When you think we'll have another one term President?

[Derek]

Obama looks like a one term president. He isn't Bill Clinton where he wants to be everyone's best friend. However, anything can happen in politics.

[ScottM]

Unless the political climate turns a 180, it'll be Obama (2009-2013). I really don't think the turn around is coming, based on his attitude. He's still trying to force the healthcare bill through, even after the messsages the voters have been sending (Especially in Massachusetts). Unless there's a particularly horrible Republican candidate who totally self destructs, Obama will be one and out.

[hcallega]

Obama's gonna win reelection. It's far too early to make stone-cold predictions, but just like Bush in 2001 it's pretty clear the opposition lacks any candidate who can beat Obama. For those who say Mitt Romney, he can't clear the field. HOWEVER, I see Obama's sucessor being a one-term president. If it's a Democrat this is more likely. Say 2016 gives us Cuomo, than I someone like Rubio winning in 2020 or so. If it's a Republican that's less likely, but still I don't see the next one doing so well for some gut reason.

[Bo]

but just like Bush in 2001 it's pretty clear the opposition lacks any candidate who can beat Obama.

I'm assuming you're talking pre-9/11. Before 9/11, many people thought Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many other Democrats would be able to defeat Bush in 2004.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I'll go with Clay and Dallasfan here.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Obama, unless Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee is the GOP nominee, then he will probably be reelected.

[Derek]

I'm not sure about that. At this point those would be the Republican front runners but usually the nominee comes out of the woodwork. We'll just have to wait and see. It largely depends on Obama's numbers going into the election.

[SamInTheSouth]

Name the one-term President (in your opinion) and his/her dates of service.

This is an easy one.  Barack Obama.

[Dancing with Myself]

Bush would have lost in 2004, probably to Howard Dean if there was no 9/11.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'll go with Clay and Dallasfan here.

Another thing to note is that Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

[DS0816]

When you think we'll have another one term President?

Whoever is the next president of the United States … from the Republican Party.

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think whoever is elected in 2016.

[Bo]

Bush would have lost in 2004, probably to Hillary Clinton if there was no 9/11.

[Max Electric]

I think it depends on whether we have the next "Republican Revolution" this year, or if it gets put off until 2012. It's coming, and if Republicans can ride the tide and make major gains in the House and Senate this year (not necessarily winning them back, but taking enough seats to make every vote competitive when the Blue Dogs are taken into account), Obama will probably be able to triangulate himself into a second term...

If the Democrats hold onto a stable majority this time around, they'll probably lose all three houses in 2012 (assuming they continue the current trend of suckage.)

So if 2010's not the Republican year, Obama's the next one-termer, if it is, then it'll probably be Democrat who succeeds him.

By the way, I'm new. Hi.

[Bo]

I think it depends on whether we have the next "Republican Revolution" this year, or if it gets put off until 2012. It's coming, and if Republicans can ride the tide and make major gains in the House and Senate this year (not necessarily winning them back, but taking enough seats to make every vote competitive when the Blue Dogs are taken into account), Obama will probably be able to triangulate himself into a second term...

If the Democrats hold onto a stable majority this time around, they'll probably lose all three houses in 2012 (assuming they continue the current trend of suckage.)

So if 2010's not the Republican year, Obama's the next one-termer, if it is, then it'll probably be Democrat who succeeds him.

By the way, I'm new. Hi.

Welcome to the Forum!

[Jensen]

I think it depends on whether we have the next "Republican Revolution" this year, or if it gets put off until 2012. It's coming, and if Republicans can ride the tide and make major gains in the House and Senate this year (not necessarily winning them back, but taking enough seats to make every vote competitive when the Blue Dogs are taken into account), Obama will probably be able to triangulate himself into a second term...

If the Democrats hold onto a stable majority this time around, they'll probably lose all three houses in 2012 (assuming they continue the current trend of suckage.)

So if 2010's not the Republican year, Obama's the next one-termer, if it is, then it'll probably be Democrat who succeeds him.

By the way, I'm new. Hi.

I agree that it depends on the mid-term results. And welcome to the forum, fellow moderate Republican!

[Mechaman]

I'll go with Clay and Dallasfan here.

Another thing to note is that Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote.

Another thing to note is that Ross Perot ran in both races that Clinton failed to get a majority of the popular vote. People sure do love them some balanced budgets.

[Anthony]

If the economy is still stagnant, and unemployment is still high, it will be Obama in 2012. If the economy recovers, or starts to recover by 2012, it will be whoever becomes president in 2016, since we have never had more than three two-term presidents in a row. If it ends up being whoever is president after Obama, my guess is it will be either Tim Pawlenty or John Thune.

[Bo]

If the economy is still stagnant, and unemployment is still high, it will be Obama in 2012. If the economy recovers, or starts to recover by 2012, it will be whoever becomes president in 2016, since we have never had more than three two-term presidents in a row. If it ends up being whoever is president after Obama, my guess is it will be either Tim Pawlenty or John Thune.

We would have had four Presidents in a row who served two terms or more had JFK not been assasinated:

FDR (D):1933-1945-3 terms
Truman (D):1945-1953: 2 terms
Ike (R): 1953-1961: 2 terms
JFK (D): 1961-1969: 2 terms

So it would not be impossible or unrealistic to have four two term Presidents in a row. Granted, Bush Jr. was supposed to be a one termer, but the Democrats nominated a bad candidate and ran a poor campaign in 2004 (and thus blew it).

[milhouse24]

I have a strange feeling, if things don't improve, it will be President Barack Obama (2009-2013).

That's a very big if. You got to remember that Bush won reelection despite the fact that no new jobs were created in his first term (the first time since the Great Depression that this has occured) and despite the fact that his economic record was mediocre in comparison to Clinton's (in terms of (per capita) economic growth, job creation, average unemployment, and the stock market).

Bush barely won re-election, he was lucky; and Kerry wasn't much of an opponent.

[Anthony]

I have a strange feeling, if things don't improve, it will be President Barack Obama (2009-2013).

That's a very big if. You got to remember that Bush won reelection despite the fact that no new jobs were created in his first term (the first time since the Great Depression that this has occured) and despite the fact that his economic record was mediocre in comparison to Clinton's (in terms of (per capita) economic growth, job creation, average unemployment, and the stock market).

Bush barely won re-election, he was lucky; and Kerry wasn't much of an opponent.

I agree with this post. If 9/11 never happened, and if the Democrats had been able to find a good candidate to run in 2004, Bush wouldn't have been reelected.

[Bo]

I have a strange feeling, if things don't improve, it will be President Barack Obama (2009-2013).

That's a very big if. You got to remember that Bush won reelection despite the fact that no new jobs were created in his first term (the first time since the Great Depression that this has occured) and despite the fact that his economic record was mediocre in comparison to Clinton's (in terms of (per capita) economic growth, job creation, average unemployment, and the stock market).

Bush barely won re-election, he was lucky; and Kerry wasn't much of an opponent.

I agree with this post. If 9/11 never happened, and if the Democrats had been able to find a good candidate to run in 2004, Bush wouldn't have been reelected.

Who do you think the Democratis nominee would have been in 2004 if 9/11 didn't occur? I think that if 9/11 didn't occur and Bush faced a weak opponent, he might have still won reelection since the economy was recovering in 2004 and many new jobs were being produced that year (despite the fact that the economy was poor between 2001 and 2003).

[Anthony]

I have a strange feeling, if things don't improve, it will be President Barack Obama (2009-2013).

That's a very big if. You got to remember that Bush won reelection despite the fact that no new jobs were created in his first term (the first time since the Great Depression that this has occured) and despite the fact that his economic record was mediocre in comparison to Clinton's (in terms of (per capita) economic growth, job creation, average unemployment, and the stock market).

Bush barely won re-election, he was lucky; and Kerry wasn't much of an opponent.

I agree with this post. If 9/11 never happened, and if the Democrats had been able to find a good candidate to run in 2004, Bush wouldn't have been reelected.

Who do you think the Democratis nominee would have been in 2004 if 9/11 didn't occur? I think that if 9/11 didn't occur and Bush faced a weak opponent, he might have still won reelection since the economy was recovering in 2004 and many new jobs were being produced that year (despite the fact that the economy was poor between 2001 and 2003).

What I was saying is if 9/11 didn't occur, and if the Democrats could find a GOOD candidate, Bush would have lost. If the opponent was weak, of course Bush would have won.

[petedewolfe]

Maybe Obama...

[milhouse24]

Well the obvious 2004 opponent would have been Albert Gore Jr!!!  Kerry would have been his VP, which should have been in 2000.  I think Lieberman didn't bring anything to the table in terms of votes.  Kerry would have brought NH.  Bayh might have been able to bring Ohio.

Of course, the other opponent that should have run in 2004 was Hillary.  She should have run when people still remembered her "co-presidency" since all senate careers are usually boring.  She probably could have won 2008 if people weren't so sick of incumbent dynasties named Bush and Clinton.