I hope he intends to.  The reality is that he needs the support of Democrats in the 2 houses to pass any new legislation, and most of them will want to be able to be re-elected even if Obama does not need to worry about his re-election.

First, I think he will be re-elected. I'd be surprised if he wasn't.

One thing that will give him more flexibility for a couple of years is that he doesn't have to run for re-election, so he can do more of what he wants to do without worrying about his own electoral consequences. So, in terms of proposing and discussing issues, he'll have more flexibility.

Of course, in terms of action his flexibility will be quite limited (especially in domestic issues) if the Republicans continue to control the House of Representatives, and - after the 2014 mid-term elections - he enters the "lame duck stage," when people will start paying more attention to who's coming next than to him.

So, he may have a small 2 year window of opportunity to do something bold and be taken seriously about it.

I get that he has to get things through the houses and that he will go into a lame duck stage but do you think that his approach will change from seemingly moderate and bi-partisan to the left leaning guy he was thought to be? My question is 'will Obama change'?  I get that he faces obstacles but do you believe Obama will change in a significant way?

Obama was only seen to be "left-leaning" by the extreme right Republicans. The United States is a strange country with strange politics. Where most countries do their politics on the basis of a "left-right" spectrum, the US has the really right wing Republicans, and the centre-right Democrats. Only in that environment can Obama or the Democrats been seen as left wing.

In most other countries in the world, the Republicans would be becoming an increasingly fringe rightist party, and the Democrats would be filling the position most often filled by conservative parties. The US has no truly significant left wing party. (And then, to make it all even more confusing, you have so-called "liberal" Republicans who sometimes vote with the Democrats but caucus with the Republicans, and so-called "conservative" Democrats who sometimes vote with the Republicans but caucus with the Democrats.)

Man, I'm glad I don't have to vote down there. It would give me a headache.

REv.Steven speaks wise words for one so young.

I don't think you'll see any great changes in Obama's  second term. You'll see some quite devastating ones if Romney wins.

Rev Steve, I see your point re the US's right leaning political spectrum but back to my original question...do you think Obama's behaviour will change significantly in the coming four years or will it be more of the same?

Re being glad about not being in the US; the more I learn about them, the more I realize just how lucky I am that my forefathers headed on up to Upper Canada so many years ago. 

Graeme, that wasn't the answer I was hoping for but thank you for answering so directly.  I do agree that if Romney wins...well...it doesn't bear thinking about  <<<images of the Handmaid's Tale flashing through my mind>>

I do have faith that Obama will become more aggressive in instituting/pushing for what he believes in rather than trying to curry favour with the right.

It's not the right or the left. There is almost no left in the US - just a right and a further right. - and even that may exaggerate the difference.

What drives american "democracy" is money. And the money doesn't change no matter who get elected.

Miss Chatelaine, I thought I answered that in my first post, but maybe I wasn't clear. I think there will be no significant change in Obama's second term. 

Basically I agree with graeme!

Thanks, Rev Steven.  My Grandmother was a Davis that hailed from North Dakota, settling in Manitoba.  Related maybe?

No North Dakota or Manitoba connections that I know of.

Too bad, thought I found a cousin.

I don't think Obama will have a second term.

Keep the Tilley hat ready.

Many things depend on the support of congress. But there are some things he can do alone. Like issues pardons, to illegal immigrants, or wealthy donors. Hoowevr issueing pardons, and helping ensure that illegal immigrants become citizens, would help Democrats win future elections. Congress can denounce it, but it would mean the Dems would tie up the Hispanic vote. 

I do not know if he would do that, but usually politicians at the end of their political campaigns like to do big things and historical things. Think Chretien who enacted al sorts of changes in his last years, like creating all those national parks. 

Jae, what you believe bears such little resemblance to reality, that I'm quite relieved you think he'll lose.

If you would only post your weekly NFL picks, we could make a killing by picking the opposites.

Romney has certainly been public about every reason he should lose. But he still scares me. There is an electoral system whose honesty has been highly suspect in the recent past. There is a paranoia in the voting public. There is a disillusionment among a great many.

Most of all, I would be afraid of a Romney victory. I think it would mean accelerated world violence - and a very great possibility of domestic violence.

I really don't think Obama would be much better. But we have to take as better as we can get.

Romney might not be as scary as he seems. I think he is a total opportunist, and likely change his values once elected. HIs values would  change from those associated with "How can I get enough groups to vote for me" To how can I get relected a second time,

But if he were to be elected. then - looking ahead to re-election - he'd have to continue to pacify the wacko right wing extremists who have huge influence in the Republican Party. 

I think a loss for Romney would result in serious finger-pointing within the Republican party, and a lot of fiscally conservative members would revolt against the social conservatives who have dominated the Republican message for the last few election cycles. The electorate is changing, and the social conservatives with their hate for gays and women is only going to drive more and more people away. The Republicans have to change. They have to undergo a major overhaul to become electable again. Young people don't see them as the small government party - they see them as the hatemongering and restricted rights and the screw-you-I've-got-mine party.

I and a lot of other people would looove the Republicans be something other than a joke, if for no other reason than to keep the Democrats honest. One more presidential election cycle with a "social conservative" candidate will end even worse than this one likely will for the Republicans. The Democrats will get cocky and start doing stupid things, not that they need the invitation.

In the US An incumbant is not usually challenged from within his own party, (and if he is, it usually is not successful) unless he is in danger of loosing the genral election.

Thus Mitt would be looking to promote policies that would ensure his re-election in the genral election, and not the Republican nomination.

It would be interesting to see if the social conservatives will let go of the GOP. 

If not they are creating the conditions for a new party. Possibily made up of Liberatrians. Especially if it looks like, or if they do nominate someone who is unelectable i.e. a candiadte who supports  banning  birth control

You miss my point. I'm not suggesting he'd be challenged for the nomination. I'm saying that in the current American political scene, he can't win without the support of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, so he has to keep them happy, rather than seeing them sit at home or - even worse - mount a third party challenge, which is not outside the realm of possibility. If a Republican president were to become too "moderate" (which is a very dirty word in right wing Republican politics right now) I could see a third party challenge. The basic organization for that already exists (through the so-called "Tea Party") or the Tea Party could choose to mount a nomination challenge if they thought Romney was too moderate. They likely couldn't win, but they could wound Romney badly - much as Kennedy did to Carter in 1980.

Suffice to say, in my opinion, that indeed Romney in the event he was running for re-election in 2016 would be looking to promote his own re-election. That would mean currying favour with the extreme right, just as he has to do now.

I expect the birthers will experience four more years of complete and utter failure, but continue their delusional crusade nevertheless, thus providing me with a never ending source of entertainment.

Unless he sees the possibilty of winning enough states in a coalition of conservative Democrates and "moderate Republicans.   In order to do so, he would need to include the  Ron Paul Tea Party, but not the anti women (anti birth control) religious right Tea Party.

This could be done by cutting taxes and spending, by reducing the milatray spending and social services.

It could result in a Third Party which will hurt the Republicnas, but if you believ that all Romney is concerned about is himself, it is possible.  At the same time if you look at the "corporate agenda" they do not care about anything other than increasing profits and decreasing taxes.   They do not oppose either women's rights nor gay rights, and becasue of the supreme court decision on Political finacing, it is only corporations that Romney needs to appeal to to win relection.

The great thing is, they don't deny that Obama's mother was a citizen. That means, quite clearly, Barack is as well, whether he was born in Kenya, Hawaii, or on the moon. The birth certificate doesn't even matter. It's just something for them to shake their tiny, impotent fists at.

One issue for the birthers to deal with is the definition of "natural born citizen." In spite of common belief, the US Constitution doesn't say that a person has to be born in the United States to be president, just that you have to be a natural born citizen. Is a person with one American parent who's born in another country still a natural born citizen? If the birthers had any evidence to mount a serious challenge to Obama, that's what a court would have to decide. As it is, their movement is largely based on racism and it's dismissed by rational people. No white president would have to face these repeated accusations that are accompanied by absolutely no evidence.

Marvellous conversation, thank you all so much.  Do carry on.

I don't follow the NFL. I prefer cooperative sports to competitive ones.

what exactly is a cooperative sport?  As far as I can tell a sporting event, by definition, is competitve.  Not always physically confrontational/combative.  But certainly competitive.

Not when I play. I cheat to cooperate with whichever team has the biggest guys on it.

I should add I have a friend who is a pioneer of cooperative sport. As a devout marxist (and bicycle advocate - he calls it the velorution), he invented a game called marxist volleyball. the point is not to score points - but to cooperatively keep the ball in the air.  I've never been clear on the details.

I'll make a separate thread. 

They like to think they have evidence.

Of course their court record so far is 152 losses with ZERO wins. Any sane person after losing in court 152 times in a row would be starting to consider that they might just be wrong.

They need for An NBC to be defined as the child of two citizen parents.They believe that their badly mangeld quoting of an obscure swiss philosopher de Vattel somehow overrides US law. Of course if Obama actualkly had two citizen parents, they'd come up with some other reaon why he could not possibly be whi..... er I mean could not possibly be a Natural Born Citizen.

Could I send you week 4 for my family pool? It's not hard - you don't even need to follow the game. When I get it by email, I'll forward it to you. All you have to do is pick the Favourite or the Underdog, for each game. If you pick the Favourite, I want you to type "U" in the box. If you pick the Underdog, I want you to type "F" in the box. That cuts down on the amount of work I have to do.

No -- I cannot participate in gambling. It's part of the school covenant I've entered into.

No money is being wagered - it's all about bragging rights for who is best at picking against the spread when none of us know a damn thing about football. It's weird, I know. With your level of (in)accuracy, I could clean up.

Romney won the debate. Here is hoping that that will translate into votes!

From what I have been reading, Romney's style in winning the debate may have cost him votes, and the lack of truthful content did little to sway undecided voters.  Obama's flat effort may result in some supporters not bothering to vote.

Interestingly Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly who is not a fan of Obama thinks that Obama dragged butt through the debate just to make the race to the White House exciting.

He likened it to a game of football with one team taking a commanding lead into the half.  They send out the back-ups and reserves in the third-quarter to get some game experience knowing that if the other team starts to catch up they can put the first-string players back on the field and preserve the lead.

O'Reilly doesn't give Romney much of a chance of winning.

Fact-checking after the debate shows that both Mitt and Obama fudged their numbers.  Neither apparently was willing or able to call the other out on it though.  The second debate between the two will probably be very different than this yawn fest was.

Check the video and watch Romney's eyes.  He was blinking so frequently I was looking for morse code patterns.

"Winning" a debate accomplishes little unless there's a knockout blow; something that people will remember and talk about and become in itself an "issue" in the campaign - Nixon's profuse sweating against Kennedy that made him look nervous and afraid, Ford's "the Soviet Union doesn't dominate Eastern Europe," Reagan's "there you go again" and "are you better off now that you were four years ago," the Turner -Mulroney exchange: ""I had no option." "You had an option, sir. You could have said NO!" 

Nothing like that happened in the Obama-Romney debate. There's nothing memorable to sustain any momentum for Romney.

was this more of a debate than usual?  (I had better thnigs to do than watch)  OFten nowadays on both side of theee 49th "debates" are merely carefully scripted sessions of zingers and sound bites rather than actually engaging the other(s) in an actual discussion of issues

Gee. I should have thought the environmental crisis and the imminence of nuclear war might have been kind of important to mention. Neither of them did. Some debate!

I  no longer think it matter a damn who wins. It now seems most unnlikely that the middle east can avoid dissolving into chaos - and from that point on, it's beyond any human control.

So pessimistic!  Do you think times are worse now than in the past?   World troubles surge and ebb, is this surge really that much more drastic than other times?  Or does it just seem that way because we're living through it?

It's very pessimistic. And yes, it's worse now than in the past.

For openers, we are very close to a nuclear war. That, alone, is something worse than we have ever seen. And their are lots of new wrinkles for this war - chemical, electronic, and coercive.

The people who pay for both Obama and Romney want lots more wars. Their policies have reduced both Africa and the middle east to chaos. We can argue all we like about which side is wrong. That changes nothing.

American (and western) big money wants Africa and the middle east in chaos. They've made that quite clear.  In return for one attack on the US which killed something under 3000, over a million innocent people have died, and in most cases, niether they nor their country had anything to do with 9/11.

China has a vital commitment to their region for its own reasons. Russia cannot allow american domination of the whole world. that's at last three blocs with plans that are mutually suicidal. We are just completing a US election campaign in which the only question that matters is how do we stop this?

Neither romney nor obama has beven mentioned that. Both have talked about nothing but winning. By now, the chaos is self=perpetuating..

Big money has been dictating it's interests to governments for a long time. But we're a step past that. Now, it actually sets the foreign policy in detail, something it is utterly in capable of doing competently.

In all of this, we all face the dangers of climate change (another non-issue in the American election.). None of the major powers is doing anything significant about that. On the contrary, they are fighting to continue the use of fossil fuels. Africa, alone, faces loss of life on this on a scale we have never before seen.

It has long bothered me that the churches, especially at the local level, have been slow to address these situations. There are, after all, moral implications in the behaviour of our corporate bosses and our political leaders. There are also moral implications in our support of them.

Down here, the locall multi-billionaire family has its very own chapel, named, of course, after daddy whose greed and ruthlessness built their empire. It's quite big, and not attached to any denomination. . And they invite us peasantry to  go there on Thanksgiving, and reflect.

I wonder what they reflect on. I wonder what God they worship.

The polls are favouring Romney again. I read today. After Obama's debate performance.  Obama could have done much better. What's up with that? He heardly looked up from his notes. I think he thought he had it in the bag, but he was obviously not prepared for how Romney would deliver. I don;t think anyone was (except Romney). I was disappointed that Obama didn;t debate his points more strongly, and let Romneys mistruths slip past because Romney delivered his debate well, and Obama quite frankly, didn't. America is in a tough spot. The choice between someone who makes bad points strongly (which could lead to some really bad decisions), or makes at least some good points (which could lead to better decisions), but makes them weakly...I dunno.

 Heard parts of Romney's foreign policy speech today, all about bolstering military. A hard nosed speech given in an almost mild mannered way. It was almost hard to listen to. No, it was hard to listen to, as was the debate.

No. The polls aren't favouring Romney. With the media message being that Romney won the debate there's been a predictable closing of the gap. Some polls have them tied; others have Obama ahead by a couple of percent. There are also a couple that have Romney slightly ahead, but with the US electoral college system, Obama is still ahead in most of the states that really count - the ones with lots of electoral votes.

I did. I will try to find it. Obama is barely ahead in several, but Romney is gaining again.

Obama needs to turn up the gusto. It is a close race, unfortunately, and he needs to kick into gear.

Okay, I found it but is a Fox News poll that has Romney ahead by 2 points. Not worth considering. I apologize.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/07/rasmussen-poll-romney-ahead-4-47-percent-in-first-full-post-debate-survey/

What's interesting though, is even Fox News had Obama leading a few weeks ago.