Would Romney be one-term or two term president?

[BushKenya]

I have a feeling he'll be so unable to govern given the current partisan hackery going on that he would probably be a one and done.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

If he doesn't create 500,000 jobs a month, I think Cuomo or Hillary or somebody else maybe could have a good chance against him.

[For Oklahoma]

He might possibly be a one term President.

[cope1989]

as much as I'd like to see that happen, there's really no way to tell.

I'm convinced that a president's skill or lack of skill at governing really doesn't have that much of an effect on whether they win a second term or not. It all comes down to the conditions and mood of the country come reelection time. Well that and maybe how well they campaign.

For instance, I think Bush I was a pretty competent executive. He made the tough choices when he had to, such as raising taxes and he managed to get us in and out of Iraq pretty painlessly, which is more than I can say for his son. And even with a Democratically controlled congress, he was able to pass meaningful legislation such as the Americans with disabilities act.

You look at all that and assume that Bush should have won reelection. Of course he didn't, because that pesky recession got pretty bad right around 1992. Voters didn't judge Bush for the good things he had accomplished when he was president. Instead they punished him for a bad economy that he had little control over.

I would say Clinton was a worse executive in his first term. Even with a Democratic congress, he failed to pass his most important piece of legislation, healthcare reform, and he was basically held hostage by the Republican congress for the last two years. Yes, he did have that showdown with Gingrich and he won political points, but he was basically limited to halting meaningful legislation as opposed to creating it. So yeah, pretty bad. And if you don't believe me check out his approval ratings during that time. Still, Clinton won reelection comfortably in 1996 as we were in the middle of the largest economic boom in decades and the world stage was relatively peaceful. I'm guessing people forgot about his bumbling first few years. They noted the good times we were having and voted to stay the course.

Sorry about the history lesson- this turned out way longer than I thought. But I think it proves my point. Romney could be a do nothing president, which I see happening, but if things are good in 2016 he'll probably win.

[Lieutenant Governor Clinton1996]

Hillary's not gonna run if Obama wins this year. So with a Romney term, se probably clears the field in the primaries and amazes Romney a one termer. Give or take Texas and West Virginia, it'll look a lot like this.

Clinton-Scweitzer-490
Romney-Whoever-48
If she is serious about quitting policies though, Cuomo, Schwietzer, or O'Malley would still give him a run for his money.

[Rockefeller]

I find it highly unlikely that the country would drop Obama in 2012 only to drop Romney again in 2016. 

One-term presidents are the exception, not the rule. 

[cope1989]

I find it highly unlikely that the country would drop Obama in 2012 only to drop Romney again in 2016. 

One-term presidents are the exception, not the rule. 

Well America  dumped Ford in 1976 and did the same thing four years later with Carter. Sometimes we go through weird moody periods when we're not sure what we want.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I find it highly unlikely that the country would drop Obama in 2012 only to drop Romney again in 2016. 

One-term presidents are the exception, not the rule. 

Well America  dumped Ford in 1976 and did the same thing four years later with Carter. Sometimes we go through weird moody periods when we're not sure what we want.

Although the only other times that a party had the Presidency for only 4 years involved Grover Cleveland or the Whig Party.

[5280/East California]

It's possible but too early to notice.  If Romney does what he promises then he'll win a 2nd term easily, go against what he promised during the campaign, then he loses.

[For Oklahoma]

This will never be the scenario if it's Hillary. She'll win in a landslide, but not like this. No way.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If Hillary wants the presidency, basically all she has to do is say "okay." Even if there's an incumbent President Romney. I'd probably support her over him.

Anyone else, and that might not be the case. I expect the business enviornment will get a little friendlier under a President Romney, so hiring will pick up (which would probably happen anyway, but I think a leadership change will only magnify the effects). Romney will probably have a decent jobs record and be in similar shape as Obama is now.

[a Person]

If Romney wins, I'd give him a 75% chance of having two terms.

[Bluegrassball]

I really think he will be primaried and ultimately lose re-election (maybe even the nomination).

The right is already so distrustful of this guy that the moment when governing takes over and he inevitably has to start cutting deals with the Democrats they will all lose their collective sh**t and say "see I told you so about this guy!!!"

He will be on a very short leash in the Oval Office and it will bring down his Presidency.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really don't think "the right" is as distrustful of Romney as some folks like to spin it. I just think they would have rather had someone else. And that's fine.

I don't see these "problems with the base." The base is just getting smaller and smaller.

[Supersonic]

By 2016, I'm pretty sure, regardless of who wins in 2012, the economic situation will have improved dramatically. If Romney wins, then he will enjoy the benefits of having 'fixed' or 'improved' the economy even if he literally does nothing as President. Cuomo or Clinton could make it close, but if unemployment falls significantly, chances are no Democrat can win.

[tb78]

I personally think he will be a one termer if he wins unless he manages to fix everything somehow and becomes likeable. A lot depends on what happens with the Congress, if the Republicans gain both houses he will have an easier time, but if it stays the same or goes all Democratic then it will be at a standstill again.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Who the Democrats nominate in 2016 may depend on whether Romney wins. If Obama wins this year, they may nominate Cuomo or O'Malley and pretend it's Obama (though Cuomo is a little to his right and O'Malley a little to his left). If Romney wins, I suspect the Democrats will go for a strong outsider; maybe Schweitzer or another Westerner.

[True Federalist]

It's looking like 2013 is going to be bad economically no matter who wins the election.  If Romney wins, Obama coming back on a "See! I told you!" theme in 2016 is entirely possible.

Conversely if Obama wins, the Republicans will be the odds-on favorites to win in 2016 unless rent by internal division.

[GLPman]

It's looking like 2013 is going to be bad economically no matter who wins the election.  If Romney wins, Obama coming back on a "See! I told you!" theme in 2016 is entirely possible.

Conversely if Obama wins, the Republicans will be the odds-on favorites to win in 2016 unless rent by internal division.

This sums it up. A Romney presidency could go either way, but significant economic improvement in the future seems somewhat doubtful. And, of course, it would matter who Romney's challenger was, too.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Of course the economy could suddenly be OK again if Romney wins if there really is some weird conspiracy amongst business owners not to hire until they have a supporter in the White House. You know, the bad economy could just be because of retalitory action done by the wealthy against the election the Democrats and their policies....though it is far-fetched. But in other large western nations, there were mass retaliations for economically pluralistic policies in the last few decades. For example, when there were new labor laws in West Germany, there was a time when no one was hiring. This could be because neoliberals are right and the economy cannot absorb progressive policies or it could simply be an unspoken boycott that makes it so. A self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

My guess would be two-term, but there's no way to tell right now.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

My guess would be two-term, but there's no way to tell right now.

This is the only correct answer.

[ask_not]

I personally think he will be a one termer if he wins unless he manages to fix everything somehow and becomes likeable. A lot depends on what happens with the Congress, if the Republicans gain both houses he will have an easier time, but if it stays the same or goes all Democratic then it will be at a standstill again.

I agree with this staement i believe if  romeny wins in 2012, some democratic senattor or

governor will come out of the wood work and mount a strong ,vibrant campaignagainst a president romeny.

[A-Bob]

One. Unless unemployment did go down to under 6% and there was some progress on the deficit. I sorta see Romney being an Eisenhower type president if there are no wars and no economic woes.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

One. Unless unemployment did go down to under 6% and there was some progress on the deficit. I sorta see Romney being an Eisenhower type president if there are no wars and no economic woes.

You mean, that he will have a strong majority in Congress and they might be reelected, but eventually, the Democrats will take over and he will come out with a strong Moderate Hero reputation of relectuantly upholding Civil Rights, the Safety Net and a confirming non-radical SCOTUS replacements? I could see that, or he could just be Bush all over again.