important is that he will take from the evil rich Euro guys (like you?) and “give them things”.
We are at a point where about 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all — I will be presumptuous and assume that the lion’s share of these folks are getting some kind of “bennies” instead. When one is on the receiving end of the teat, it is in one’s best interests (or so most think) to _keep that milk and honey coming_.
The “blue folks” (more and more, this is becoming “the non-Euro folks”) are going to vote for whoever supports the things they need and desire, your “Constitutional qualifications” be damned. And it’s become clear over the last fifteen years or so, that America has developed a “Great Divide” — that is to say, “the things THEY need and desire” are diametrically opposed to the things that YOU “need and desire”.
I don’t know what the implications might be if Obama chooses to ignore those states that put elibility requirements on their ballots. I only predicted that this is how the ‘rats will deal with the problem.
What happens afterward will be anyone’s guess. Of course, the “mainstream media” will try to keep it as “unreported as possible”.
Do you really think that such a scenario will change the votes of most current “Obama supporters”?
Reagan also whipped inflation contradicting the views of many “experts” who thought you couldn’t have high growth rates without high inflation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.