I guess our definition of challenger is different. I was thinking of a Ted Kennedy, not a Pat Paulson. I will bet that he doesn't have a serious competitor.
The thread is discussing the wrong Clinton. Bill is eligible because the law states a President cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. BC would now win handily in a race to unseat Obama and any Republican I can see on the horizon.
Incorrect. Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
So, the most anyone could serve as President is 10 years... elected VP, takes over after two years, wins two terms. However, there is a dispute in legal circles as to whether a twice elected president could serve in a later administration as VP and then ascend to the presidency. Under this scenario, a person could be elected VP, takes over for two years, wins two terms, is elected again as VP, and then serves any amount of one term, so theoretically: 2+8+4 (Assuming a WH Harrison)= 14. If this were allowed, I guess you could repeat it as often as you liked.
I never understood term limits. If someone is constantly getting re-elected, shouldn't that be a great indicator that they are doing a good job and left to continue doing a good job?
i think term limits would be beneficial in that some congressman may actually vote the way they want to or they may be more willing to compromise for the sake of their constituents. instead, they're constantly running for re-election and have to worry about whether or not their vote will mean the end of their job because they're afraid to risk resources if they don't toe the party line. taxpayers are basically paying for them to be in a never-ending campaign. i'm not 100% sold on term limits, but i'm leaning more towards them every single day.
Or, they could vote in a way that enriches themselves or friends knowing they wouldn't have to face voters.
I think what would free that up more would be to find ways to get rid of special interest money. If politicians didn't have to worry about companies funding campaigns for or against them, they might really have more incentive to serve the public good instead of please lobbyists. As it stands, it's not the fact they have to get re-elected which influences their vote as much as it is they need raise money to get re-elected, or elected in the first place.
And can you tell me who is going to win the Superbowl in 2012? The votes haven't even been counted today and you are saying that Obama is done. I presume you were saying the same thing about Clinton in 1994. A lot can happen between now and 2012.
I can tell you who won't win the Superbowl in 2012. The BILLLLS (4 Ls for the 4 SB losses). Not saying they couldn't come back and turn around before Feb 2012 but it based on the path they are on, I can say you'd be a fool to put any money on that action. And if Obama continues to stay on HIS path and we continue in this quagmire (which he didn't create but he's not doing anything to get us out) do you really think he'd get re-elected?
I would say this prediction likely to come true than that Obama is one and done. That said with some good draft picks, a new coach and the overall parity of the NFL and a possible lockout in 2011, the Bills could take the league by surprise in 2012. If I had to bet on it I would say that Obama gets re-elected without having to do much more. I think you are misreading the public if you think overall the country is angry with Obama's policies because of ideology. Most of the country is angry about the economy. Right now things are bad but they are getting less bad and if the trends hold it is very likely that the recovery will be more widespread by 2012. We are pulling out of Iraq and if things hold will probably pull out of Afghanistan in the next two years. If the economy is better Obama will win. For better or worse the President gets the credit for the economy whether they deserve it or not.
LOL - I'd love to see the guy at the counter's face when you make that bet! Just need a couple of rookie picks (and 31 plane crashes) and you'll be in the money! Ruxen is that you? So let's just say that he doesn't do anything to help the economy (like he hasn't - going with a pattern here) and the economy is the same, do you really think he'll get re-elected. My dad has voted straight D ticket since WWII and he's about to break a pattern. [Edit] Notice that means that he voted for a 2nd term of Jimmy.
Given the odds I might just put $10 bucks down as if it does pan out it would be huge. Anyway a few years ago who figured the Saints would be Superbowl champs? Yes if the economy is int he same shape he probably will have a very tough time that said I doubt the economy come 2012 will be in the same shape. Bottom line two years is a long time in politics. two years ago the Republican party looked like it might be a permanent minority. Four years prior to that it looked like it might be a permanent majority.
and if the GOP "Wave" sweeps the country and the second two years are evidence that they've got nothing to offer besides having 'just said no' to Democratic legislation initiatives, you think that anyone... ANYONE besides Palin wins? Keep drinkin' the tea, man, but there's alotta time between now and then for you change your mind.
Not a Dem. Not a Rep. Not a Lib. Not a tea bagger either - a smart person like you should have deduced that from my Palin comment. I'm a person who votes for who I think is best. The #1 priority is the economy. So what was Obama's push? Healthcare. Not saying that wasn't needed but...really...that is what you want to work on...right now...while the country's in this mess? My point is Obama hasn't done JACK for the ecomony. And you are right that there will most likely be a roadblock for the next 2 years. Maybe that's good maybe not. But unfortunately this country has become a 2 party system with minor splits. I just don't think he's heading for a round 2 because I don't see him changing. And I do hope the economy turns around but I really have no expectations that it will be because of something anyone does over the next 2 years. ps -- My Palin comment was a generalization. I didn't mean that anyone beside Palin would beat Obama but if the Reps were smart, they'd pick a middle of the road Rep with a viable platform to get this country back on the road. And before you go off on tax breaks for the rich - I'm not for either. I do think it starts with housing and construction.
