IF Romney were to win - Would you like to see President Obama run again in 2016?

[Tx4obama]

In my opinion there is NO WAY IN HELL that President Obama will lose this election, BUT if by some chance he did...

Should President Obama run again in 2016?

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	2 (6%)
	No
	29 (94%)
	Maybe
	0 (0%)
	I'm not sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Drunken Irishman]

1. I don't like answering these questions. My grandma called it 'borrowing trouble...'

And always told me not to do that. So, I won't answer.

[Logical]

2. ????

[Drunken Irishman]

3. !!!!

[jberryhill]

19. ...

[Voice for Peace]

31. ®®®

never borrow trouble, that's just crazy.

[warrior1]

4. Obama is not going to lose

[Avalux]

5. No way in hell? Money may prove you wrong.

Usually the candidate with the most money wins, and the 1%ers who are coughing up 10 mil at a time for Romney, want a return on their investment.

Instead of creating pointless polls, please donate to Obama's campaign if you can. And if you already have, thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. You need, for yourself and others, to research this claim that the candidate with the most money

usually wins. Show proof. Actual proof, not rhetoric.

[Tx4obama]

6. Grover Cleveland

Stephen Grover Cleveland (March 18, 1837 – June 24, 1908) was the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms (1885–1889 and 1893–1897) and therefore is the only individual to be counted twice in the numbering of the presidents.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland

[Tx4obama]

12. Quote from his wife

As Frances Cleveland left the White House, she told a staff member, "Now, Jerry, I want you to take good care of all the furniture and ornaments in the house, for I want to find everything just as it is now, when we come back again." When asked when she would return, she responded, "We are coming back four years from today."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland

[treestar]

14. Great attitude! Michelle could tell Ann to keep the garden up.

[GarroHorus]

7. No, you never use the Adlai Stevenson strategy.

The Republicans did that with Dewey and the Dems did that with Stevenson.

It's a sure way to lose.

[Warpy]

8. After 4 years of Romney, a mushy middle Third Way president won't do.

After four years of Romney, we'd need a radical leftist with a Congress that would support him.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. Absolutely!

[RKP5637]

25. +1,000,000 +++ and WITH NO COMPROMISING. Time to throw the SH** back

in the faces of republicans.

[Zorra]

63. After 8 years of Bush...

*sigh*

[boxman15]

9. No. I love Obama, but he'll probably hurt the party by running for a third straight time.

Democrats will need to find a new face to represent the party if the unthinkable happens. That's part of the reason Obama needs to win, though. He'll be remembered well by the electorate after 2 terms. He'll also be relatively young in 2017, so he could be the face of the Democratic Party for another couple decades, which woul help immensely with African-Americans and Hispanics.

If he was to lose, the only way I could see him running again and getting the nomination is if there is an extreme case of voters remorse. If Obama's approval ratings a few years out of office in 2015 were at 65%, then maybe. But I can't see that happening after a one-term presidency. (I can see him with an approval rating like 60-65% a couple years after a second term, though)

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. No. But ...

First, President Obama isn't gonna lose in 2012; and if he does, BabyGirl 1StrongBlackMan is going into her Senior Year of High school this August and Mrs. 1StrongBlackMan is retired, with a locked in pension ... If romney wins in 2012, the 1StrongBlackMan is moving to Costa Rica (or maybe the s/w portion of Mexico) in May of 2013.

So 1StrongBlackMan, wouldn't care who runs for the p[residency in 2016.

[MrSlayer]

11. He'd be young enough.

But no, once you lose you generally walk away unless it's your first attempt, like Nixon. Grover Cleveland is an anomaly. This is President Obama's time and a combination of unprecedented obstruction and a bit of inexperienced ineptitude might cut it short.

I don't think he's going to lose this time though.

[treestar]

13. Yes

He is a natural for the job, after 4 years of Rmoney people will get it.

They'll just want sanity back in the WH and Obama still will be eligible.

Joe Biden will be old though. So will Hillary. We'll have a great time fighting over who the running mate should be. Alan Grayson! Elizabeth Warren! Dennis Kucinich! Bernie Sanders!

[Tx4obama]

17. I agree. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

15. No, I want someone much more in line with my political leanings,..

not that that's likely to happen ever in my lifetime, but I can always dream.

[RKP5637]

27. I fear this is going to be the century of the crazies in politics. It'll never

happen in my lifetime either. I hope the kids can get this F'ed up place back on track.

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. Wtf!, what does all the No's say about some of us?

Seriously.

[demwing]

21. It says just what it appears to say

that IF Obama were to lose he White House in 2012, most DUers don't believe he'd be our best chance of winning it back in 2016, that's all.

[MADem]

28. What it says is that a LAME DUCK is a BAD CHOICE. Hello? 22nd Amendment, anyone? Seriously! nt

[Tx4obama]

30. The 22nd Amendment does not prevent Obama running in 2016, if he doesn't win in 2012

So, I'm not sure you what you meant.

[MADem]

36. What did I just say? Hello--LAME DUCK. He'd get a four year bite of the apple and that is IT.

You need eight years to get anything done--four years to put up with opposition shit, and four years to just Go For It.

Jimmy Carter would have done some wonderful things had he gotten a second term, but no joy. He didn't try to come back after Reagan kicked his ass because he knew full well that you have to do those gigs consecutively or it just doesn't work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)

[Tx4obama]

38. I think he could get a lot more done in four year, especially if he had a Dem House and Senate n/t

[MADem]

39. It's not a viable scenario. Carter didn't do it because it was not a viable scenario for him,

either.

You need eight years in a row, not four now, and four later, Grover Cleveland (pre-22nd Amendment) notwithstanding.

No campaign contributor in their right mind is going to toss millions at a four year shot. You need eight to have real influence.

Obama is just getting warmed up. Assuming everyone gets off their ass, to the polls, and votes the man another four years, he will go into kickass mode, I'd wager. The last four years are "legacy time," and you cannot have that when you are dealing with a completely different House and Senate after a gap in service.

[JustAnotherGen]

40. For me

If this country doesn't do the right thing and re-elect this man . . . Then we aren't good enough for him. We don't deserve him.

[Macoy51]

57. Hillary

That some of us think Hillary would do a better job?



Macoy

[Raine]

20. No, the world moves too fast and that's too long to not be in the center of things. nt

[Kalidurga]

22. No I think he has sacrificed enough...

I think he would be a good for endorsing Democratic candidates and he would be a good consultant and there is most likely some other job he could fill and might if asked. But, I think in 2016 no matter what happens we need newer blood (not necessarily younger, just some people fresh to politics, but politically savvy) we need to come at 2016 with a fresher more optimistic approach.

[Politicalboi]

23. If Obama loses and the Repukes

Keep the House and get the Senate, we can all say goodbye to the Dem party. They will pull a take over and make any other party so weak that they won't be able to anything without a majority. The Supreme Court will never be ours again.

[AsahinaKimi]

51. I would almost tend to believe

That if the Republicans won, eventually, there would no longer be a Democratic party, for the Republicans would find some way to keep this country a one party nation, with them forever in charge. Some how they would find a way to shut us up forever.

[whatchamacallit]

24. You must be fucking joking

[MADem]

26. We need an eight year player.

Let Hillary run, he can be VP and we'd have a Two-Fer presidency. Past time we saw a woman in the White House who wasn't the "First Lady" or a press/social secretary or running the damn vacuum cleaner.

[hughee99]

34. If you elect 2 presidents, you'll have none. n/t

[MADem]

37. Depends on the personalities. nt

[patrice]

29. I think his effect upon the primaries, at that point, would be FASCINATING. nt

[freshwest]

32. Yes, but I don't see him doing it. If Americans can dismiss all values and elect Romney, we're done.

The entire country will be sold off into divisions to the highest bidder and that'll be it. There will be no new leftie, not with the way the districts are drawn, there will be more voter suppression than there is going on now.

It will be the permanent majority the GOP has planned on for a full generation, and their media will rubber stamp everything they do. We all know what they will do, we know who they support. So there will be nothing to do.

If I was in 1strongblackman's shoes, I'd do the same thing he says he'd do. It will take centuries to get anything reasonable going again. If people don't realize that this is what the GOP and Libertarians plan for the USA, drowning the government in the bathtub, and the rich must not be taxed mantra, they are brain dead. They're not playing games, they will shut the whole thing down to sell it off.

Obama is holding back the fascism, no matter what the harpies say. He believes in a representative democracy, the GOP does not. Their goal is getting close at hand, aristocracy. If Americans want to go into the dark ages, it's their choice and those of us who can't leave will be forced to watch the show.

If he wins and Americans start doing their part instead of being spectators, we'll get through this. There is nothing in history that says a government cannot be toppled or destroyed. Those who call for violent revolution are denying history which says that these actions precede dictatorship. They get their prophecy fulfilled but it won't be democracy, it won't be progressive, it won't be leftist. Even if it was leftist, which there is no reason in hell to being to believe it would be with the current population and their stated non-progressive, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, defininitely anti-left belief system, that is not where it's going.

Remember that although those who fought Franco in Spain were right, they lost. Generations lived under fascist rule and their country is still not free of all of that, not stable as we have been. We have had the luxury in this country of thinking that things will always fall back into balance. It sure wasn't in balance before the Civil War or in the civil rights era and there is nothing that promises that the majority will suddenly veer left. So it's Obama or nothing for me, he's the last Democratic chance.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. no. if he lost to him once, he'll lose again

[Scootaloo]

35. I can't decide what hat I'm going to wear in 20 minutes

How the fuck am I supposed to know what the political field is five years from now?

That said, after Obama is done with the presidency, I think he should set his eyes on the supreme court. Or rather, someone should set their eyes on appointing him to the supreme court.

[jwirr]

41. My dad always said that FDR needed everyone of the years he was in office to fix the mess he

found when he came in.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Romney isn't going to win. If he did, I'd prefer a liberal run 2016.

But, seeing that Romney's base consists of older white males and nothing else, the question is moot.

[Tx4obama]

43. Obama is a LIBERAL. See below

Check out the long list on the link below and be sure not to miss the DIAMOND shaped CHART towards the bottom of the page:

Here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. In the eyes of conservatives he's a liberal.

In the eyes of the left he is, at best, just another 3rd Way politician like the Clintons.

[Tx4obama]

45. I am in liberal on the left and in MY eyes President Obama is also. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

47. Mine as well.

[NYC Liberal]

46. No. Pre-22nd Amendment, it was a viable option.

Now, he would just be running for a single term and we'd be forced to find another candidate in 4 years.

A Dem president after one term of Romney would need the opportunity of a full 8 years to be able to try to clean up the inevitable disaster.

[Tx4obama]

48. But there is no guarantee that the 'someone other' would get eight years.

So, there is the possibility of 'after' four years of Romney we could have four more years of Obama then eight years of another Democrat - which would be 12 years total.

Anyway, more than likely we will have a full eight years of Obama with no break between

[NYC Liberal]

49. True, however, Obama wouldn't have the OPPORTUNITY to run

after the 2017-2021 term.

Unless…if we had a solid candidate "waiting in the wings" at that point, then maybe they could be chosen as VP so they could run after Obama finished the four years. That could work.

But I agree, Obama will win this time anyway!

[DonCoquixote]

50. 2016 is Hillary's

Many would love to see Obama lose so that they can see "You shoulda obeyed us Pumas."

[Ter]

52. Hell no

A lot of us aren't thrilled with him as it is. The 2016 nominee might be better.

[madokie]

53. If Obama loses

the next election, 2016, will be in question of there even being one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. What is the point of this poll?

Everyone has to come up with their own scenarios of how things develop so that Romney wins this year, and then predict with their magic 8-balls what happens in the USA in the next 4 years, and then decide if it's a good idea for Obama to try a come back - and you think this is worth counting votes for? No-one here (no-one anywhere) can give a meaningful answer, and we know our wild-ass guesses will all be based on completely different predictions.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. I do not see Romeny winning this election, this means I see this question as devoid of positive

qualities. Not a huge fan of 'what if the mule goes blind' types of questions, it is like looking for sorrows to wallow in. I will not answer questions framed around the defeat of President Obama.

[Meg_Griffin_1]

58. This thread is depressing for a monday N/T

Yuk...

[coalition_unwilling]

59. +1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 - Well put and definitely

needed saying. There's way more than enough despair as it is without contemplating the victory of the fascists and their probable consolidation of the one-party state. My disagreements with Obama notwithstanding, at least he's not a fascist.

[bigwillq]

60. No (nt)

[blackmamba09]

61. Hell No!!! America doesn't deserve President Obama.

If this country doesn't re-elect President Obama, it doesn't deserve him. The man did everything he could do to try to get things done. He caught hell form crybaby liberals and racist teabag republicans. The crybaby liberals couldn't comprehend Obama's strategy. Obama played chess and liberals wanted to play checkers. Sometimes a few pawns and stronger pieces need to be sacrificed in order to checkmate the enemy. The liberals cried every time a piece was sacrificed and bitched because he couldn't change the world overnight. The racist teabag republicans hated him because they simply cant stand someone who doesn't look like them being in the White House. The republican leadership is just ruthless and they used the racism to their advantage and their rich greedy army to give the president hell. If Obama were to lose, (He is not going to lose) he should take a break and enjoy the rest of his life with his family in peace.

[bigwillq]

62. Oh boo hoo

Poor Obama.

Cry baby liberal???


Try looking in the mirror.

[blackmamba09]

65. Sorry about hurting your feelings.

I see you checked mirror already. Guess I hit a nerve.

[bigwillq]

68. WAH!

I can't stop crying! :tears:

[woo me with science]

64. Hell no.

We need a Democrat.

[JonLP24]

66. I wouldn't mind him running for the Dem nomination

Whether he should specifically be running against Romney -- depends on who the other candidates are.

[quinnox]

67. No, of course not n/t