I’m no Obama super fan but I doubt any of the crop of candidates we’ve seen in the past year could have beat him if he ran again. If Hillary was running her message would be completely different, and none of the rest would have much to hang their hats on. All of the Republicans would be stuck with their records on the issue of HealthCare and their contribution to the gridlock the party created. Bernie’s high appeal among youth would be diluted because they like Obama also, not to mention challenging a party’s sitting president in primaries would incur even more wrath from the party than he’s received so far.
Does anyone have a good reason to offer why someone could unseat Obama if he was running? Remember that if he were running he wouldn’t be operating in lame duck mode.
he might get re-elected, because he isn’t subjected to anywhere as harsh coverage on media such as CNN, NYT or MSNBC as the Clintons are. The former 2 do not like the Clintons like they like Obama.
One advantage O and H would have this year is that indeed, the economy is better than it was before 1/20/2009.
However, he would have trouble dealing with having to own the rise of ISIS on his watch (I’m not saying it is his fault but the GOP would pin it on him more easily than they will an SoS whose been gone for 3 years), the unpopular Iran deal, Syrian refugees, and other things.
Considering his approval rating, it looks very likely that he’d be (probably very easily) re-elected if he could run. His approval rating now is considerably higher than at the same time (or on election day) in 2012.
The Republican field is weak, weak, weak. Did I mention that it is weak?
If Obama was running again, I don’t think Hillary would be running at all. Sanders, yes, but not Hillary.
I don’t see any of the Republicans or Sanders beating Obama, if the election were held today. If in November, it would depend on what sorts of things happened between now and then. Nothing earth shattering, and Obama wins. But you never know what might happen in the world…
Of course we live in the real world where the 22nd Amendment exists, but yeah, in that alternate reality, I agree, all things being as they are today, Obama would win in a cakewalk this November, possibly by larger margins than his first victory, and definitely larger than his second.
Sadly, we are going to be stuck with Hillary. I am hopeful she won’t be worse than Nixon.
But as long as we’re pretending, let pretend that the 22nd was repealed during the GWB administration, with the caveat that the term limit continues to apply to any person who had served as President already.
Yeah, I think these kind of things get messy quick. If the 22nd Amendment never existed, would Reagan have run again? Lost, perhaps, as he sank into late-life dementia? Perhaps the Dukakis administration and its heirs would have blocked the rise of Clinton all-together!
However, if we suppose that everything happened as-is up until this cycle, perhaps the 22nd was repealed last year, I think Obama would have a cakewalk to reelection. But, I’m not so sure Obama would have wanted it. I wouldn’t be too shocked if he chose to keep the two-terms-max tradition alive, or is just plain ready to be off the hot seat. Being President is basically a 24/7 job - I wouldn’t begrudge him wanting a little quiet(er) retirement one bit.
Some of the actions Obama has taken lately that have proven popular to his base might never have occurred if the 22nd Amendment never existed.
There is a certain freedom that comes with knowing you will not stand for reelection. And Obama has used that freedom… and his pen and telephone, as he put it, to enact certain executive orders. I’m not sure he would have taken executive action on wage and sick leave for federal contractors, or lifting certain sanctions against Iran for example. I’m not sure that this would make a difference overall, but it is one means that would change the backdrop against which we discuss the hypothetical… that Obama might not have taken certain actions if he knew he would have to face reelection.
The world would certainly be a different place if there never was a 22nd amendment. If Obama had been the first president eligible for a 3rd term following it’s repeal, or even the second or third and all other things the same then I think he’d win. However, if he wasn’t in lame duck mode he would be more cautious as Iggy suggests, and the opposition would be more strident as well. But compared to the candidates that stood for the position this year I think he’d still come out ahead.
Are we talking “if not for the 22nd and the longstanding tradition of only two terms”? Roosevelt was able to buck that tradition, but that was only in the face of the US being mixed up in the biggest war the world had ever seen, on both major fronts a globe apart. If a President presiding over a relatively stable country made the same attempt, it would probably significantly diminish his popularity.
I disagree: he’d have got the boot in 2008 unless he had reined in the bankers, thanks to the crash. Assuming that in 2000 and 2004 his only competition was nobodies (and not Bush), would Bush have run in 2008? Or, what would a McCain Presidency have looked like?
That tradition would be brought up. And we have to assume he wants to run. But I’m wondering if the weakness of the competition would be the factor to break the tradition in this case.
Dude’s approval ratings never dropped below 55% in the year 2000. During the whole Lewinsky/impeachment thing, his approval was 60s/70s. I think he would’ve done just fine.
The “tradition” seems to mostly be something made up by opponents of FDR in 1940 anyways.
(It’s true that there was never a president popular enough and willing enough to get a third term before FDR, but that’s how it usually works in democracies. It’s pretty rare for elected leaders to serve more than a decade, even without term limits. The leader will get tired of governing, the voters will get tired of the leader, or the leader’s party rivals will get tired of waiting their turn.)
One question, though, is whether his approval ratings would be as high if he could run again. A small thing would be whether his approval rating is higher since he’s kinda done. More importantly, the attacks on him would be a lot stronger.
I definitely think there’s a correlation with him not being able to run again and the much lower anti-Obama stuff. It’s all going against Hillary instead. Or even Trump and Cruz.
U.S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt, among others, both acknowledged the tradition, which was very well-established by the time FDR ran for his third term. Washington himself had set it, and it was by no means new in 1940.