TexasCHLforum.com

MojoTexas wrote:Well, I'm not going to say it's pretty much guaranteed that Obama won't get a second term. It'll depend on who emerges as the front-runner for the Republicans, and it'll depend on Obama's popularity during the primaries. I have no doubt that Hillary has not given up on seeing herself in the Oval Office, and I'm sure she'd love to replace Obama in 2012 if she can garner enough support.

Obama wasn't elected by the democrat base. He was elected by independents. Polling of independents over the past year has shown that he has lost much of their support. And given that even moderate democrats have started to buck the traces, it is doubtful that he would have all the of the democrat votes either in a general election. His current approval index is down across all the major polls, with Rasmussen, the lowest, currently showing a -13. Given his initial popularity last November, this is more than just the "end of the honeymoon."

I agree that Hillary Clinton will probably make another run at the presidency, and she could conceivably beat Obama for the nomination, but I don't think that will be the outcome. George H.W. Bush won his party's nomination in 1992 despite having ticked off many conservatives over the tax increase. Whenever parties have an incumbent president, that incumbent always winds up getting the nomination if he's running for it because, at the end of the day, you go with what got you to the dance. Clinton would have a chance at it if she enjoyed overwhelming popularity within the democrat party, but she doesn't. So I think it will be almost impossible for her to overcome the party advantage that Obama enjoys as an incumbent.

Yes, a republican victory would certainly depend upon who they nominate, but there are a number of "fresh faces" up and coming in the leadership ranks, and there might be more than one dynamic choice to pick from — even without having to consider Sarah Palin, who despite large numbers of adoring fans (myself among them), continues to set many republicans' teeth on edge. I think that republican chances look very good in 2012 for the oval office, and my belief that congressional democrats are in deep trouble come 2010 is pretty much accepted wisdom by mainstream punditry on both sides.

MojoTexas wrote:After the backlash from Clinton's 1994 Assault Weapon ban, and the firestorm of controversy that erupted when Obama was elected president, I think the anti-gun crowd realizes now that there is plenty of non-partisan opposition to further gun control. That's why Obama and Pelosi haven't been pushing it. Don't get me wrong...I think they will still try, especially if Obama gets a second term...but they know that it's not going to be an easy issue to pass.

First of all, I don't think he's going to get a second term. His and Pelosi's high-handed treatment of other pressing issues like healthcare "reform" has pretty much guaranteed that. In fact, it has pretty much guaranteed a Republican majority in Congress by 2012 at the latest.

But all of that said, even if he did get a second term, I still don't think he would try to pass any kind of national gun ban because he won't have the same kind of majority in either house of Congress after 2010, and the lessons of 1994 are still fresh enough to deter it. If he wants to get the blame for guaranteeing a Republican majority in Congress for the next 12 years, let him try it. He won't try it. Not because he wouldn't like to if he thought he could do it and get away with it, but because he knows he can't get away with it.