If President Obama is reelected...?

I believe President Obama's first term gets a grade of D. His domestic economic performance is an F, mostly reflecting his inability to lead and constantly passing blame. His international performance is a B, he has mostly followed the outline laid out by the previous administration. In other areas he get a C, excluding the Obamacare mess. He has shown some leadership on gay rights issues, he has proven to be an inspiration to many young people, he made the call to get Osama and a few other things. I do not buy his argument for reelection, but many do.

As I was listening to political pundits last night an interesting question came up. If President Obama is reelected will he govern more to the right or to the left? Clearly something has to change and I have always assumed he would move dramatically left with his second term agenda. I am wondering what others think and why?

One pundit stated that President Obama would govern more to the right in order to solidify his presidential legacy and therefore will be more willing to work with conservatives. If true this would be a good thing from my point of view, but would obviously anger his far left of center constituency. What do you think about this argument, how would you feel about his legacy if it turns out to be true.

Given all of his rhetoric is it possible for him to be honest about his future intentions in his acceptance speech Thursday night? My gut tells me if he moves more right he won't get reelected and if he moves more left he wont get reelected. I think he has to walk a very fine line - and I expect in his typical fashion every listener will be able to project what they want to hear from his speech.

 

I think he has shown a huge willingness to work with conservatives. Unfortunately, the republicans have moved radically right and have also opposed working with him on principle (and to the detriment of the country).

Obama is moderately right wing anyway, as I see it (maybe not by US standards, but by any reasonable standard).

I think a lot will depend on who gets voted into Congress and the Senate. I can't call that. I don't understand how anyone can vote for the Republicans right now, but I know many will.

When Obama was elected, I said that he would struggle to match the unreasonable expectations of him. I think he has done an OK job, but wish that he had not tried to compromise, especially with people who won't compromise at all.

 

Wait, economic you give him an F? Really you think things can be better than they are given the present circumstances? For economic growth and progress I give him a solid C.

 

Agreed with Alistair. The current US political scene is divided almost exclusively between right-wing and left-wing, leaving a negligible center.

From what I've followed of Obama's decisions he'd be considered a centrist or center-right in European standards. Which is a much more agreeable stance than the either/or philosophy going on in the US.

I still think that Obama was being politically very strategic and played both sides for his benefit. My hope is that once the stupid re-election sword is out of the way, he will stop courting lawmakers and senators, and be much more decisive in laying out his own path. Not to mention that a second term will have him start with all the lessons he has learned in his first term.

 

His speech will be promising a term that is in keeping with the sort of presidency he'd initially promised before the 2008 election.

What another term will actually look like will depend upon how much cooperation he gets from Congress, much in the same way this one has been.

Legacy? I think the best he can hope for is to keep Obamacare intact, prevent the Ryanites from totally destroying Medicare and Medicaid, lower the deficit by balancing an increase in taxes with common sense spending cuts, and end US involvement in the wars started by Bush and Co.

If he can close Gitmo - an added bonus.
Even more economic improvement and lower unemployment figures would be a bonus as well but as we all know, such things are not really in hands of a President. Policies he's attempted to put forth to try and help promote greater economic growth and stability as well as job opportunities have been stymied by a Republican led HoR and a closely divided Senate where the slight Republican minority has bullied the majority with heavy handed philibustering.

There's blame and then there's reality. Clinton had the benefit of working with a Congress that was not dug into the right side of it's ideology so far and so firmly. Obama has been forced to deal with blackmailers. He's given in some, but not not coughed up as much as the extreme right wing has wanted.

I still feel confident that Obama will win but if the Congress remains unchanged, I really don't foresee much in the way of additional change over the next 4 years. He'll shoot for legacy badges where he can but may end up having to rest his laurels on a universal health care plan, an improved economy following a devastating financial blow, and the fact that he was the 1st US Black President.

Nice to see you back, Ace.

 

There is the secret agenda:

And the real agenda...that I would guess would focus on a balance of continued jobs funding (primarily transportation/infrastructure) combined with debt reduction (accomplished in part by finally rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket that expire in Jan), immigration reform (an unfulfilled promise to the latino base), comprehensive energy plan/less comprehensive global warming response and the implementation of Affordable Care Act, with minor tweaks.

But, I suspect the extremists in the Republican base and Congress will suggest that they lost the White House because their candidate was not conservative enough and will make no effort to work with him on any issues.

 

All by himself because, as we all know, US Presidents have that kind of power and do stuff like that all the time.

Is this the Twilight Zone of America? Since when does the American public have access to private property?

And all of this versus handing over public lands to private energy companies, blocking the American public from access and destroying the country's natural resources.

 

We will see some moderate changes in congressional makeup. I doubt either party will achieve a super majority, forcing bi-partisan solutions.

I have not moved radically in the past 4 years. I give Bush an F on domestic spending control. Regardless of who is elected my view is the same. Show me you can cut and control spending first. Second, revise the tax code - make it flatter and simpler. Third, let's discuss "raising revenues" to balance the budget and pay down the debt. I don't trust the people in Washington and I won't support anything else outside of addressing issues in that order. On social issues I have become more liberal over the years. I really don't care what other adults do, as long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

If President Obama and other Democrats really believe what they say about Republicans, how could compromise be possible. I.e. - Republicans want to prevent women from having access to birth control - really! Republicans want to "put y'all back in chains" - really! Etc. Etc. Etc. How about President Obama toning down the rhetoric and sit down and have an adult conversation with those who have a real philosophical difference with his point of view. Imagine, that might lead to people willing to "compromise". Telling me I want my mother to die because I want to change medicare for my generation, just makes me a bit mad.

--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:01 PM ---

Yes. I think we are in a anti-small business environment caused by a high degree of uncertainty and rhetoric about some not paying their fair share. A better approach we be to approach it as we are all in this together. We need government to control spending and implement smart regulation making it easier to do business. We need big business to reinvest the money they are hoarding. we need small business to focus on growth and to hire people. Etc. Etc. Etc. We should have economic growth in the 3% to 5% range, not the 1% to 3% range. That range may appear small but given the size of our economy we are talking about large sums of real dollars that would be creating real wealth gains - including more taxes being paid.

What if it was simply a pass/fail option?
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM ---

Thinking of a normal bell curve distribution, no doubt a small percentage of Republicans will hold the view you describe. Why worry about those people? Work with the people who are actually willing to moderate their views on issues. Even I can moderate my views. For example I support an end to income taxation and that we have a consumption taxation system. I understand it won't happen and I am willing to support other forms of tax reform. When people agree on an outcome and the disagreement is on process, compromise is as simple as sell the opposition on your process. Another example, I support free market health care reform, but I would support a single payer solution - assuming we get to where we want to go. Obamacare is a hybrid disaster. Based on your view of compromise, you can not honestly say I am unwilling.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM ---

Thinking of a normal bell curve distribution, no doubt a small percentage of Republicans will hold the view you describe. Why worry about those people? Work with the people who are actually willing to moderate their views on issues. Even I can moderate my views. For example I support an end to income taxation and that we have a consumption taxation system. I understand it won't happen and I am willing to support other forms of tax reform. When people agree on an outcome and the disagreement is on process, compromise is as simple as sell the opposition on your process. Another example, I support free market health care reform, but I would support a single payer solution - assuming we get to where we want to go. Obamacare is a hybrid disaster. Based on your view of compromise, you can not honestly say I am unwilling.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM ---

Thinking of a normal bell curve distribution, no doubt a small percentage of Republicans will hold the view you describe. Why worry about those people? Work with the people who are actually willing to moderate their views on issues. Even I can moderate my views. For example I support an end to income taxation and that we have a consumption taxation system. I understand it won't happen and I am willing to support other forms of tax reform. When people agree on an outcome and the disagreement is on process, compromise is as simple as sell the opposition on your process. Another example, I support free market health care reform, but I would support a single payer solution - assuming we get to where we want to go. Obamacare is a hybrid disaster. Based on your view of compromise, you can not honestly say I am unwilling.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:19 PM ---

Thinking of a normal bell curve distribution, no doubt a small percentage of Republicans will hold the view you describe. Why worry about those people? Work with the people who are actually willing to moderate their views on issues. Even I can moderate my views. For example I support an end to income taxation and that we have a consumption taxation system. I understand it won't happen and I am willing to support other forms of tax reform. When people agree on an outcome and the disagreement is on process, compromise is as simple as sell the opposition on your process. Another example, I support free market health care reform, but I would support a single payer solution - assuming we get to where we want to go. Obamacare is a hybrid disaster. Based on your view of compromise, you can not honestly say I am unwilling.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM ---

I don't hide my point of view, I try to understand my biases and I will share them. No doubt I have a predisposition not to like President Obama, based on his style and what I consider is his psudo-intlelectual rhetoric. I go out of my way to read what he says and try to understand it, when I need clarification I try to get a better understanding through interactions, like here on TFP. I am willing to have my point of view questioned and challenged, in fact I want that.

 

You're perception of the situation is baffling, as if you're viewing it all from outer space.

The only compromises available to Obama have been the ones that would have required him to go further right of center than any centrist with a conscience would/should allow himself to do.

 

What is the point of his presidency? Why is he running for reelection? Presidents in the past have been able to work with the opposition to get things done, why has President Obama failed? Are you suggesting four more years of total grid lock? Perhaps, it will be time for President Obama to move to the right if he wants to get anything done. I know what he thinks of the Ryan budget, but what is he going to propose? What cuts is he going to make? What changes to medicare does he support? Time for demagoguery is over, don't you agree?
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 6:44 PM ---

We agree more than we disagree - and I am betting we could sit down and work some things out. If we can do it, they can do it. But like I said the tone has to change - I expect it has to start at the top with the President. Even if he thinks every Republican is anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-elderly, anti-environment, anti-everything - he has to still work with these people. You can not start negotiation in good faith by doing what he does in about ever speech he gives. I will never understand why so many give him a pass on this - it is the most important aspect of leadership in a adversarial situation.

 

You are being too kind.

He compromised on the stimulus; he sought republican input into health care and adopted many republican proposals; he compromised on taxes....

And got nothing in return...no cooperation and no willingness whatsoever from the extremists that now control the Republican party to find a middle ground.
--- merged: Sep 5, 2012 at 6:54 PM ---
ace

He has Congressional republicans who are still birthers, others who insist he is a socialist out to destroy the country, others who are conducting witch hunts for Muslims infiltrating the executive branch, Tea Party candidates running on promises of no compromise....

and he has to do more to compromise? WTF!

 

I will be listening tomorrow night to have Obama lay out what his vision of what he wants to get done in the next four years would be. I'm sure getting out of Afghanistan without the country collapsing will be one, and I could guess at a bunch of other ideas. It should be a great speech like Michele's and Bill's have given the past two nights. Obama might be a little more free to push some left-wing policies in his second term that he wasn't able to in his first term, but I don't see him doing much on his own (at least until after he gets blocked by congress from doing it right). And no, he won't go crazy and repeal the 2nd amendment, make abortions free, ban high school football (healthcare costs), ban coal and oil, change the speed limit to 55 mph nationwide (it does reduce gas use), or anything else as extremely 'liberal'. I would like to see him balance the budget in the right way, which is where I see the biggest fight in the next year.

Obama might not have done everything perfectly, but things can't change overnight. And at least the stock market is back to 13,000 instead of collapsing to 4,000. I would have guessed that it would be at 4,000 today after 2008 if nothing happened from the government. Companies are making profits again, but people don't feel confident in their job security because there are a lot of people looking for work

The big thing the GOP needs to worry about if/when they lose in Nov. is that Hillary will be running in 2016, and it won't be a close Democratic primary race anymore. Marco Rubio is the only hope they have, Condi Rice might be a challenger as well in the GOP primary.

 

You seem to be making an argument that President Obama will be ineffective. If true what is the point? If he is going to be ineffective why wouldn't he step aside and let another Democrat run, someone who might be able to move the political agenda he supports?

I am also confused. Some think President Obama saved us from a depression, ended two wars, saved the auto industry, reformed healthcare, made college affordable while others say he cannot govern because of Republicans. Can you clarify. Is he effective or ineffective?
--- merged: Sep 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM ---

40 mph is about where you would get peak mpg at a constant speed.

HowStuffWorks "What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?"
--- merged: Sep 6, 2012 at 12:42 PM ---

There was 4 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth in the US between 2008 and 2009. By 2010 we had 3 quarters of GDP growth of 3.8, 3.9 and 3.8%. Since we have had one quarter at 3.0% the rest below 3%. If you give President Obama a passing grade on his handling of the economy what would you give President Bush - and what basis do you use?