Does Barack Obama want to be re-elected in 2012?

[Gaspar]

I don't see the worship any more.  Even those that still claim to support President Obama, don't lavish complete obedience to his philosophy of leadership.  I think this is a good thing, even if he is re-elected.

In 2007-2008 he was a rising star with unknown and untested powers.  His victory was based on a Cult of Personality developed by, arguably, the best political consultant in the world. Cult of Personality requires a certain degree of mystery.  Everything developed for him, from his campaign slogans and tag lines to his political philosophy was designed around maintaining a degree of mystery.  Hope & Change was brilliant and entirely nebulous in real meaning.

Almost two years later his supporters finally understand him.  There is no mystery left, so he must now run on reality.  In many cases people are defined by the representatives they choose.  The leaders they admire are an indication of the intellectual and cultural attributes they themselves aspire to. I don't see this same identification among my friends who voted for him.  I believe that if a new democrat candidate were to emerge, many would flock to the alternative out of principal.  Democrats, like anyone else, desire success and President Obama has offered them little success.

President Obama has a very different campaign in front of him now.  He has a choice, as does any politician making a second term run.  He can campaign against his own record, attributing blame for any failures on others, or he can run on his successes.  Unfortunately his successes may not be enough to build a strong platform, so I believe he will most likely shift blame from Bush, his original turn-key, to Congress.  The "We" will become the "They".


     

[Conan71]

President Obama is definitely going to have a much tougher campaign in 2012.  He's going to have four years of his own record to either answer to or brag about.  I suspect with extended economic problems there won't be a whole lot of bragging.  I think he's going to have to be on the defensive most of the campaign cycle and I don't think his temperament will handle it very well at all.  When he's been pressed to defend himself he comes off as testy and petulant.

If there is a major turning out of Congressional Democrats in November, he's going to have a very hard time running on his own record as that will be an indicator that Americans are not happy with the slate of legislation his supporters are calling milestone victories right now.

If the economy stages a great turn around and unemployment has dropped back under 7.5% or less he rightfully gets to claim victory on that as any sitting President would.  However, he will still have to answer to four years of massive deficits.  If they are foolish enough to blame that on his predecessor or a Republican-led Congress (should they get a majority in either house) I think he will get slaughtered. 

He can run on improvements to healthcare, however most provisions still don't take effect until two years after the '12 election.  It's going to be difficult to point to specifically how it's managed to improve the life of average Americans with this legislation when any benefits have yet to be seen.  A really good Republican strategist will find all the negatives in the program and point out to the electorate that President Obama didn't want to have to run with that on his record and that's why it's not kicked in yet. 

[RecycleMichael]

I am pretty sure that President Obama will run for another term as President. He wants to get some things accomplished and needs two terms to do that.

The voters won't remember 2010 in 2012. As long as the economy has shown signs of being healthy again, it will be a strength of his re-election bid.

He needs to get the troops out of Iraq to win my vote again. I will support another democrat in the primary if he doesn't bring soldiers home from Iraq soon.

[Conan71]

I am pretty sure that President Obama will run for another term as President. He wants to get some things accomplished and needs two terms to do that.

The voters won't remember 2010 in 2012. As long as the economy has shown signs of being healthy again, it will be a strength of his re-election bid.

He needs to get the troops out of Iraq to win my vote again. I will support another democrat in the primary if he doesn't bring soldiers home from Iraq soon.

So far so good.  The last of the "combat" troops are out of there now it's just "advisors" and barring any massive uptick in insurgent activity, they will be out in 2011.  It's entirely realistic though that we may have a troop presence there for many years to come much like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.

What kind of time-frame is acceptible on Afghanistan?

[we vs us]

I think virtually all of the current madness in the electorate is due to the economy.  It's magnifying everything to the point of low-boil (and high-boil) hysteria.  Not that some of the crazy and some of the opposition isn't honest, but I think it's all turned up to 11 because economic concerns undergird everything.

If the economy hasn't improved by 2012, then Obama is almost certainly gone.  But if the economy still hasn't improved by 2012, I wouldn't want to be the guy taking power.  That would indicate a much steeper slope than anyone is willing to predict right now in 2010.

The other wild card, of course, is the degree to which the GOP will have been swallowed by the Tea Party borg in 2012.  We're in a pretty unique time for Independents in that the place they might normally turn is getting sucked farther and farther to the right.  I'm not sure this automatically translates into Independents being pulled to the right, too.  It might very well turn into a situation that, regardless of where Independents poll, actual Independent turnout will be low.  

Also:  in the end, Obama isn't running.  He's part of the calculus but not all of it.  And while Congress as a whole has low approval ratings, each race is going to be individual.  This is the reason, IMO, you're seeing the GOP try every trick in the book to turn this 1) national and 2) a referendum on Obama. (cf. "Ground Zero Mosque," immigration battles, etc)

[Gaspar]

So far so good.  The last of the "combat" troops are out of there now it's just "advisors" and barring any massive uptick in insurgent activity, they will be out in 2011.  It's entirely realistic though that we may have a troop presence there for many years to come much like post-war Germany and post-war Japan.

What kind of time-frame is acceptible on Afghanistan?

One of my wife's best friends has a husband stationed in a combat brigade in Iraq.  They changed his group's designation to "Advise and Assist Brigade" last month, but he says they have the same responsibilities.

His time is up in September and he expects they will be re-deployed to Afghanistan.  Our presence will remain at around 50K troops in Iraq but they will share this new designation as Advise and Assist Brigades. 

Even though the administration is changing the vocabulary, it will be very important that we maintain peace in the region.  I think it's a smart move on the part of the President and his generals to maintain a large troop count.  The lexicon adjustment will be viewed positively by the american public, and will have little bearing on the established peace.  I think the President has made a good move.

We will be approaching 70,000 troops in Afghanistan this month as the surge swells.  As we shift troops from Iraq we are planned to reach 96,000 troops total in Afghanistan.  Hopefully this will be the magic number necessary to root out terrorist forces. 

July 2011 is our scheduled "Pull-Out" date for Afghanistan.  We will bring some heavy forces home and simply change what we call the forces that remain.  I think this is a brilliant stratage for sustaining peace in volatile regions and waging the domestic PR war.  Surge (combat strike) followed by Pull-Out (re-designation of combat troops).

[heironymouspasparagus]

Like the Hockaday School the Bush twins attended isn't an elitist private school...

Yep, there's that Murdochian again.


Answer; no, he doesn't care about being re-elected.  I would be mildly surprised if he runs.  I'm betting it will come down to a slug-fest between Hillary and Jed  (like we need another Clinton OR Bush...)

[guido911]

This is pretty funny, although clearly off topic:


President Barack Obama jokingly puts his toe on the scale as Trip Director Marvin Nicholson, unaware to the President's action, weighs himself as the presidential entourage passed through the volleyball locker room at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, Aug. 9, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

[Conan71]

That's okay, he's had his fingers on the scale counting all those jobs saved and created...

[Gaspar]

That's okay, he's had his fingers on the scale counting all those jobs saved and created...

"Lives Touched" Conan. 

In this case it's counted for every pound on the scale. 

For example, I represent around 187 lives touched.

[heironymouspasparagus]

There were 94,000 US troops there in May.  Plus the 30,000 or so other country troops.  Supposed to be up to 100,000 in the next few weeks.

And Iraq is now at peace!!  Blech! 

We removed 1 "Saddam Hussein" and bred 100 to replace him.  Yeah, that's gonna turn out well...

[bugo]

Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.

[nathanm]

Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.

There's certainly historical precedent...

[Conan71]

Here's a very plausible scenario: The GOP will nominate a more moderate candidate like say a Mitt Romney. This will enrage the tea party crowd, who would never vote for a godless Mormon, and they will convince Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate. The conservative vote will split, leading to an easy victory for President Obama.

Except that Tea Partiers seem to be more anti-tax, anti-big gubmint, than worried about Romney being a Mormon.  If they are dumb enough to get former Gov. Palin to run as an IND and fracture the vote then they deserve another four years of President Obama.  They'd be really stupid to try and field a "Tea Party" candidate rather than an IND as they could not get on the ballot in some states.  2012 is not a good time for symbolic votes.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You are so right about that, Conan.  But just watch - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it happen.

BTW, I saw Fred Thompson on a commercial last night.  He does not look well.  Shame.  I like the guy and even though we do have some big differences, I think he would be a good President.