Democradic President choices?
 

I have a dumb political question that I should know, but don't.
Lets say we have a President who is a Dem. He has only served 1 term. Can another Dem run against him? If they can't, why not? If they can, why didn't they? I don't like my choices. I don't vote 'Party' I vote for the person. I think I will do a write in. My dog Bear. I think he would be better than the other chooses. He see's a problem, he fixes it, not make it worse. He knows how to get anything he needs with out making any one mad. He is caring, loving, and doesn't require corrections. He does what is right to begin with. Yes, I think I will do a write in.

Paul

Sure. Another Dem candidate could have chosen to run against him before the primary season, but evidently nobody thought he was weak enough to challenge. I can't recall when this happened in my lifetime. It almost happened to LBJ in '68, but he decided not to run again.

Of course. I voted for Wolfe in the Democratic primary.

I would look very much forward to Bear being our next President. I'm sure he would be a great improvement!

If Bear has a valid birth certificate and is over 35 years of age, he could run. ( We'd need a Supreme Court ruling on the age issue---do "dog years" count or only solar years? If dog years don't count then we'd have to ask why does the SC hate dogs?)

Is Bill Clinton running against the President?

No, he cannot. He is running Hillary--probably for 2016.

Can a president serve more than two terms if not consecutive?

Bear doesn't have a birth certificate but I can call that privileged information but say he is 35. Not too many people in politics would catch that. He is a citizen, he really was born in the United States. His parents and grand parents were all born in the United States. I could get him a SS number. He doesn't get paid but I could get him on well fair, that should prove he is is a citizen. (Oh, that doesn't prove anything.) With a lie here and a lie there I am sure I could get him on the ballot.

Paul

No. Not since FDR when they capped it at two terms total.

It all depends on what the meaning of "running against" is. ;)

Yes, but he may feel that her chances in '16 would be better against an incumbent Romney than having to come along after 8 years of Obama and another 5 trillion of debt increase. Presidential politics is, after all, a swinging pendulum. With the exception of G. H.W. Bush, three term party control ain't happened since Frankiln Roosevelt died.

I take it back. It did happen to Jimmy Carter. I guess I was trying to forget Jimmy Carter and it worked....


"The incumbent President Jimmy Carter faced high unemployment, high inflation and gas shortages in California. Against this backdrop, Ted Kennedy decided to run after sitting out 1968, 1972 and 1976. Kennedy stumbled badly in an interview, then the Iran hostage crisis in November 1979 dealt a near fatal blow as Carter's calm approach caused his poll numbers to rise. Carter won decisively everywhere except Massachusetts until the public began to grow weary of the hostage situation. Kennedy then began to win and even swept the last states. It was too little, too late. Carter had a slight advantage and enough delegates to win the nomination."

I don't think so Tom. If that were the case, Bill would have been a shoe in last time around, and you can bet everything you own he would have thrown his hat in the ring.

All that...... and the ghost of Chappaquidick too.

Sure sounds like a solid plan to me Paul! It's too late for this election cycle, but that's okay. That gives him time to work out his election strategy. He might need to go dig up a bone or two in the backyard. Write a book about his accomplishments. Get his transcript ready for publication. You know, all the stuff to run an open campaign. WOW! Open disclosure! Now there's a strategy that hasn't been tried in awhile!

Yes, if by some crazy quirk, Romney does get in, it would be much easier to run against Romney than pick off B.O. in the primary.