Is Obama Reagan or Carter?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Plenty of people have compared Obama to these two presidents. I see why each of them match up. But what do you think?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Personally Obama is more similar to Reagan. However Obama's re-election outcome will be similar to Carter 1980.

[King]

Obama is Obama.

There haven't been unoriginal Presidencies since the late 1800s.

[Phony Moderate]

Personally Obama is more similar to Reagan. However Obama's re-election outcome will be similar to Carter 1980.

This isn't the 2012 US Presidential Election Board.

Besides, it's rather unwise to make any predictions over two years before the election.  

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Obama is Obama.

There haven't been unoriginal Presidencies since the late 1800s.

Uh, what? What's original about Obama besides his skin color? He's just a repackaged version of George W. Bush. Dubya is the former president with whom Obama really shares the most in common ideologically.

[Phony Moderate]

Obama is Obama.

There haven't been unoriginal Presidencies since the late 1800s.

What's original about Obama besides his skin color?

His name.

[King]

Obama is Obama.

There haven't been unoriginal Presidencies since the late 1800s.

Uh, what? What's original about Obama besides his skin color? He's just a repackaged version of George W. Bush. Dubya is the former president with whom Obama really shares the most in common ideologically.

Originality of a Presidency has nothing to do with ideology unless you live in some fantasy world where a President's beliefs actually makes all the nation's decisions and writes the timeline of events instead of just influencing the movement of the system that is government and society. 

Obama uses an extensive network of czars.  Dubya didn't.
Obama fails because of cautiousness.  Dubya fails because of impulsiveness.

Two small things, but nevertheless things.

And really, at <2 years in office, it's impossible to adequately define BO anyway.  Hell, we're just now getting around to adequately defining Bush 41.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

1. I can't believe this thread as is.
2. The majority so far said Reagan? Yeah, ok. Good luck with that.

An unknown inexperienced liberal who is voted into office only because the previous administration tarnished the GOP, and for no other reasons. Has no clue with foreign policy and is more apologetic than reactionary. Does a terrible job with the economy, as well.

Sigh.

Obama was Carter 2.0 before he was even inaugurated. Obama the next Reagan? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Funniest joke I've heard in the last 2.2 decades.

Reagan at least stood on his principles. He actually fixed problems. He was actually a strong leader who was strong on foreign policy. Think about how Obama would have handled Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall? L.M.F.A.O.

Obama is so weak, he'll probably end up making Carter look good! Regardless, he'll vindicate Bush, that's for damn sure. Obama is the worst President since Carter. 'nuff said.

[Bo]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

Obama will be re-elected? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Oh. You were being serious. My bad.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

You don't see a foreign crisis developing?

What's Afghanistan? What's Iraq? What will Iran be? Maybe even add N. Korea to this list?

Oh. Right. Bush's problem because he didn't deal with them properly, apparently.

Right. Well. It's irrelevant what Bush did or didn't do. It's now Obama's problem. And to say he currently has NO foreign policy problems is wrong, and to suggest he won't accumulate more within 2 more years is so naive.

What is wrong with you?

Obama won't win re-election because, even if the economy is somewhat better, the unemployment rate still be sh**t.

He won't have us out of Afghanistan, and most likely still in Iraq (Whether or not I agree with either policy is irrelevant here)

Gitmo? (I want it to remain open, but most don't. Come 2 years from now it will probably still be open).

Obamacare will be proven to be a flop.

Illegal immigration will be proven to have been mishandled.

The deficit?

All in all, Obama will have proven to be the idiotic candidate all of us naysayers said he would be in 2007/2008. He'll lose on the economy, but his other policies will have gone down the drain too.

Anyone who thinks Obama stands any chance at this rate is simply idiotic. Something drastic needs to happen within the next 2 years for him to be re-elected. And other than a terrorist attack, I can't see that happening.

Goodbye Dems in 2010. Goodbye Obama in 2012. Thanks for ing up your party. GOP shouldnt have had any chance in 2012 bc of Bush, thanks for giving us an opportunity. Pelosi and co are proper idiots.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Policy-wise, Obama is most similar to Clinton.

[Zarn]

Strange mixture of Carter and Bush 43... the worst of both with a teaspoon of Obama originality

[Gustaf]

Obama is Obama.

There haven't been unoriginal Presidencies since the late 1800s.

Uh, what? What's original about Obama besides his skin color? He's just a repackaged version of George W. Bush. Dubya is the former president with whom Obama really shares the most in common ideologically.

Originality of a Presidency has nothing to do with ideology unless you live in some fantasy world where a President's beliefs actually makes all the nation's decisions and writes the timeline of events instead of just influencing the movement of the system that is government and society. 

Obama uses an extensive network of czars.  Dubya didn't.
Obama fails because of cautiousness.  Dubya fails because of impulsiveness.

Two small things, but nevertheless things.

And really, at <2 years in office, it's impossible to adequately define BO anyway.  Hell, we're just now getting around to adequately defining Bush 41.

I'm reminded of Zhou Enlai's response to the question "What do you think about the French revolution?"

[Bo]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

You don't see a foreign crisis developing?

What's Afghanistan? What's Iraq? What will Iran be? Maybe even add N. Korea to this list?

Oh. Right. Bush's problem because he didn't deal with them properly, apparently.

Right. Well. It's irrelevant what Bush did or didn't do. It's now Obama's problem. And to say he currently has NO foreign policy problems is wrong, and to suggest he won't accumulate more within 2 more years is so naive.

What is wrong with you?

Obama won't win re-election because, even if the economy is somewhat better, the unemployment rate still be sh**t.

He won't have us out of Afghanistan, and most likely still in Iraq (Whether or not I agree with either policy is irrelevant here)

Gitmo? (I want it to remain open, but most don't. Come 2 years from now it will probably still be open).

Obamacare will be proven to be a flop.

Illegal immigration will be proven to have been mishandled.

The deficit?

All in all, Obama will have proven to be the idiotic candidate all of us naysayers said he would be in 2007/2008. He'll lose on the economy, but his other policies will have gone down the drain too.

Anyone who thinks Obama stands any chance at this rate is simply idiotic. Something drastic needs to happen within the next 2 years for him to be re-elected. And other than a terrorist attack, I can't see that happening.

Goodbye Dems in 2010. Goodbye Obama in 2012. Thanks for ing up your party. GOP shouldnt have had any chance in 2012 bc of Bush, thanks for giving us an opportunity. Pelosi and co are proper idiots.

Afghanistan--We will probably still be there, but I think we will start having some success before that point. Even if not, the economy is going to overshadow Afghanistan.

Iraq--Obama is on track to withdraw all U.S. troops there by the end of 2011. If the situation there deteriorates after America leaves, that's going to be Iraq's problem, not ours. And the Status of Forces Agreement (which created the withdrawal deadline) was signed under Bush, so Obama can just say that he is just upholding an agreement signed under his predecessor.

Iran--I don't see them developing nukes. If Obama isn't going to stop them, then Israel will. Israel is just too scared to tolerate a nuclear Iran, considering Ahmadinejad threatened to wipe them off the map. Not to mention that most Arab countries would privately support Israel if Israel were to bomb Iran.

North Korea--Thanks to Bush, they already have nukes. They never actually used them, though, and I doubt they will use them under Obama. Despite how crazy Kim Jong-Il is, he knows that he wouldn't want to be annihilated by the U.S.

Obama has foreign policy problems (as every President does). He just won't have a serious crisis like Carter did.

Unemployment--Reagan was reelected in a massive landslide when unemployment was about 7.5% (despite the fact that this was about the same rate when he entered office in 1981). Obama also came into office with about 7.5% unemployment and will have roughly a 7.5-8.0% unemployment in November 2012. If Reagan was reelected in a massive landslide (because people felt that the economy was improving), Obama will probably be reelected as well.

Gitmo--Nobody cares.

"Obamacare"--It doesn't go into effect until the election.

Illegal immigration--The people who oppose it already dislike Obama. And I doubt it's going to be that high on the political radar in 2012.

The deficit--Most people don't care about the deficit. If they did, then the Democrats would have won in 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004.

Let me repeat myself--Obama's situation is based on Reagan's due to the similar economic circumstances under their watch. And just like Reagan, Obama will be reelected (though not by as large of a margin).

[Mechaman]

Neither actually.

Reagan and Carter had personality.  Ever since becoming president I haven't seen much personality to Obama, in fact he seems quite robotic.  And it's going to take more than a White House kegger to convince people otherwise.

[East Coast Republican]

Neither

[opebo]

Neither.  He's just the black president, thats all.  First and last, accidental and doomed.  But comparing him to regular presidents is meaningless.

[Vepres]

I actually view him more like LBJ. Significant legislative achievement, but unpopular due to external problems.

[Bo]

I actually view him more like LBJ. Significant legislative achievement, but unpopular due to external problems.

By external, do you mean international? And please specify which ones. Afghanistan? Iran?

[J. J.]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

Actually, in terms of inflation, there was improvement by this point.

Obama is more like Carter, because both started out high and declined.

[Bo]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

Actually, in terms of inflation, there was improvement by this point.

Obama is more like Carter, because both started out high and declined.

There was a significant reduction in inflation during Reagan's first term. However, I was talking about unemployment since inflation wasn't an issue during the Bush/Obama Presidencies. Unemployment-wise, Reagan and Obama are pretty similar so far. In terms of approvals, Obama, Reagan, and Carter all started out high and then declined. Reagan just bounced back up and so will Obama. And I don't see inflation going out of control under Obama like it did under Carter.

[Sbane]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

Actually, in terms of inflation, there was improvement by this point.

Obama is more like Carter, because both started out high and declined.

Unemployment-wise, Reagan and Obama are pretty similar so far.

Why are you assuming unemployment will go down? If there is another recession in late 2010/early 2011, I doubt unemployment will be down to 8.5%(which is the magic number I think) by 2012.

[Bo]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

Actually, in terms of inflation, there was improvement by this point.

Obama is more like Carter, because both started out high and declined.

Unemployment-wise, Reagan and Obama are pretty similar so far.

Why are you assuming unemployment will go down? If there is another recession in late 2010/early 2011, I doubt unemployment will be down to 8.5%(which is the magic number I think) by 2012.

I doubt a second recession will start so soon after the first one. That typically occurs very rarely.

[k-onmmunist]

Reagan. Both of them share very similar circumstances in regards to the economy. Both of them inherited a recession which worsened during their first 1-2 years. Afterwards, the economy began to improve during the last 2-3 years of their first term, allowing them to get reelected. (And Obama will be reelected). In contrast, Carter came into office during an economic recovery, which continued for three years and then the economy went into a recession during the last year of Carter's first term. I also don't see a foreign crisis developing under Obama as it did under Carter.

You don't see a foreign crisis developing?

What's Afghanistan? What's Iraq? What will Iran be? Maybe even add N. Korea to this list?

Oh. Right. Bush's problem because he didn't deal with them properly, apparently.

Right. Well. It's irrelevant what Bush did or didn't do. It's now Obama's problem. And to say he currently has NO foreign policy problems is wrong, and to suggest he won't accumulate more within 2 more years is so naive.

What is wrong with you?

Obama won't win re-election because, even if the economy is somewhat better, the unemployment rate still be sh**t.

He won't have us out of Afghanistan, and most likely still in Iraq (Whether or not I agree with either policy is irrelevant here)

Gitmo? (I want it to remain open, but most don't. Come 2 years from now it will probably still be open).

Obamacare will be proven to be a flop.

Illegal immigration will be proven to have been mishandled.

The deficit?

All in all, Obama will have proven to be the idiotic candidate all of us naysayers said he would be in 2007/2008. He'll lose on the economy, but his other policies will have gone down the drain too.

Anyone who thinks Obama stands any chance at this rate is simply idiotic. Something drastic needs to happen within the next 2 years for him to be re-elected. And other than a terrorist attack, I can't see that happening.

Goodbye Dems in 2010. Goodbye Obama in 2012. Thanks for ing up your party. GOP shouldnt have had any chance in 2012 bc of Bush, thanks for giving us an opportunity. Pelosi and co are proper idiots.

I hate to say it, but he's right. The Dems are screwed.