It started

[Wall St. Wiz]

America is now in a perpetual state of campaign.  November 5th begins Obama's re-election campaign and the GOP starts its rebuilding effort.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Jindal_to_visit_Iowa_next_month.html

IMHO it's going to be Obama vs. Jindal is 2012.

[YRABNNRM]

IMHO it's going to be Obama vs. Jindal is 2012.

Back in 2004, it was definitely going to be Hillary v. Giuliani.

[paul718]

I really don't like stuff like this.  The Republicans nominating Jindal would be the same thing as the Dems nominating Obama in '08. 

[Wall St. Wiz]

I really don't like stuff like this.  The Republicans nominating Jindal would be the same thing as the Dems nominating Obama in '08. 

As if that's a bad thing for the Dems? He is going to win a landslide election.

[paul718]

I really don't like stuff like this.  The Republicans nominating Jindal would be the same thing as the Dems nominating Obama in '08. 

As if that's a bad thing for the Dems? He is going to win a landslide election.

That's yet to be seen.  If Obama does win, it's in spite of himself.  2008 is the anti-Bush election and was supposed to be handed to the Democrats on a silver platter.  The only reason why McCain is only down by a handful of points is because the Democrats nominated a BAD candidate. 

Again, I don't have anything against Jindal.  But I have no reason to get excited about him.  "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love."  Let them vote with their emotions.  This Obama thing could only happen under the extremely narrow circumstances we have today. 

[auburntiger]

I really don't like stuff like this.  The Republicans nominating Jindal would be the same thing as the Dems nominating Obama in '08. 

As if that's a bad thing for the Dems? He is going to win a landslide election.

That's yet to be seen.  If Obama does win, it's in spite of himself.  2008 is the anti-Bush election and was supposed to be handed to the Democrats on a silver platter.  The only reason why McCain is only down by a handful of points is because the Democrats nominated a BAD candidate. 

Again, I don't have anything against Jindal.  But I have no reason to get excited about him.  "Republicans fall in line, Democrats fall in love."  Let them vote with their emotions.  This Obama thing could only happen under the extremely narrow circumstances we have today. 

We'll be stupid to nominate jindal in 2012, but he won't accept the nomination.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

IMHO it's going to be Obama vs. Jindal is 2012.

Back in 2004, it was definitely going to be Hillary v. Giuliani.

Speaking of such, that came up in discussion today with a friend's uncle.

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

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

[Хahar 🤔]

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

6 years? Why? Because the Confederate Constitution had it? Aside from that, though, that was a really good Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

6 years? Why? Because the Confederate Constitution had it? Aside from that, though, that was a really good Constitution.

     A 6 year term is fundamentally unworkable as is. You would also need to change when the Senate is elected to make it work fairly.

[Keystone Phil]

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

6 years? Why? Because the Confederate Constitution had it?

...

You know that that was one of the original proposals for our Constitution, right?

[paul718]

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You guys didn't happen to read A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato, did you?

[Keystone Phil]

One 6 year term. Amend the constitution please.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You guys didn't happen to read A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato, did you?

No, I didn't. By the way, I hope people didn't take my comments as an endorsement of the six year term idea. I've always been strongly opposed to that.

[paul718]

You guys didn't happen to read A More Perfect Constitution by Larry Sabato, did you?

No, I didn't. By the way, I hope people didn't take my comments as an endorsement of the six year term idea. I've always been strongly opposed to that.

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as I don't really have an opinion on it.  I was just curious because Sabato argues for one six-year term.  In year 5, the President can pursue a referendum whereupon the country gives an up or down vote for a two-year extension (making it an 8 year term).  If the country votes "no" then a new presidential election is held after 6 years.  Basically, this would avoid the fact that a new President essentially begins campaigning for reelection after only two years in office. 

It's a good read.  He gives 23 proposals to change the Constitution, and a lot of them make sense (although I find his general idea to be implausible).  One of his more interesting suggestions is for all Presidents and Vice-Presidents to gain lifetime appointments as "national senators" upon leaving office, charged with voting for the benefit of the nation as a whole, rather than his particular state.  This would make the choice of a runningmate that much more important, as the VP would actually mean something, and not be used as a way to target a certain state, region, or demographic. 

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

My point is that four years is entirely to short of a period of time to be President. By the time the individual is elected he may have a year or two to get something done then he turns around and starts campaigning again. If he wins a second term he is likely to have an opposing congress and then gridlock ensues until the end of his term. New President, repeat cycle. With a six year presidency the individual could get right to work.

[Хahar 🤔]

My point is that four years is entirely to short of a period of time to be President. By the time the individual is elected he may have a year or two to get something done then he turns around and starts campaigning again. If he wins a second term he is likely to have an opposing congress and then gridlock ensues until the end of his term. New President, repeat cycle. With a six year presidency the individual could get right to work.

6 years is too long without a choice. Only France has had a comparable term length in the modern era, and they changed it.

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

I don't think it's to long, six seems just perfect for me.

[Associate Justice PiT]

My point is that four years is entirely to short of a period of time to be President. By the time the individual is elected he may have a year or two to get something done then he turns around and starts campaigning again. If he wins a second term he is likely to have an opposing congress and then gridlock ensues until the end of his term. New President, repeat cycle. With a six year presidency the individual could get right to work.

6 years is too long without a choice. Only France has had a comparable term length in the modern era, and they changed it.

     My French teacher told me that it was just changed as a ploy to get Jacques Chirac re-elected.

[Хahar 🤔]

My point is that four years is entirely to short of a period of time to be President. By the time the individual is elected he may have a year or two to get something done then he turns around and starts campaigning again. If he wins a second term he is likely to have an opposing congress and then gridlock ensues until the end of his term. New President, repeat cycle. With a six year presidency the individual could get right to work.

6 years is too long without a choice. Only France has had a comparable term length in the modern era, and they changed it.

     My French teacher told me that it was just changed as a ploy to get Jacques Chirac re-elected.

Jospin supported the change first.