"The next guy, whoever he is, will be a one-term president -- if he is lucky."

[Reaganfan]

"It's close to an impossible situation. The next guy, whoever he is, will be a one-term president -- if he is lucky."

-- Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, quoted by Howard Fineman, on the challenges facing the next president.

Do you agree...the more I think about it...maybe it will be better for the GOP in the long-run.

[ChrisFromNJ]

They said the same thing about Bush in 2000.

Anything can happen.

A party should never wish to lose an election, because they may not get the White House back for 8-12 years.

[Reaganfan]

They said the same thing about Bush in 2000.

Anything can happen.

A party should never wish to lose an election, because they may not get the White House back for 8-12 years.

True. Just think...in 1991, the 90s were looking to be the "Bush Era" as the 80s had been the "Reagan Era", not many even knew who Bill Clinton was, and it was looking like 16 years of solid Republican rule in the White House.

[bgwah]

Sounds like something someone who thinks they're going to lose next month would say...

[Mr. Morden]

Interesting factoid: Since 1840, whenever a new party comes into the White House, if they manage to win at least 51% of the vote in that initial election, they always get a second term.  Yes, we've had plenty of incumbents lose, but it only happens in situations where either the party has been around for two or more terms (e.g., the Republicans in 1976 or 1992), or the initial victory garnered less than 51% of the popular vote (e.g., Grover Cleveland losing in 1888 after having won with just 48.5% of the vote in 1884, or Carter losing in 1980 after having won with just 50.1% in 1976).

Thus, if Obama manages to win with more than 51% of the popular vote (as looks likely now), history would suggest that he'd likely win reelection in 2012.

Although, I don't actually believe such historical trends mean very much.  I just figured I'd point it out.  

[Likely Voter]

I remember thinking in 2000, there is no way in hell a PV losing president is ever going to get a second term....I was wrong.

But it is true the next President will have a crappy job that I do not envy. I am not really sure why McCain wants it so badly. At his age he should be thinking more about golf

[Keystone Phil]

Sounds like something someone who thinks they're going to lose next month would say...

The guy who said it is a partisan Democrat.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Sounds like something someone who thinks they're going to lose next month would say...

The guy who said it is a partisan Democrat Clinton-connected Hillary hack.

[Keystone Phil]

Sounds like something someone who thinks they're going to lose next month would say...

The guy who said it is a partisan Democrat Clinton-connected Hillary hack.

Well, yeah, I knew that one was coming but I doubt that he wants McCain.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sounds like something someone who thinks they're going to lose next month would say...

The guy who said it is a partisan Democrat Clinton-connected Hillary hack.

And people who support the Clinton's aren't Democrats!

[Lunar]

Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta,

yawn

[Robespierre's Jaw]

We will only know the answer to this question around the conclusion of the 2010 Congressional Elections me thinks. Not to mention, its too early to even to ask this question of this calibre. As That One said before, anything can happen in politics.

[BlueSwan]

I disagree. If Obama is elected president, the democrats might be in for a beating in the 2010 midterm elections if the economy is still in crisis, which will make Obamas job tougher, but USUALLY economic recessions only last a few years, so the chance that things are looking pretty positive in 2012 are quite good. Infact, I'd say that the chances of 2012 being a year of solid economic growth are better than the opposite given the usual economic cycles.

[The Duke]

This has been in the back of my head in 2004 and in 2008.

In retrospect, had Bush lost in 2004 the GOP and the country would clearly have been better off.  Kerry would have been a one-term nothing but would be a better Democrat to suffer through than Obama is.

Maybe we shouldn't want to win in 2008.  That's a risky thing to hope for.  Putting the country through Carter to get Reagan paid off, but where's the Reagan for 2012?  Unless Jindal finds his good sense, I don't see one on the horizon.

But yeah, I don't think either guy will get re-elected.

The recession drags on through 2009.  Once credit clears up, inflation is back in 2010.  It probably doesn't go away by 2012 unless someone does what Volker did in 1982, and you don't do something like what Volker did in your third or fourth year and get re-elected.  Afghanistan doesn't get better right away, maybe not at all.  We'll still have troops in Iraq, even if it isn't so violent.

And the deficit does not give us the chance to spend money to fix these problems.  We have to do it on a shoe string budget.

And between one and three big things will happen to present a new challenge that will have to be dealt with.

[??????????]

This has been in the back of my head in 2004 and in 2008.

In retrospect, had Bush lost in 2004 the GOP and the country would clearly have been better off.  Kerry would have been a one-term nothing but would be a better Democrat to suffer through than Obama is.

Maybe we shouldn't want to win in 2008.  That's a risky thing to hope for.  Putting the country through Carter to get Reagan paid off, but where's the Reagan for 2012?  Unless Jindal finds his good sense, I don't see one on the horizon.

But yeah, I don't think either guy will get re-elected.

The recession drags on through 2009.  Once credit clears up, inflation is back in 2010.  It probably doesn't go away by 2012 unless someone does what Volker did in 1982, and you don't do something like what Volker did in your third or fourth year and get re-elected.  Afghanistan doesn't get better right away, maybe not at all.  We'll still have troops in Iraq, even if it isn't so violent.

And the deficit does not give us the chance to spend money to fix these problems.  We have to do it on a shoe string budget.

And between one and three big things will happen to present a new challenge that will have to be dealt with.

And you haven't even got into the 800lb gorilla sitting right in front of the room. Iran.

Yes, I agree with that quote and I have for a while. I strongly feel the next president will a) have to raise taxes and b) be a one term deal. It's even possible the next president could be the 21st century Herbert Hoover.

[exopolitician]

Can we at least get someone elected first to make a prediction like this?

[??????????]

Can we at least get someone elected first to make a prediction like this?

The situation at hand has no regards for this current election. The election is merely the eye in a hurricane.

[MR maverick]

All depends on how things are going.

I think McCain will stink it up because he's only in it for ambition. Heck he will be  76 years old then and in a wheelchair by then. The man is pretty old.

[NDN]

It all depends on how bad the economic crisis is. If we see '70s style stagflation or worse as I suspect, re-election will be difficult. If the economy recovers around 2010-2011 as it usually does then Obama will probably be able to claim the credit for exiting from Iraq and ending 'the Bush Recession.' Maybe McCain too although I don't think that's in the cards.

[MODU]

That was the subject of my article the other day.

[Reaganfan]

The Obama/Biden Administration is going to have two to three years to blame the economy on Bush/Cheney and the Republicans' failed economic policies of the past eight years. By 2012, if things are looking up, if it seems to be "morning in America again," Obama will win re-election; if we are still mired in malaise, he will not win re-election.

If McCain wins, he will not have the option of blaming the economy on his fellow party members. He will be forced to take the brunt of Bush's blame, especially from the hostile Democratic Congress. Even if things turn around by 2012, he will probably be too old to convince anybody of re-electing him if he chooses that route. Palin is the new Dan Quayle, so even if she ran in 2012 I am not convinced the Republicans would nominate her.

This much is clear: Whoever the next president is, they will be forced to raise taxes on everybody but most especially on the most affluent. Our deficit is unsustainable, and Social Security/Medicare are not even factored into that equation. Whoever ends up winning, we are looking at a return of the type of government spending/taxing last seen in the 1950s.

Palin is not the new Dan Quayle. Her speeches and debate performances have been 100x better than Quayle.

I listen to talk radio...Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, ect...and I hear how much the Republican base and many women and men who aren't even that political in America love Sarah. She is the only one...other than Romney...who could rally the Republicans, raise huge sums of cash, and really knock 2012 out of the park. "Are we gonna end this administrations' strain on working families? You betcha!"

[TheresNoMoney]

The Obama/Biden Administration is going to have two to three years to blame the economy on Bush/Cheney and the Republicans' failed economic policies of the past eight years. By 2012, if things are looking up, if it seems to be "morning in America again," Obama will win re-election; if we are still mired in malaise, he will not win re-election.

Exactly.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Palin is not the new Dan Quayle. Her speeches and debate performances have been 100x better than Quayle.

I listen to talk radio...Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, ect...and I hear how much the Republican base and many women and men who aren't even that political in America love Sarah. She is the only one...other than Romney...who could rally the Republicans, raise huge sums of cash, and really knock 2012 out of the park. "Are we gonna end this administrations' strain on working families? You betcha!"

I watched many videos made of Sarah Palin prior to her VP selection, and I don't recall hearing a single "You betcha" or "Doggoneit".  The Sarah Palin you see now is a dumbed-down and ignorant version of the Sarah Palin that runs Alaska.  Which really really sucks.  IMO.