Obama 2016

Blue Velvet

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Jul 4, 2004
21,652
123
Hypothetically, let's imagine a world where the 22nd amendment didn't exist, limiting presidents to just two terms.

If Barack Obama could run in 2016, which in my opinion he most certainly would if he could; which probable Republican candidate could beat him?

Bear in mind that:

Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-03/final-tally-shows-obama-first-since-56-to-win-51-twice.html
And this 2012 electoral map:





(If he could run and win in 2016, he'd still be only 55, younger than George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Eisenhower and Truman when they took first took office.)

And bonus question: how many or which ones of those 2012 blue states would Hillary Clinton be likely to lose?
 

Menel

macrumors 603
Aug 4, 2011
6,199
1,050
Would need a liberal to run against him. Im not sure there are any Republicans with more conservative principals than him.

- Placing one of his crony cable industry lobbyist as head of FCC to wreck net neutrality
- Continuing to support the NSA domestic data collecting
- Expanding the drone program to killing Americans
- Pushing Romney's MA healthcare out nationwide

He's got all the Bush's and Romney's beat.
 

pdjudd

macrumors 601
Jun 19, 2007
4,040
65
Plymouth, MN
Who can say. Before the 22nd amendment we only had one president that was in office for more than two terms defying a huge amount of precedent and tradition. The founders (IIRC) were big fans of the idea that you should hand the reigns off after two terms in office - they were sort of against the idea of someone gaining a defacto monarchy - in fact the only president to go more than two terms is what set the precedent to limit them in the first place.

I don’t think it would happen regardless of how popular they were in the last election - Obama’s numbers are way out of the norm and I don’t think they can last forever, nor do I think that Obama wants to stay in office forever either.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Would need a liberal to run against him. Im not sure there are any Republicans with more conservative principals than him.

- Placing one of his crony cable industry lobbyist as head of FCC to wreck net neutrality
- Continuing to support the NSA domestic data collecting
- Expanding the drone program to killing Americans
- Pushing Romney's MA healthcare out nationwide

He's got all the Bush's and Romney's beat.
While I agree that I love to see a real progressive Democrat run for office, I think that the Bushies and Romneys could still outdo Obama when it comes to conservative policies.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
While I agree that I love to see a real progressive Democrat run for office, I think that the Bushies and Romneys could still outdo Obama when it comes to conservative policies.
That depends on which corporation writes the biggest check.

I'm not a big Obama fan. When it was one party rule he had a lot of latitude for doing right but in the end he has all the attributes of Bush light.

We don't need someone further left. We need someone that has the guts to break the corporate hold over the American people. That is the USA's number one problem.

Deal with that first and much of everything else will fall in line.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
6,671
1,748
^^ Yes and that's not Hillary Clinton. I'm an unhappy camper now as a Democrat who doesn't get why Dems want her to run.
They want to energize their base by nominating a woman, and they have a high level of name recognition.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
That depends on which corporation writes the biggest check.

I'm not a big Obama fan. When it was one party rule he had a lot of latitude for doing right but in the end he has all the attributes of Bush light.

We don't need someone further left. We need someone that has the guts to break the corporate hold over the American people. That is the USA's number one problem.

Deal with that first and much of everything else will fall in line.
OMG we agree about something.

----------

I'm an unhappy camper now as a Democrat who doesn't get why Dems want her to run.
I think she's cute.
 

turtle777

macrumors 6502a
Apr 30, 2004
678
15
Universal healthcare and investment in science and infrastructure and renewable energy blood...
Oh gawd. Universal healthcare ?

Why do none of you Obama & Universal healthcare fanboys understand the real problems with the US healthcare system ?

Neither Obama & Universal healthcare address the COST side of health care.
That's why we're still in bad shape. You can fix it buy just increasing the funding.

Greedy pharma and hospitals will just suck it up

-t
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Apr 11, 2014
4,157
1,476
USA
Given all the scandals Obama has done from NSA to targeting Tea Party groups, my republican cat could beat him in a race lol.
 

iBlazed

macrumors 68000
Feb 27, 2014
1,593
1,224
New Jersey, United States
Given all the scandals Obama has done from NSA to targeting Tea Party groups, my republican cat could beat him in a race lol.
Whoah I had no idea Obama founded the NSA! Learn something new every day...
But I'm sure Romney felt the same in 2012, didn't work out for him did it?

"Obama is a one term president man trust me!"

----------

Oh gawd. Universal healthcare ?

Why do none of you Obama & Universal healthcare fanboys understand the real problems with the US healthcare system ?

Neither Obama & Universal healthcare address the COST side of health care.
That's why we're still in bad shape. You can fix it buy just increasing the funding.

Greedy pharma and hospitals will just suck it up

-t
Oh. Because the two can't be done simultaneously. Universal healthcare fanboys? Seems like a pretty noble thing to be a fanboy of. I'll take it.
 

Hieveryone

macrumors 601
Apr 11, 2014
4,157
1,476
USA
Whoah I had no idea Obama founded the NSA! Learn something new every day...
But I'm sure Romney felt the same in 2012, didn't work out for him did it?

"Obama is a one term president man trust me!"

----------



Oh. Because the two can't be done simultaneously. Universal healthcare fanboys? Seems like a pretty noble thing to be a fanboy of. I'll take it.
I guess you don't mind the government monitoring everything you do.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,348
30,002
Catskill Mountains
They want to energize their base by nominating a woman, and they have a high level of name recognition.
Great. Do they realize they'd also be energizing the other parties' bases?

Never mind the obvious drawbacks to Hillary's running (endless chanting Benghazi Benghazi, followed by Impeachi, Impeachi if she wins).

Before we get there, there's older stuff still to be revisited, not to say refabricated for public consumption by the magic of KochBux. The first go at medical coverage reform. Whitewater and the Rose law firm. Standing by Bill's stuff during MonicaGate. The whole "buy one get one free " thing again: Bill cast as a third termer behind the woman who some said was Prez for the first two terms anyway, yada yada yada. And all of the considerable baggage of all of those hangers-on from the first Clinton era.

Do we really need that? In 2016, campaigns fronted by bright young technocrats from the Obama campaigns but run sotto voce by people who were political operatives in the 1980s? Really? Because running Hillary Clinton, that's what would happen.

Why are we trying to get stuck in competing dynasty mode anyway. All this angling for Jeb to run on the GOP side, and Hillary on the Dem side. It's a disaster in the making if either side goes for it. Yeah, one of them would probably win, there's too much at stake for a third party to get anywhere in 2016 is my guess. In a two-party contest? I wouldn't actually bet that Hillary could win against Jeb Bush.

Jeb's not going to come on like a far right ranting Republican (nor like the seemingly aimless and ultimately hapless Romney either) if he decides to go for it. He could get the nomination because the establishment money will be behind him. In the general election he'll be out there being personable and sane, sounding only moderately conservative on social issues, and he'll clean up a lot of Dem votes from people who will not vote for Clinton part two (no matter whether Hill or Bill would be wearing the pants in the Oval Office).

As for Hillary: I wish she had stayed in the Senate. On the other hand, I like Gillibrand in the Senate, so hey. I think Hillary should stay in the private sector and let someone else run for President. Someone who could beat Jeb Bush hands down. Who that is, I dunno yet but I'm starting to think about it a lot. I'm just certain that the Democrats should not be trying to lock down the White House by standing up a Clinton for 2016.

Honestly when I think back now about Laura Bush and Michelle Obama, I'd rather they'd been in office than their respective husbands. But I don't feel that way about Hillary Clinton. She and Bill and Barack are corporatists, and so now is too much of the Congress and too many of The Nine In Black Dresses. If I were 40 years old instead of deep in the afternoon of my time on the planet, I'd be shopping for a different country, because I don't see how this one can break loose from that corporate "right" to "free" speech, aka their ability to buy the government of their choice regardless of election outcomes.

I want to live in a country that takes global warming seriously and acts to forestall it while there's still time, and leads by example, and gets increasingly pushy about the rest of the world following suit, pronto. I'm stuck here but how shall I make that happen in the USA? I 'm up against the oil and gas industry. And, Congress doesn't have my back. And neither does the Supreme Court. There are some state agencies and judges who might have my back on climate issues (e.g., anti-pipeline), but they don't have the last word.

I want to live in a country that respects the human life of its citizens. The ones that are already born. A country that respects privacy instead of selling it down the river behind closed doors. A country that works to guarantee equal opportunity instead of letting megacorporations merge, acquire, downsize, outsource, run amok for a buck.

I want to live in a country that acts on its mandate to be governed by and for the people. . I thought that was the USA even after Vietnam, but now, not so much. I thought I could make a difference. Now, I don't know. I feel more or less hoodwinked by the Democrats gone all corporate in the late 20th and early 21st century. I worked hard with reform Dems in the 60s and 70s and now feel like I 've been hit by a Brink's truck on its way to some bank owned jointly by the establishment parties. In the immortal words of Joseph Heller, "Something Happened" and I don't really know what it was. I don't buy that the events of September 11, 2001 changed everything in the USA. Something else had already changed too many attributes of "Americans" and it was long before that terrible day. I often conclude that it was television, but that's way off topic. I know that part of it is a confoundingly deep and broad streak of anti-intellectualism in the USA. In the 50s it was anti-eggheadedness, but it didn't stop us from innovating and researching and landing on the damn moon. People just seemed to want the general (and genial)l Ike instead of the professorial Adlai. But now anti-intellectualism has been transformed into something much worse: a rabid attitude that is anti-science, anti-reason and anti-government (forgetting that we ARE the government if we will step up to claim it). Combined with the big money of the oil and gas industry, available to buy ads catering to those dumbed-down potential voters, that willful subscription to and encouragement of ignorance will be the death of us yet.

/rant (but not the end of my opposition to Hillary Clinton's running in 2016)