Serious Question: What are the chances Obama will choose to not seek re-election?

[democrat2thecore]

50/50? 25%? 1%? 0%? 75%? 95%?

I'm beginning to think that President Obama will not have the numbers to seek re-election even if he wanted to. I've thought this for awhile, but am beginning to truly believe the writing is on the wall. Maybe it's a perception from my thinking - but I just don't see the fight in his eyes.

The compromises on issue after issue has created a situation where trying to please everyone has created a situation where he's alienated too many.

He's in a lose-lose situation going into and coming out of the midterms. He will be blamed for the losses (and I am expecting large losses in the House). Few incumbents want him at their side. And the fact is, the day after midterms, the race for '12 is on. A primary challenge is pretty much written off because he'll have 90%+ of the black vote.

But the general is a different story and Barack Obama knows this.

What are the chances of Obama pulling an LBJ and simply bowing out? Democrats rally around another candidate or engage in another free-for-all like 2008 and we're off.

This is not a flamebait post. This is serious stuff. If anyone thinks it's not a possibility, they haven't studied history.

[MilesColtrane]

1. it's a perception from your thinking

[democrat2thecore]

3. You didn't tell me your % guess.

My perception is only that I have read history and things are ripe for an LBJ scenario.

[NoPasaran]

29. I think it's in the low single digits

But regarding the "LBJ scenario", who do you see as a likely Gene McCarthy?

LBJ went into 1968 with serious opposition (mostly over the war) in the upper ranks of his own party. Even in 1980, when Kennedy challenged Carter (which I never for a moment thought had any chance of success) he had the Kennedy name brand to lend some weight to his candidacy. I simply cannot imagine any credible candidate from the ranks of leading Democrats challenging Obama from the left.

[democrat2thecore]

33. I see no challenge

I don't see anyone challenging the president in the primaries. There is a unique set of circumstances with a candidate that goes into the primaries with 90%+ of the black vote. But one can look ahead at the general election - today - and easily see a 38-40 state loss. But I don't think anyone would challenge President Obama. I think he would look at the situation, the electoral map, the ability to raise (or not raise) 527 money and choose to step aside for an electable Democrat (and to avoid a very good possibility of a humiliating defeat). Like others have said though, things CAN change....but there's really NOT much time.

[Joe Bacon]

42. This is 1978 again, but there is no Kennedy to challenge.

I'm talking from experience. I worked for Udall in 1976 and in 1979, I helped start the Draft Kennedy movement in Pennsylvania after getting completely pissed off at Carter's endless slide to the right.

Obama is following the same pattern as Carter did, moving further to the right as time goes on, and ignoring the base that elected him. Time and time again he trades orchards away to the Republicans and gets nothing back in return. Since the Democratic congress has also tacked right and ceded bargaining to the Republicans there is nobody who can mount any kind of credible Kennedy-type 1980 challenge.

I still remember the dirty campaign Carter's folks ran against Kennedy in Pennsylvania, passing out bumper stickers provided by the NRA which said "Kennedy: A Blonde in Every Pond" or "Have You Drowned A Polish GIrl Lately". Carter's folks made sure those bumper stickers were all over Western PA. And the media was squarely on Carter's side, playing up on Kennedy's marital problems. We managed to squeak by and beat Carter, but just barely but the nasty primary left wounds that didn't heal, including mine, since I went over to Anderson. And we all know the result. Me, I was so disgusted I walked away from politics. I still remember in 1984 when people backing Glenn, Mc Govern and Hart begged me to come work for them. I turned them all down because I gave up. And I stayed out of any activity for 28 years until I came back to do some work for Obama. Right now, I just feel so let down by Obama that I just feel like giving up again. BUT what scares me is that Palin is following the exact same game plan that Reagan followed in 1978. And the Media is treating her exactly the same way. I really fear her getting the GOP nomination then beating Obama the same way Reagan beat Carter.

[Pisces]

2. 100% he will run. DU is not the country.

[RandomThoughts]

4. Now that is something to rally the base with.

Get the Democrats elected, even when they are trying to lose.

Then you can both keep the Republicans out and have a great time with the Democrats trying to lose.

They taking a dive, and the base stands them up. LOL

That is so funny.


I don't know what I did to deserve such a great day. But these comments about progressives are funny.

Even if just a story, it is still great.

[democrat2thecore]

7. I'm talking about the country

Do you think the distress with Obama, as shown in the polls, are just from the left and DU types? Hardly. That's the least of his worries. The independent vote that went with him in '08 looks lost. That's my concern.

I say it's 50/50.

[saracat]

18. I really have no idea. I think the numbers are worse than some think but conditions can change

rapidly. As you point out the Independents numbers are not only growing, they are troubling. The good news is, they are also troubling for the GOP. The New WSJ/ NBS Poll out today indicates most folks don't like anyone and 65% are disappointed in how the president handled the economy. We may be in for another "its the economy , stupid" type of campaign cycle. We have got to get in front of this.

[democrat2thecore]

21. Agree with every word you said. -nt

[ieoeja]

102. 70%: has met or exceeded expectations.

Overall approval is still over 50% (which means 20-points of that "met or exceeded" must be saying he met their *bad* expectations).

On some issues he has dipped slightly below 50% approval. But even on those he is ahead of Congressional Democrats and even further ahead of Congressional Republicans.

And since you like historical comparisons, may I recommend the approval numbers of the last two presidents at this point in their administrations? Obama is almost 20-points ahead of where Clinton and Bush were.

So if your theory is based on polls and historical precedence ... it appears to be in direct opposition to the preponderance of historical precedence.

[savalez]

5. Zero

[Jade Fox]

6. Serious answer: Oh, please!

[democrat2thecore]

9. Why is my question being ridiculed?

History has shown us that presidents, for one reason or another, sometimes choose not to seek re-election. There are so many parallels right now with LBJ. The war, the economy, the anger from the right and the left. You may think it's funny to ask the question - but history says it's a perfectly logical question.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Because it is too early for anyone to make a decision like that.

[democrat2thecore]

26. But it's NOT "early"....Here's why

We are 90 days from midterms. Before January (5 months from now) at least 2 or 3 Republicans will be announcing presidential committees. Trips to Iowa are on, the president moves to "campaign mode." Has to. These things are looked at, and thought about, far, far out. I think it's 50/50.

[LiberalFighter]

93. That would not apply to a sitting President.

First, he is not the quitter, Sarah Palin. Because only a quitter would start thinking about not running that soon.
Second, his focus is and should be on running the country.
Third, he doesn't have to start weighing whether to run or not until about July of 2011. Probably as late as the end of 2011.

[caledesi]

41. Agree LF. nt

[rurallib]

24. May i step in to say that the parallels to LBJ are

overstated. My recollection is that beside the war - which the right wing loved and the left hated - Johnson's policies were fairly well likes by the left. The Great Society had some major successes. But he got bogged down in Nam. Even though some try, the Bush Wars seem only a blip in the MSM and the the public mind.

People may strongly disagree with this, but my theory is that Johnson would have been easily nominated by the Dems and probably would have won the election.

To his credit I believe Johnson stepped down so he could concentrate on his job for the final year. That plus he was really, really burned out.

Considering that Obama's problems are somewhat self-inflicted but also to a major degree a product of republican obstruction, I would bet he would see no reason to step down. Bor do I see anyone to his left ousting him.

[democrat2thecore]

30. The Johnson Tapes tell a different story

He said he knew as far back as '66, at the conclusion of midterms that his chances were not bright. The left was horrified at his policies in Vietnam. When he entered the primaries he was still hoping for lightening to strike. It did, in the way of Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota who racked up 42% of the primary vote in New Hampshire (to Johnson's 49%). He quit the race. On the Johnson Tapes, he said that if he couldn't whoop a "dead fish" like McCarthy (he wasn't exactly charismatic), he would have no chance if Bobby got in the race, which he did in a week or so. LBJ said "I've known this for a long time - it's over." He went on television to give an address and shocked the nation by ending it with a HUGE 'by the way'. The rest is history. No way would LBJ have won re-election in 1968 and he knew it.

[gkhouston]

73. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam -- not yet, at least. The economy's a hell of a lot worse,

though. I don't see a more charismatic candidate than Obama on the near horizon. I can imagine Biden choosing to step down as VP for health reasons (not that I know of any health problems, but he's not a spring chicken), but I doubt Obama would choose not to run again.

I'd like to see Franken run someday, but that probably wouldn't be 'til 2016.

[Cosmocat]

85. There is ZERO comparison to LBJ ...

Iraq/Afganistan are not Vietnam politically, not even close ...

The media has all but forgot about them ...

And, BO is NOT Johnson ... Johnson had been in politics for YEARS, and took over the presidency after the JFK was killed, totallly different situtation ...

BO is what, 50 ... That else does the man have to do in life? Seriously, there is nothing else he can do to match being president ...

And, he is no fool, he knew he was going to get chewed up by the right wing/MSM once he got there, he knows the deal as a D how it works ... He knew it going in, and is not NEAR as soft as the right wing wants to delude itself into believing or lefties want to project on him ...

He will run, and if we don't have a major domestic terrorist attack or massive economic downturn he will win ...

[Whisp]

8. he has the numbers. Don't believe the MSM.

or the few squawkers here and there.

most of americans dont' give a shit what carville and some hack says. It's the obsessed here that think the sky is falling.

What Gibbs said yesterday, Stewart said a long time ago on Crossfire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

[democrat2thecore]

11. Who said anything about the pundits?

I don't think the American people are hung up on what the pundits are saying. Are you suggesting he doesn't have a problem from the right and the left? No matter what the pundits say?

[Whisp]

16. He has overwhelming support from Democrats.

from a recent poll.

the yappers and hackers want you to believe otherwise, and it seems to be working, but that's the way they operate.

too bad the media no one trusted while Bush was in office is suddenly all clean and honest (to a select handfull of large mouthed basses) when they diss Obama.

[democrat2thecore]

17. Again, HISTORY. Remember, Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did

So they go - so goes any hopes at re-election.

[Whisp]

22. what will be will be.

what won't be is me kissing some malcontents ass to beg for votes.

[NanceGreggs]

37. I have a problem with that premise ...

To say that "Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did" is to imply that Independents are solely responsible for Obama's election. They're not.

Obama was elected by a combination of Democrats, Independents, Greens who felt he was the better alternative for their goals than the GOP, and Republicans who didn't want to take a chance on McCain/Palin being another Bush/Cheney - or worse.

Votes for any candidate are a pool of voters of varying political stripes. And the make-up of that pool can vary from one election to another.

It would only be valid to say that "Independent voters elected Obama" if the Democrats, for the most part, did not vote for him - and that is clearly not the case.

[democrat2thecore]

39. No, No, No...

He won the Democratic vote overwhelmingly. He lost the Republican vote overwhelmingly. The ever-growing portion of the electorate that is registered one way or the other and votes, "for the person and not the party," voted in much larger numbers for Obama than they did for Kerry in '04. It's the electoral demographic that tips the balance that gives a candidate a victory. This 'independent' or 'swing' voter won the election for Barack Obama. The Democrats were a given. This is basic stuff and you, of all the people here at DU, should know what I meant.

[NanceGreggs]

44. I'm sorry if I misread you ...

... but your own words were: "Democrats didn't elect Obama - INDEPENDENT voters did."

The phrase "didn't elect" has meaning - and if I misread that meaning, I apologize.

It's just that I've seen this statement before, and it dismisses (perhaps inadvertently) the fact that the Independent vote IN ADDITION TO the Democratic vote, and the votes of others I have cited, is the more accurate frame.

That's also "basic stuff" that you should know ...

[democrat2thecore]

45. Fair enough. -nt

[NanceGreggs]

56. Fair enough, both ways

:hi:

[saracat]

23. No . It might seem that way but having 75% of the democrats when you actually need almost a 100%

win ins'nt very good. If even 165 or so stay home, you are screwed. And for these midterms either apathy or overconfidence has led many Dems to say they aren't voting while ALL the GOP are saying they plan to vote. Add that to the Indies who aren't as supportive, and we have a lot of work to do.

[Whisp]

25. we will see if your wish comes true and Obama loses.

I doubt it very much, he is more loved that you want to accept.

But you have a couple years to wallow in your wanked out wishes.

[saracat]

28. Contrary to what you think, I don't want Obama to "lose". You repeat that like a matra.

Everyone who crticizes the president doesn't want him to "lose". I want our nation to win.I have been disappointed in this president, it is true, but he can turn this around.I am hoping he does so.

[NanceGreggs]

47. Really?

If that's true, saracat, that's great news!

I suppose the problem is that's not what you've been saying elsewhere - not by a long-shot.

Perhaps that's why people have a problem understanding what you really mean when you speak. Maybe you could clarify your position - just to clear up any misunderstandings that might exist, here and there.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NanceGreggs]

59. The "Canadian" thing is passe ...

It didn't get any traction before - and that hasn't changed. You should read the memos.

The internetz, as you know, is more than just a series of tubes. People can read not only what posters say here, but what they say elsewhere. And when their statements in two places are completely at odds with each other, a bit of clarification might be in order.

You've said that "she speaks for herself".

So let her.

[NanceGreggs]

68. And while we all await a response ...

... allow me to provide an appropriate musical interlude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdD52DAaFRs

[saracat]

95. Unlike you of course! You are such a bastian of clarity!

:sarcasm: I say exactly the same thing wherever I post. I have never posted anywhere that I want this president not to succeed. And I have always hoped he would turn things around. I have also expressed my disappointment. And I have been very clear he wasn't my 2008 Primary choice.

[NanceGreggs]

113. Yes, yes, of course ...

I note the use of the "sarcasm" thingy as you say, "I say exactly the same thing wherever I post."

A very apt use of that particular emoticon.

[flamingdem]

60. Everywhere but here! DU seems a bit unbalanced lately hmm nt

[jaxx]

27. OMG that was great.

I wish I could K&R your post. When he said they need to Stop!....he said it all.

[Hansel]

10. 0 nt

[democrat2thecore]

12. I don't think I ever said - I think it's 50/50 right now -nt

[Pirate Smile]

13. zero

[PoiBoy]

14. 0%

n/t...

[Maccagirl]

15. He'll seek re-election in 2012

But he'll wonder about his own sanity.

[Bobbieo]

20. He won't run if he is impeached by a majority incoming Senate.

Keep that in mind, folks.

[democrat2thecore]

32. What will they say deserves impeachment? -nt

[Bobbieo]

36. Don't fret. They will work something out, believe me.

[saltpoint]

52. There are a lot of Bagger nitwits slated for the November

ballot.

I think we turn back their bids and retain the Senate.

[bornskeptic]

82. Impeachment takes place in the House.

Impeachment would not stop him from running. Maybe you're talking about conviction in the Senate, after impeachment by the House. But that would require 67 votes, and if the Republicans won every Senate election they would only have 59.

[Hissyspit]

nil nt

[Hissyspit]

31. nil nt

[old mark]

34. Not good enough. nt

[democrat2thecore]

35. The percentages aren't good enough? Not sure what you're saying, old mark. -nt

[old mark]

38. I'm saying Obama has been a great candidate and a poor president. I did vote for him

and will again in '12, but he is a waste of time when the country needs someone so much better.

He speaks well, some good legislation has been passed under his watch, but he is just another politician, albeit a black one, and I don't feel the need to worship someone who has no use for my letist position. He is a moderate and seeks his support from them, relying on fear of the republicans to insure that the left votes for him.

I'd love to see him decline to run again and make room for a real liberal Democrat, but I am certain that won't happen.

I think he is a lousy president.
I think we should do better.

Fired Up? Not any more, BHO.

mark

[NanceGreggs]

40. If you don't believe that Obama ...

... "has the numbers", you have (and I hate to say this) been putting too much credence into what you read on this website.

As someone else said up-thread, DU is not the world - nor is it reflective of what is going on in the country.

In the past few months, I have seen many posts here about how Obama's numbers are falling - and yet, in the real world, his numbers have held steady.

It is unfortunate that there are people posting here, quite prolifically, who have an agenda of their own. And part of that agenda is spreading misinformation for their own purposes.

[democrat2thecore]

43. Nance

"It is unfortunate that there are people posting here, quite prolifically, who have an agenda of their own. And part of that agenda is spreading misinformation for their own purposes."

Nance, if you think that of me, you are very, very wrong.

As for the numbers, if they "hold steady" as they look today; remove the African-American vote (90%+ in most polls), you have an electoral defeat of landslide proportions.

By the way, I answered your other post up-thread as well.

[NanceGreggs]

46. And I appreciate your previous response ...

... and have just replied to it.

And, no, I wasn't thinking of you when I mentioned people who have an agenda of their own. They know who they are.

Are you suggesting that the African-American vote is in any way in jeopardy?

[Political Tiger]

61. The bigot vote always goes to the Republicans.

Obama didn't win the white vote in 2008 yet he still won in a landslide. In fact, I don't know the last time the Democratic candidate won the white vote. Clinton didn't. Carter didn't. The white vote, especially white men, always goes to the pukes...I mean, that is their base after all.

2012 is still a couple of years away, and in politics that's a lifetime, so anybody counting Obama out now might just be eating some crow in a few years.

[democrat2thecore]

64. And it works the other way, too

Obama has 90%+ in some polls of African-American support. Even with that, Obama loses if the swing vote in PA, OH, NY (take your pick of several combinations) does not go his way. Remember, in the end, it's all about the electoral map. Right now, it looks like a very rough road ahead electorally. I believe that's what they'll be looking at after the midterms. In all seriousness, I see a possibility that the determination is made that the president has no chance of winning in 2012 and the pressure for him to step aside will grow. Though I should say, I agree with some of the other posts in this thread saying that things could turn around. My point is that there is very little time for that to happen with our marathon campaigns in determining whether a 2012 run is a 'go' or a graceful exit would be in the best interest of the party and our chances in 2012.

[TheKentuckian]

65. Y'all say it with the polls you brag on

What model are you using that Obama can win with less than 90% of the Democratic vote and with strong turnout?

Ross Perot ain't running.

[NanceGreggs]

66. What model are YOU using ...

... that says he doesn't have the numbers he needs?

(Please remember that information from certain "unreliable sources and/or websites" is not permitted to be posted here on the basis that it is laughable.)

[TheKentuckian]

71. I asked first but it doesn't take much to see he's toast much below 90% of Democrats

High seventies would mean a bloodbath.

[NanceGreggs]

74. Not for nuthin', my friend ...

... but you're spending way too much time in the shade.

[ShadowLiberal]

48. Clinton is blamed for us losing congress in 1994, he easily won reelection two years later

Things can change with time. Clinton bounced back after his party lost congress.

Personally I think Obama's biggest problem is that as long as democrats control both houses of congress the focus is always going to be in the media/blogs "Obama's party has all the power yet he can't get anything done, he's disappointing his base on everything". If the GOP controlled say the house, then the focus would probably shift in the media/blogs to something more like "Obama is standing up to the radical republicans in the house and their radical right wing policies".

The fact is it's just the nature of how the legislative process works that things changes when congress debates it, Reagan's tax cuts got reduced to only 2/3's of the cut he promised when campaigning.

[smalll]

78. Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

You put your finger on it perfectly. Plus, when Obama gets to stand up as a President protecting us from a radical right Congress, rather than a Dem President signing Dem bills into law, which the right sees as socialism, and sane people see as weaksauce (viz, HCR) -- well, his popularity will rise across the board.

[doc03]

111. By becoming a Republican ! n/t

[Scurrilous]

49. Zero. n/t

[saltpoint]

50. My guess is that he and Michelle will sit down and

talk it through before any final decision is made.

I think he's very likely to seek re-election and will defeat the Pukes' nominee.

[Connie_Corleone]

51. Uh, wasn't Bill Clinton in the same situation in 1994?

Hate to burst teeny tiny bubbles on DU, but Obama ain't goin' nowhere. You're stuck with him for 2012 and he will win re-election despite some on the Left that walk around with a rain cloud over them all day dreaming of a day where Kucinich has a prayer of a chance of winning a primary, much less the Presidency.

:eyes:

[democrat2thecore]

62. No question about it

However, Bill Clinton enjoyed a booming economy. Clinton also appeased many corporate Democrats between '94 and '96. God knows we don't need any more of that from President Obama.

Just so you know, I certainly don't expect Dennis Kucinich to run or win anything. This thread has nothing to do with finding another candidate. That's for another day if, in fact, Obama were to bow out in '12. If anything, my guess would be that Secretary Clinton would waltz to the nomination. I guess my point is anything can happen - and it does happen. Things just line up right (or wrong) sometimes and we see history repeat itself (ala Johnson in 1968) but you're right in that things could turn around, the economy explodes and President Obama cruises to an easy re-election. Do things look that way now? Far from it. But, you could prove to be right. We'll have a better grasp on all this after the midterms.

[StevieM]

53. I see no reason why he won't run and I think it's extremely likely that he will handily win

re-election. Obviously, it's always possible that he'll choose not to run. But you can say that about any incumbent (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr). They all run. Truman and LBJ were exceptions, but they were drowning in Korea and Vietnam, and no matter how many times the President's critics claim that Afghanistan is comparable to those conflicts, it just isn't IMO.

Steve

[proteus_lives]

54. He'll run and he'll win.

[BlueIris]

55. High.

If I had to lay odds, I'd put it up there around 90%. Maybe more like 93%.

[CakeGrrl]

58. A group of angry DUers is not representative of the nation

There have been several polls posted that show he continues to have wide Democratic support nationwide.

There was an interesting post about how vilified FDR was by Democrats.

Just because a few hundred people on DU want him out on his ear doesn't mean the country feels the same way overall.

Will he run? Why not? And he should. He has no reason to step aside, not with the legislative record that he's built to date. To Gibbs' point, if people choose not to recognize ANY measure of progress, that's their problem.

If some passionately angry Progressives want him out, then let them organize and vote him out during the Primary.

If those who want a Primary challenger can muster THOSE numbers, they can also consider whether someone who could meet the stringent Progressive standards on DU could gain the mainstream appeal to win the GE. Because if they're aiming for the WH, they'd damn well better not miss.

[democrat2thecore]

63. I've explained several times above why there won't be a primary challenge -nt

[CakeGrrl]

70. OK, then zero. Why SHOULD he bow out for the GE?

So that Repubs might consider crossing over for a different Dem candidate rather than him? Not likely.

[Safetykitten]

67. Zero. Complete zero.

[grantcart]

69. On the question of how detached DU is from the reality of US politics

this stands as a prime example.

Today MSNBC is reporting that 58% of the country feels that the President is operating at the level they expected and 12% feel that he has exceeded their expectation.

The Republicans are in a bloody civil war, a real one not like our kerfuffle and have nobody that can have success on the electoral map.

[Hekate]

77. Amen

[gkhouston]

72. I'd be pretty surprised if he's not the Democratic nominee in 2012. Why even

ask the question at this point??

[impik]

75. 90% that he won't. The only thing that is more important

to him than the country it's his family. He will not make them suffer 4 more years of this crap.

And he shouldn't. This country does not deserve such president. It deserves Bush.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Seriously? Seriously?

[Hekate]

79. Seriously?! This isn't the 60's. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam. Obama is NOT Lyndon Johnson.

Where are the riots? Where are the bank burnings? Where are the young men burning their draft cards? Where are the hundreds and hundreds of Americans dying EACH WEEK?

Where are the crowds of young people chanting "Hey, hey LBJ! -- how many kids did you kill today?" Where's the tear gas and broken windows on our college campuses?

Discontent in the country is not agony. That was effing agony. I was there.

LBJ's own daughter asked him (as her husband shipped out) if he was really sure this war was right. He looked every day of his age and then some. By all accounts he was tormented. He had accomplished so much, and that goddamned war was bringing him down. He didn't survive his retirement very long.

Barack Obama is a young man who has a spring in his step. His numbers among Democrats are still very good indeed. He's getting a lot done. I'm sure he feels frustration that he's not getting everything done that he wants. He and Michelle are made of tough fiber, and I am quite sure they noticed before they moved to DC that bitching from the sidelines comes with the territory.

Chances of Obama not running for a second term? ZERO.

Ability to respond to your post? Priceless.

Hekate

[smalll]

80. We may know at the end of this year:

There's been a lot of buzz around about the possibility that if the Dems lose bad in the midterms, and Obama's approval ratings continue to trend downward, there will be some musical chairs at the top of the administration: Biden will resign from the Vice-Presidency, Obama will select Hillary to replace him, once she's confirmed, Obama will give Biden the S. of S. position (foreign policy has always been Joe's specialty) then resign: Hillary will ascend to the Presidency and have a good year and a half plus to settle herself in and then run with the power of incumbency in 2012. Hillary will also make Obama her Vice-President, which will set him up nicely to be able to run for another term as Presient after Hillary finishes up in 2018 -- America likes him, but may feel at this point that he still needs a little more apprenticeship before he takes on the top job. He's a brilliant young man, he just needs more seasoning, that's all.

[Hekate]

81. I'm genuinely curious as to where this "buzz" has been published. Can you enlighten?

Absolutely no snark in my question -- I have never seen or heard this scenario anywhere. It's quite.... elaborate. Where is it being discussed and by whom? I'm not asking for links, just some clue that I can follow up on when I have the time.

Thanks,

Hekate

[JTFrog]

83. That's some wild fantasy there.

I'd also love to see where this kind of "buzz" is originating.

[rasputin1952]

88. Nortsure whom you are listening to, but that is some serious

tinfoil hat stuff there. It's a complicated way to resign, and I can't see where it is Constitutionally feasible.

[Arkana]

96. Where is this buzz coming from? Inside your own head?

Hillary's RETIRING in 2012--she said so herself a while back.

[SoxFan]

97. But first he carries out Order 66 and destroys the Jedi

Wipe them out. All of them.

[POAS]

99. Thanks Smalllllll.....!!1!11!1!

Best laugh I've had all week. That is some really good satire!

:toast:

[azmouse]

100. Thankfully President Obama passed Health Care so

you can get that annoying buzz taken care of.

[CBR]

103. ...

[tallahasseedem]

105. This has got to be...

one of the dumbest DU posts of all time.

[POAS]

110. Your being too kind! n/t

[rasputin1952]

84. Zero...

and judging by who is trying to align themselves for the GOP nomination, I'd say he'll get re-elected rather easily.

Most people who are finding fault haven't looked closely at the accomplishments this administration has under it's belt already. Naturally, we shall have to see what happens in the next 2 years, but I believe that we will actually gain seats in both houses. If I am right on that, things will move forward quickly. If I am wrong, the R's will toss more monkey wrenches into the fray. Honestly though, how can the GOP expect to gain seats with no plan, and an entire 2 year cycle of saying nothing bu "no"?

2 years in the political world is a lifetime. After the mid-term, things should get hopping.

[bornskeptic]

86. If he wimps out we'll draft him. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Clinton's poll numbers were pretty bat at this point in his first term

He ran and won.

[donco6]

89. Not a chance in the world. n/t

[moksha]

90. Not a chance. He'll run.

[Aramchek]

91. 0% At this point I hope Obama runs again just to spite dimwits who post OPs like this

You better get used to Barack Obama, buddy.
He's in for the long haul.

[mcollins]

92. Not so sure.

Everything I've seen from the President is that he does have a fairly large ego. This isn't a slam as anyone who gets into politics 'professionally' has got to.

He doesn't seem to do well with negative commentary about the Administration and it's like he takes it personal. Of course he is the leader of the party and so could be seen to be responsible for all the actions of the party. I don't think we'll loose the house or senate in November, but we may loose a few seats. I think that President Obama will probably feel responsible for those losses, even though he clearly will not be. His administration will also take it personal and I think they will be driven to work harder for the 2012 election and not 'give up.'

IMHO, only.

[DFLforever]

94. Zero.

He's an extremely determined man: unlike some us, he's not willng to give the Executive Branch away to the Republicans so they can undo everything he's achieved.

[FrenchieCat]

98. If Obama chose not to run again due to the harsh judgment of his own party,

Democrats can wave goodbye to ever being in power again.
The African-American vote may be small and meaningless to some,
but I would dare to wager that 80% would stay home if Obama wasn't
on that ballot in 2012....

[depakid]

106. It'll depend on his poll numbers from all sides

and no, I don't buy into your racist theory that most African Americans would stay home if there was another nominee fighting for their interests.

[MineralMan]

101. Extra Large Tinfoil Hat - Just $19.99. Call Now!

The preceding paid program does not represent the opinion of DU or its affiliates. We now return you to regular programming.

[bigwillq]

104. Obama will run

It'll take more than 4 years to see some of his projects through.

[Kind of Blue]

107. I don't agree that the writing is on the wall

and I certainly don't know what's on the President's mind, but at this point, according to the PPP:

"A month after President Barack Obama fell behind three of his main 2012 Republican rivals and tied another, he has now jumped back ahead of all four. Obama leads Mitt Romney, 45-42 (Romney led 46-43 in July); Mike Huckabee, 47-44 (Huckabee, 47-45); Sarah Palin, 49-43 (tied at 46); Newt Gingrich, 49-42 (Gingrich, 46-45); New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, 47-31; and failed Tennessee gubernatorial candidate and viral video sensation Basil Marceaux, 46-21.

Unlike last month, in every race except that versus Huckabee, Obama gets more of his party’s support than the Republicans do of theirs. He also now leads all candidates with independents, when all beat him last month.

When Ron Paul is included as an independent against Romney, he gets 13% to Obama’s 42% and Romney’s 36%. Paul earns the vote of 16% of the Republicans and 21% of the independents. Obama gets 79% of Democrats to Romney’s 68% of Republicans, thanks to Paul. Obama and Romney are tied at 33% among independents.

While Obama has become more popular, the Republicans generally have become less so. Huckabee’s personal favorability is down to 32-34 (37-28 last month), Gingrich 31-48(32-42), Palin 37-54 (37-52), and Romney 35-37 (32-33). The lesser-known candidates,Christie, Paul, and Marceaux, have 14-20, 23-34, and 3-16 grades, respectively."

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_812.pdf

[bornskeptic]

108. Presidents do not choose to quit after serving one term.

Admittedly Polk and Hayes did so, but both of them had promised to serve only one term when originally elected. In addition Polk was extremely ill. He died a few months after his term ended. Buchanan did not make any effort to be renominated, nor did he explicitly indicate a desire not to be re-elected, so he can't be said to have chosen not to run. Truman and LBJ don't count, as both had already served more than a full term. Every other one-term president tried to be re-elected, and only Pierce failed to get his party's nomination. So based on history we would have to assume that, since Obama never promised to serve only one term, the chance he will choose not to run is zero.

[rucky]

109. Pending anything involving a live boy or a dead girl between now & then...

0%

[last_texas_dem]

112. I'd say maybe 2% or so

Anything's possible, but it seems pretty unlikely.

One-term presidents choosing not to seek another term happened occasionally in the nineteenth century, but in modern times it's been relatively rare. Even LBJ had technically served more than one term by finishing out JFK's. Had he run again and been reelected he'd have ended up serving an unusually long time and been the only president besides FDR to serve more than two terms.

More relevant to the current discussion, Obama's approval ratings aren't too hot, but they're also not remarkably low for someone in this stage of the presidency. He's about where Reagan and Clinton stood at this point, and they were both reelected. Add to it that he's relatively young. If we were talking about a President John McCain {shudder} at this stage of his tenure in office, I'd feel that a retirement after one term would be a little more likely.

[Mass]

114. Not a chance. His favorability ratings are higher than other presidents

at this point in their first term, and this includes Clinton and Reagan.