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

[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).

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.

I get what you mean. I was asking who (which candidate) you think the Dems would have nominated in 2004 if 9/11 had not occured? I think the Dems would have nominated Hillary (who would have narrowly defeated GWB).

[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.

I get what you mean. I was asking who (which candidate) you think the Dems would have nominated in 2004 if 9/11 had not occured? I think the Dems would have nominated Hillary (who would have narrowly defeated GWB).

Oh. Well I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind for who that candidate would be. I was just saying in general, that if the Dems did have a certain candidate who was good, they could have been beaten Bush. Although, now that you mention it, I do suppose if 9/11 never happened, Hillary could have run in 2004, and defeated Bush.

[milhouse24]

I don't think Hillary would have had the confidence to run in 2004.  She's not an anti-incumbent firebrand.  If we are to believe she was co-president, then she already had her 8 years, why should she have 16 years in the white house. 

She probably could have won, but its still an eerie precedent of Putin-esque proportions, playing musical chairs to keep the presidency for Bill/Hillary.

Would she have attacked Bush, gone for the kill?  Would she have Ross Perot attack Bush Jr? 

Gore would have been great in 2004 as an attack dog, he should have run, now knowing how close and poorly Kerry did. 

[Bo]

I don't think Hillary would have had the confidence to run in 2004.  She's not an anti-incumbent firebrand.  If we are to believe she was co-president, then she already had her 8 years, why should she have 16 years in the white house. 

She probably could have won, but its still an eerie precedent of Putin-esque proportions, playing musical chairs to keep the presidency for Bill/Hillary.

Would she have attacked Bush, gone for the kill?  Would she have Ross Perot attack Bush Jr? 

Gore would have been great in 2004 as an attack dog, he should have run, now knowing how close and poorly Kerry did. 

Gore wasn't a much better candidate than Kerry. He was just as uncharismatic, dull, and boring as Kerry (a large reason why he lost in 2000) and he would be perceived as a loser in 2004 after blowing an election that he was supposed to win in a landslide in 2000. I think that this is the reason why Gore chose not to run in 2004. I don't think he would be able to win the nomination unless the rest of the candidates were really weak. In regards to Hillary, I think she might have very well run in 2004 because the economy was in poor shape in 2003 and thus I think Bush's approvals would have been between 40 and 45% in 2003. This would thus give her a good opportunity to defeat Bush by saying "Under my husband the economy was in good shape, and 22 million new jobs were created. Now our economy has been in a recession for three years, and Bush is the first President in over 70 years to have a net job loss. Also, economic growth under Bush has been half of what it was under my husband, and average unemployment is higher under Bush than it was under my husband. Vote for me if you want to return to the prosperity that this nation experienced in the 1990s under my husband's watch." Even in 2004, I don't think Bush's approval ratings would have risen much, especially if fuel prices would start rising. I think that Hillary running would also be another reason why Gore would choose not to run. Finally, I don't think Gore would have ran because many Democratic donors were reluctant to give him money after blowing the 2000 election. Finally, I think Hillary would have ran (and won) in 2004 without 9/11 because she would have had Bill's full support, and Bill was still liked and admired by most Democrats back then.

[Yelnoc]

Obama 2009-2013.

[Psychic Octopus]

Obama 2009-2013.

Welcome to the forum.

[DS0816]

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

Either the first Republican president that follows George W. Bush …
or the second Republican president that follows George W. Bush

[SvenssonRS]

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

Either the first Republican president that follows George W. Bush …
or the second Republican president that follows George W. Bush

More like the first Democrat president that follows GWB.

[yougo1000]

In 2012 when Romney kicks Obamas ass

[Reaganfan]

In 2012 when Romney kicks Obamas ass

[RosettaStoned]

In 2012 when Romney Ron Paul kicks Obamas ass

Fixed.

[GLPman]

Although I wouldn't have said it a few months ago, I think if things don't turn around soon then Obama will be the next one termer.

[Free Palestine]

In 2012 when Romney Ron Paul kicks Obamas ass

Fixed.

Like he could get the Republicans to think he isn't a Murica hating librul.

[Oedipus Rex]

I have an eerie feeling about it being Barack Obama.   But if the GOP candidtate is Palin, Romney, Tancredo, or Pawlenty, he'd probably win.

I wish Howard Dean ran in 2008.............

[Beet]

At this rate Obama, he's doing a horrible job being a populist.