Posing Question RE: Obama Doesn't Run

He'll run for a second term, now.

I'd be VERY surprised if that doesn't happen.

But, then again, I was VERY surprised that he won this time (no reflection on him).

But, I really doubt that he won't run again now.


Robin

Seriously ? Obama clearly doesn't like the work of being president and is in it again for purely egotistical purposes. So as someone incapable of self-criticism, his own crappy performance can't be the excuse for declining another run. But things are getting too hot, too out of his control and he is actively looking. IMHO.

You do realize that the far left liberals are disappointed in him simply because he is too republican? He is far more conservative than many of the republican presidents of old. He's always been a moderate, but the right wing is so far right that they can't even recognize this fact.

Every powerful politician suffers from egotism - it comes with the territory. And for self-criticism, it sounds like you haven't read his books. He attacts himself though out those books. I can't even begin to understand why you would think that he doesn't like the work of being president. Did Fox News make this statement?

A lot of people would shout halleujah!

He may attack himself in his books, but I feel he gets thin-skinned at times when it comes to dealing with criticism from others.

If he would happen to not run again I think it would be Hilary that would get the nod. Pelosi is too big of a nut case.

The polls indicate he has increasingly less chance of winning, with a low approval rate considering how shortly he's been in office.

The idea that he is "sacrificing himself" because he thinks a different democrat might be able to do a better job than his administration has is pretty laughable. The reality is that the right already didn't like him because of his tax-and-spend economic policies and government healthcare, moderates vote w/ their belly and the results speak for themselves, and he's angered too many people on the left base with war mongering and broken promises from his campaign where in many instances he's done the exact opposite of his campaign platform. And ultimately, the Democratic party I think may be putting quite a bit of pressure on him since he's not the golden child they had imagined and in their eyes may have damaged the party image as a whole.

I would wager that Hillary would be their other front runner candidate, and while her policies may not have even been that bad, I do fear she has such a polarizing personality that is just a huge turnoff to all but very far left wing base. At least she is a big proponent of internet freedom and wants to bring our troops home.

Personally, I hope that he does run, as the polls in 2010 had Ron Paul in a dead heat w/ Obama in 2010, and since then RPaul has been getting a LOT more face time and that was before the recent debates which were a big push for his campaign. Back on Hardforum.com, the computer forum that I am on, RP's name is constantly dropped in the news section as one of the few true Internet Freedom champions that has CONSISTENTLY ruled against big business sponsored federal regulation that the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have pushed for.

As an example, in addition to bids to allow major corporations to assume network preference over smaller entities, the US Senate's Judiciary committee has also recently green-lighted The Protect IP Act, which hands over the government's right to seek a court order against allegedly infringing Web Sites. The order could be served on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms--which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web sites vanish from the Internet. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" law practice which historically would require that the website be actually found guilty of something before being blacklisted, and places sole authority over what websites are and are not allowed w/ the DoJ.

Ultimately though, it is economics I think that will decide this next election, and the people have lost faith in the Obama Administration to be able to address this to their satisfaction as they have incurred debt at a rate never before seen with nothing to show for it.

To answer the question that was originally asked, a primary would have to be held to nominate a candidate, just like starting from scratch.

Personally, from the looks of the field being presented by the Republicans, Obama will likely get another term. There isn't anyone being lined up against him on the Republican side that really offers anything other than "Obama = bad". There is very little there that appeals to moderate voters, IMO. And none of them appear to have a line to help the undecideds decide. In fact, their ideas on medicare may have really hurt them, even though they could be right. Sometimes, the truth just isn't what voters want to hear. In fact, that's becoming true more often than not.

Romney may have a chance, but with his early attempts to appeal to moderates running afoul of his party even before becoming a candidate, it's hard to say if he'll get the nod or not.

I'd have actually voted Republican this time, but they blew it. I'd have voted for Huckabee, for the very reason Geraldo said he would...because he's an honorable guy, and sometimes honor just counts for more. As it is, I'll probably vote for Ralph again.

Oh boy... here we go... let's start a very exciting Obama bashing thread - yey!

Who is Ralph ? lol I'm just waiting for Jon (Huntsman). Seriously I do think he will have a LOT to do with the potential direction that the GOP nomination process may go, Tea Party or no Tea Party.

Ralph Nader. He ran the last couple times as an independent. I think he was even with the Green party once upon a time.

IMO < national polls. National polls show that swing-voters (aka moderates) claim they are more likely to vote Republican this coming election than for Obama.

The president’s overall job approval rating has been around 46% or 47% for the past year and a half, and this is below the threshold for which presidents have been able to win an election historically.

Specifically, no incumbent has won a reelection below 49% in national poll approval rating in recorded US history. And the 49% approval rating was for Dubya, with a VERY small +2.4 margin.

Now, a lot can happen between now and the election and the president could pick up the needed 3-4 points for a close election, but considering that the economy is one of the main issues of importance to people today, it would take a reversal of economic trends to achieve that IMO. Barring that, people will clamor for change, not the status quo.

The Republican spokespersons themselves are already making it clear that polls taken this early historically tell them absolutely nothing useful.

One thing that has become very obvious to most people, including a lot of the pundits and analysts, is that politics doesn't have a "normal" anymore. What were once indicators are now failing miserably.

The GOP is going to have to do much, much better than it is at the moment to pull it off.
"We are not in normal. There is nothing normal about politics right now,'' said Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, who had hoped Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels would run and is now looking mainly at Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. "This is wide open."

I absolutely agree, its too early to tell right now. But as of the latest polls, it is inaccurate to say that moderates prefer Obama, as that goes against Gallup and Rasmussen which are the best indicators available right now.
There is no recent major breakthrough in technology, we've had the internet for some time now, and this isn't our first hint at a recession. I haven't heard any reputable analysts saying that Obama has a chance of winning if his current approval rating doesn't climb by election time., and wouldn't consider a county official to really be an authority there.

Keeping my fingers crossed, hope for the best, and cast my ballot. That's all you can really do... well, unless you're Acorn, in which case you can cast votes from dead people and drive around buses and pick up homeless people and promise them a handout if they vote for your candidate! LOL!

Both of which stop polling weeks before the actual elections so that they can claim "recent events" if they turn out to be wrong. Hardly what I'd call "best". But if that is our best, then our best is as good as nothing

The statement that we're "not in normal right now" was in the very article I linked. Didn't you read it?

Really? How many votes were cast by dead people, exactly? From my understanding, there were voters registered that had passed, but how many of them voted...exactly?

No, its much too long. But the statement was made by a single mere county official, some Mark Sharpe guy, not a reputable analyst or agency with any record of predicting election results like Gallup and Rasmussen. I'll stick with guys whose actual job is to gather the pulse of the nation and speculate on these things with a lot of experience doing so.
You may be right as there is always a first for everything, we'll have to see, but at the very least I can say with certainty that Obama's family would not be the only ones fine with Barack not running for office again! I'd be "lighting candles on a cake and filling up friend's champagne glasses" fine.

Polls are saying lots of things lately that are ultimately proving to be untrue. It's just like the TV Nielsen ratings. Programmers get real time data of what the "nation" is watching from their little polling group...and have been finding that over the last couple of years, they have no idea what's going on. "Sure things" are washing out right and left, just like pollster predictions. Why do you think they stopped calling elections on exit polls? It's cuz' they don't work anymore.

A lot of moderates and undecideds are going to be single issue voters. And the Republicans don't have anyone yet that will carry a large enough combinations of single issues to win. Romney's views on climate change will probably gain him some voters from the moderates, if he gets that far...but they will also cost him dearly in the party. It's a balancing act, and the GOP doesn't have any jugglers.

I'm sorry, you're right. Mark Sharpe, whoever he is, is definitely a better authority on the pulse of the nation than reputable dedicated polling institutions since the 40's. Long live Mark Sharpe!
Wanna bet? Ron Paul is not only the father of the well recognized Tea Party movement which has become quite a household name, but if internet trends are anything to go by, he has the second highest Youtube subscriber count of any politician, second only to President Obama and very unusual for a Republican candidate that usually does poorly w/ the that demographic. Considering he is merely a senator, that's saying quite a bit... 3.5x McCain's subscribers for example.

And Ron Paul has gotten praise from popular liberals such as Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, and Howard Stern: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7dV6Fvkxq8

How many Republicans do you know of that have pulled off something like that?

Having the accuracy of a coin toss is nothing to truly brag about. If they want to impress me, they can keep polling up till the Friday before the election and have a 54% or better accuracy rate. But, they're not going to do that. They'll keep stopping 3 weeks short and then claiming "recent events" when they turn out wrong.

So he's getting the nomination then?

Romney leads currently by quite a bit, however, he isn't able to garner as much non-republican support as RP: http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

*crossing fingers*

If Paul is the juggler you claim him to be, he'd be appealing to more people.

Paul is a Libertarian disguised as a Republican. The left thinks he's a complete whack job. I suspect moderates will view him the same.

He would have to toe the party line to be nominated, then he would have to lie and pander to get elected. Then he would just be a politician.

Has anyone ever calculated the fulfillment ratio on campaign promises? I'm betting it's really, really low.

He has said publically that he would like to change the direction of the Republican Party, and joined with admission that its simply impossible to win as an independent in our two party system. As a Libertarian, he wasn't even getting into the debates.

Polls indicate he is more popular with moderates and the left than any Republican to date. He has gotten praise from Hillary Clinton in addition to the props you saw above from mainstream liberal celebrities like Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, and Howard Stern. When you guys make claims on behalf of "the left" and "moderates", where exactly are you getting your information from?

Ask Jon Stewart what he thinks about Romney or Dubya, then contrast that with his endorsement for Ron Paul. Its the neo-cons that most liberals consider whack jobs, not the people who don't want to ban gay marriage, end the war on drugs, and bring our troops home.

Ron Paul has made some stupid comments over the years, but his main "problem" actually is that he hasn't had big-business in his pocket the way the Republicrats and Democans have, so he doesn't get their huge corporate sponsorships. HOWEVER, to date he holds the record for the highest amount of money generated in a single day from PRIVATE donations. "Remember, Remember, the Fifth of November" was the slogan that got him $5million in just 24hrs. Its much better to have him in debt to the people IMO, than say Obama who has to say "thank you" to the Ivy League, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Time Warner as his largest campaign contribors (and people wonder why the bankers get handouts and golden parachutes... they bought and paid for them in advance).

And I'd like to see the polls you are referring to.

We all know that there are different degrees of republicans and democrats. Living with a man who ran a liberal website for many years, I understand far left liberal thinking. Libertarians are considered the most extremist of republicans, and are considered more whacky than those that take social issues to an extreme. So while you might find some liberals and moderates who agree with some of his ideas, if they truly understood what Libertarians stand for, then they would run from him screaming. They would vote for someone who would ban abortions and kill baby seals before they would vote for a Libertarian.

The real question is whether or not there would be enough media play to educate people on what he really stands for and what those implications would be.

I know you really like the man, but I don't want you to get your hopes up too far.

Then the all knowing polls must be wrong. When one is popular, they get votes. Isn't happening. His main "problem" is that no one is voting for the money he raises, but for his ideas and position, which is why he can't carry a majority. And in politics, 2nd place is merely the first loser.

Not to knock your credentials, but you seriously need further education on the political spectrum if that is your understanding as you have been greatly misled with such two dimensional thinking.

Understand that there is libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party which borrows from it by has American populist leanings, and that Ron Paul is running as a Republican which shifts his platform accordingly. Secondly the idea that Libertarians are "far right" on the political spectrum as you imply is, well, laughable as they tend to be more centrist. Libertarians attract both Democrats and Republicans to their ranks because they share some of the same philosophies of both, and many consider the Libertarian Party to be social Democrats and fiscal Republicans in practice.

Perhaps this basic Nolan Chart can help:

http://www.texaslp.org/sites/default...%20Chart_0.png

The only way Libertarians frighten you is not whether or not you have left or right leaning tendencies, but if you are a STATIST, meaning you want a strong authoritarian government. That is because while the party has members that are primarily centrist in left or right philosophy, but they do not believe in the use of strong government force on the people and thus represent more of a polar opposite to facism and communism than liberal or conservatism. For the vast majority of American history, the United States has been Libertarian, especially so prior to WWI. The authoritarian shift in US Government, with illegal wire taps, disappearing people, secret torture prisons, CIA interference in foreign countries, perpetual warfare, mass debt accrued via government expenditure, housing bubbles, and mass economic interference culminating in huge bailouts and government purchase of large-scale private enterprise like General Motors are all recent shifts, starting first with the cold war and the Red Scare.
Ditto on Obama.

Doesn't it really just all boil down to who one wants to believe. I doubt many voting decisions are made objectively versus subjectively.

I for one think Obama is great and hope fervently that he is elected to another term. He's just getting started on changing things that needed to be changed and is making a difference. I sincerely hope he isn't replaced and everything is undone and has to go back to zero.

It is indeed only what one wants to believe. The myth of it being a "two party system" is a myth propagated by the two major parties themselves. The very idea that voting for a third party candidate being "wasted" is a lie that the two parties promote at great expense, because it up's their chances to 50-50. That deception isn't rooted in politics, it's rooted in capitalism. The "two player" myth has been used throughout history...Macy's vs. Gimbels, Ford vs. Chevrolet, Nikon vs. Canon. In every one of those cases, there are "as good" and often better alternatives, but constant berating by the fanboys make people feel compelled to make a choice between the "top two", and they are chastised for "wasting money" if they invest in any alternatives.

The money, the showmanship all only truly accomplish one thing, and that is; to convince the moderates and undecideds that their only choices are A or B.