No he won't be re-elected.

Like most of the people in this thread, I expected him to fix all of America's problems by now.......

Obama is what we actually NEED as a president, in terms of demeanor and personality and mindeset - whether or not you agree with the policy - but he seems to be what a lot of people don't want.  He's thoughtful and calm and intelligent, but people like emotional, reactionary leaders.  Intelligent people are seen as elitist, while people like those who seem like average joes who they can relate to, not minding the fact that average joes are exactly who you DON'T want running a country.  It's not to say Obama hasn't made mistakes- I think he has.  

America is an impatient country.  We want things NOW.  We want justice NOW.  We want dinner NOW.  We want jobs made and the economy fixed and the oil cleaned up and the wars ended and terrorism ended NOW.  Yet that's not the way the world works, and we don't really want to rush into things, because that's when we make thoughtless bad decisions  (Iraq, for example).  We trusted Bush's emotional responses and got caught up in our feelings after 9-11 and neglected to slow down and think it through carefully.  (Cheney and Rove thought it through, but the rest of us didn't - and they had different goals.)   I realize this sounds left-wing, and I'm actually quite middle of the road in most ways.   It's just that LAST administration that I wouldn't trust to catsit for me, let alone run the country.

I voted for Obama, and I think he's an improvement.  And the GOP side is SO batsh*t crazy right now that there's no way I could go there.  I just can't support that far right side of the agenda.  Having said that, I hope that we have the patience to see where things go.

In summation of the original question - - WAY too early to tell.  If the economy comes back, he'll be fine.  It's actually quite hard to get rid of incumbents in this country.  Other than Carter and Bush the First, no one else has served one term in forever that wasn't a result of impeachment or assassination or their aftermath.  But who knows?  There's a lot of racism and fear and anger bubbling under the surface of a lot of this.  He might have a shorter margin for error than the average guy going for term 2.

The funny thing is... Bush really wasn't a bad President. 

The first Bush that is... and he probably wouldn't of lost if it wasn't for Perot.  (My dad voted for Perot... Perot seemed... ok.)

I'd rather of had him then Bush JR or Obama.

I mean, lets see what he did that pissed people off.

1) Raised taxes after saying he wouldn't.   Why did he do this?  He didn't want to run up a big deficit.  Sure he went against his word, but he had a real good reason to do it... and it was an unforseen issue.  Unlike the current "make promises then break them even though nothing has changed" model... like with Obama suddenly turning his back on naming the Armenian genocide... well a genocide.

2) Let a small recession happen rather then pay trouble foward leading to a big recession.

3) Pulled out of Iraq because he thought toppling Saddam Hussein was a fools errand because they didn't have the tools to occupy Iraq without huge cost and loss of life.

As an Australian I hope the US doesn't vote him out after one term. The country was in such a mess when he took over it was always going to take up to a decade for policies taking effect to develop into an upward momentum.

At least you have a head of state who is actually doing something, here in Australia our PM has renegged on every election promise he made except for saying "sorry" to the indigenous people and ratifying Kyoto a few months before it expired. Now he's trying to send our economy down the toilet by taxing the mining industry so high it will become the most expensive country to mine in the world. This is what has kept our country's economy strong and meant the GFC has hardly affected us at all.

Recent polls show the majority is actually in favor of the bill.  Many people didn't like the bill because it didn't go far enough, but they thought it was an improvement, but the majority would rather have the bill pass than not.  I don't know how anyone can understand how health insurance worked and actually say it was a good system.  Maybe if the republicans would actually offer a solution rather than just insulting Obama's plan.  Maybe if the tea party had any plan at all, that might help them.

I see your point, but in reality a healthcare mandate is necessary.  Most Americans, even those with no health insurance who don't pay their medical bills, still recieve medical treatment.  Why?  Because no hospital or doctor will turn down a patient for fear of litigation, in which case even the silliest of lawsuits can payout millions of dollars.  Its similar to the car insurance mandate, it would be uneconomical and unreasonable otherwise.  The only problem is that you can choose not to drive a car, but you can't choose not to consume health insurance (well I guess you can but hardly anyone does).

I'm thinking of more personal freedoms than mandates.  The freedom of religion (encompassing everything from abortion to putting Creationism in science books), freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, habeas corpus (both of which have been violated by recent terrorism fears), freedom of sexuality, and so forth come to mind.

My preconception is that Democrats will allow me to have more freedoms than Republicans, a claim that the Republicans seem to have no quarrel with.

Saying there's a lot of racism bubbling under the surface really bother's me. Just because somone does'nt agree with Obama's policies does'nt make them a racisit. That's what the far left always said's.

They tried to offer solutions,but he was going to force the bill through regardless. The majority is'nt in favor of the bill. I don't know were you got that from. It really does'nt matter if the tea party has any plan,there not really politicans.

That makes no sense. Care to elebarate.