Which honestly sounds like the ideal system: let the market go, but knowing that the state is always there, watching and waiting.

The key would be to make sure that rules about intervention were standardized and objectively implemented.

I am not American but I would say yes, in this case, because better the devil you know than the one you don't.

On the economy I seriously doubt any other elected president could have done better (based on other non-biased opinions).

All over the western world (UK, France, Italy etc, to name a few) new governments are being elected to solve their economic problems and all are failing miserably. I live in the UK where this is very evident.
With all due respect I don't think any American potential president is far more capable. I could be wrong but I believe I am right.

Regardless of the country all potential leaders talk tough and promise all kinds of crap but never deliver. Obama, Romney and Johnson are no different.

Saying that I hope Romney or whoever wins for purely "scientific" reasons.

@Mr Khan.

I totally agree that the system where "People own their own companies, but the government can step in whenever it wants to correct things/switch things to benefit the state" is the best way. The state comes first. Without the state nothing else matters.

Well, that is his middle name... If he didn't want people to call him that, he probably shouldn't have run for office in the first place.

*Peace, not Piece.  And even Carter blasted Obama for that, pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize while you're dropping drone missiles that kill innocent people and creating kill-lists that target American citizens.

It was more the emphasis that the Republicans placed on it, as though it a crucial issue in the elcetion. 'Don't vote for for this guy, he has the same name as an evil tyrant'. 

It's difficult for Obama to run at all, because the economny isn't any better than it was in 2008, and yet he keeps saying he's fixing it.  He had two full years to ram through as much liberal legislation as he could, controlling both houses of Congress, and the Executive branch.  He has nothing to show for it except expanding our overseas empire even further than GWB, and and getting us into so much debt that it is almost impossible we'll ever be able to pay it back.  People thought Dubya was bad, well for crying out loud, Obama's even worse.  We haven't had a single new net job since the year 2000, when Clinton was still in office.  To make matters worse, because unemployment is getting worse not better, the Feds continually adjust the way they calculate and report the unemployment rate to make it look far better than it is.  Bleak, bleak times we live in.

Politics is all about perception.  Republicans and Democrats will say or do anything to get a leg up in the polls.  I don't think the right is any worse than the left in this case.

Yes, he deserves it in my opinion, because he either kept or attempted to keep most of the promises he made in 2008.

He said he would make universal healthcare a reality in the U.S. He got it passed.

He said he would end the war in Iraq. The war is over.

He said he would decrease the deficit by requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes. He's tried several times and failed miserably.

He said he would reform social security. He backed off this major issue last year. I didn't like this one bit.

He said he would decrease unemployment. Unemployment was over 10% in 2008 and is now ~8%. This is neither a positive or negative for Obama in my opinion. Unemployment is going down sure, but very slowly and at times remains stagnant. A lot of his proposals to decrease unemployment were either passed with heavy compromises, making them mostly ineffectual or blocked outright by Congress. It could be argued that any of his opponents would've made this situation a lot worse, but that would be going into irrelevant 'what-if' scenarios.

There are a lot of other things that I liked and didn't like about his term as President, but this is all I care to type right now.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough,  the whole point of third way economics is that the rules of intervetnion weren't standardized and objectivly implemeneted.

Or at least that's the way I saw it.

Essentially it was set up to combat the fact that government isn't all knowing or smart.

For example, in the Facist system, after the financial crisis, they might of fired all the ceos.  Or the ones they thought were doing worse.

Or after they paid themselves bonuses they might of reached back and defacto forced them to pay it back.

Essentially the "Advantage" of the facist third way system is that you aren't held down by guidlines and rules, and are essentially free to punish people who skate around rules, or who take advantage of techonology and other things to get arund other rules that shouldn't exist.

Essentially, government acts like God in this regard.  Your free to own your buisness and run it how you want... but if you do something to anger government?   It'll make you pay hard... so make sure everything you do is how the state probably wants it.

Right, but the issue there is how do we keep such a system from becoming hideously corrupt? Granted, i heard that was more a problem in Musolini's Italy than in Germany at the time.