Historic re-election pattern doesn’t favor Democrats in 2016

[RWNJ]

It’s not too soon to start talking about the next presidential inauguration in 2017, and why the historical re-election trends favor the Republicans.

Maybe Hillary Clinton, the current very-early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, can break the struggles that Democrats have had trying to win a presidential election after its candidate (or his legal successor) won two prior elections.

That’s only happened twice since 1828 for the Democrats, when the modern two-party era started in earnest. In 1836, the Democratic Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson by defeating four Whig candidates, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded himself in 1940 by running for an unprecedented third term.

The Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in office after taking two elections with the same candidate (or his legal successor), with just President Roosevelt winning in 1940 under very unusual circumstances.

The failed Democratic candidates include James Cox (1920), Adlai Stevenson (1952), Hubert Humphrey (1968), and Al Gore (2000). That puts the batting average for the Democrats at .333.

The Republicans have fared better than their opponents when it comes to extending control over the presidency after the same president (or his legal successor) won two straight elections.

Among the GOP candidates who were able to win that vital third election in a row for their party were Ulysses S. Grant (1868), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Theodore Roosevelt (1904), and George H.W. Bush (1988).

Republican candidates who lost in similar circumstances were Richard Nixon (1960), Gerald Ford (1976), and John McCain (2008).

Even with four defeats, the Republicans were batting .571 when it came to winning a third election, after the same president (or his legal successor) won two elections in a row.

But the more immediate trend is that in seven of the last nine elections, voters have decided to switch the party controlling the White House when a candidate (or his successor) had won two prior elections.

Part of the trend could date back to the FDR era, when Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, both Democrats, held office for a combined 20 years.

The 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms or 10 years in office, came as a direct consequence to that era.

The distrust of people in power also dates back to the age of the American Revolution and the mistrust of hereditary rulers with no curbs on their powers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

HRC may well buck the pattern with the fiascoed train wreck of a GOP campaign for the nomination.

 

[RWNJ]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

 

[the_human_being]

Since predictions are a dime a dozen on USMB, allow me to offer mine. I predict Hillary will self-destruct her campaign just as she did when she was leading Obama for the Presidency. Just a short time ago, Hillary was leading both Trump and Carson in all the polls by a substantial margin. Today, both Thrump and Carson have overtaken Hillary and are actually leading her in a few polls.

Hillary can't keep her mouth shut. She has openly taken on Wall Street. Wall Street has now withdrawn its support both toward her campaign fund as well as to the Clinton Crime Foundation. Exxon Corporation was a huge donor toward the Clinton Crime Foundation. Exxon withdrew its support from the foundation. Hillary, under FBI investigation herself, has now called for an investigation into Exxon Corporation. Congress is now moving forward into inquiring into the financial affairs and accounting practices of the Clinton Crime Foundation. I predict Hillary will not be a viable contender for the 2016 Presidential race.

 

[RWNJ]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

 

[Agit8r]

It’s not too soon to start talking about the next presidential inauguration in 2017, and why the historical re-election trends favor the Republicans.

Maybe Hillary Clinton, the current very-early front-runner for the Democratic nomination, can break the struggles that Democrats have had trying to win a presidential election after its candidate (or his legal successor) won two prior elections.

That’s only happened twice since 1828 for the Democrats, when the modern two-party era started in earnest. In 1836, the Democratic Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson by defeating four Whig candidates, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded himself in 1940 by running for an unprecedented third term.

The Democrats have failed in four of their last five attempts to win three consecutive terms in office after taking two elections with the same candidate (or his legal successor), with just President Roosevelt winning in 1940 under very unusual circumstances.

The failed Democratic candidates include James Cox (1920), Adlai Stevenson (1952), Hubert Humphrey (1968), and Al Gore (2000). That puts the batting average for the Democrats at .333.

The Republicans have fared better than their opponents when it comes to extending control over the presidency after the same president (or his legal successor) won two straight elections.

Among the GOP candidates who were able to win that vital third election in a row for their party were Ulysses S. Grant (1868), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Theodore Roosevelt (1904), and George H.W. Bush (1988).

Republican candidates who lost in similar circumstances were Richard Nixon (1960), Gerald Ford (1976), and John McCain (2008).

Even with four defeats, the Republicans were batting .571 when it came to winning a third election, after the same president (or his legal successor) won two elections in a row.

But the more immediate trend is that in seven of the last nine elections, voters have decided to switch the party controlling the White House when a candidate (or his successor) had won two prior elections.

Part of the trend could date back to the FDR era, when Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, both Democrats, held office for a combined 20 years.

The 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two terms or 10 years in office, came as a direct consequence to that era.

The distrust of people in power also dates back to the age of the American Revolution and the mistrust of hereditary rulers with no curbs on their powers.

In all fairness, there have only ever been three Democrats to win two consecutive terms with a majority of the popular vote...

and the other two were Jackson and FDR.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

 

[Rustic]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

...and Washington did not want the job, saw it as an duty and reluctantly accepted.

By and away the best president this country has ever had.

 

[RWNJ]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

That's what Presidential advisers are for. And our career politicians have done such a fine job. (sarcasm, in case you missed it)

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

That's what Presidential advisers are for. And our career politicians have done such a fine job. (sarcasm, in case you missed it)

You are ignoring that Washington was politically qualified. Or course you are: you got your argument handed to you.

 

[RWNJ]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

That's what Presidential advisers are for. And our career politicians have done such a fine job. (sarcasm, in case you missed it)

You are ignoring that Washington was politically qualified. Or course you are: you got your argument handed to you.

Why don't you tell us what the qualifications are for President. The way I see it, the only qualifications one needs is that they love this country and have some common sense. Now, who just got their argument handed to them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Don't sell Carson short. Granted, he has no experience in government, but neither did George Washington. I think he would kill Hillary in any debate.

Washington was

• a surveyor,
• a military officer,
• a plantation owner,
• a member of the VA House of Burgesses,
• a delegate to the 1st Continental Congress,
• a commander in chief of the Army for eight years,
• a Chairman of the Constitutional Convention.

Carson was a surgeon.

That's what Presidential advisers are for. And our career politicians have done such a fine job. (sarcasm, in case you missed it)

You are ignoring that Washington was politically qualified. Or course you are: you got your argument handed to you.

Why don't you tell us what the qualifications are for President. The way I see it, the only qualifications one needs is that they love this country and have some common sense. Now, who just got their argument handed to them?

Not me, for certain.

You wrote that Washington was not experienced prior to the Presidency.

You were wrong.

By your argument, BHO was ready for the office. I don't think so.

 

[auditor0007]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Rubio would do well in a debate, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary will also do well. The big problem for Republicans is demographics which completely favor any Democratic candidate when it comes to the presidential election. Remember this very important fact; Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past six presidential elections.

 

[RWNJ]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Rubio would do well in a debate, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary will also do well. The big problem for Republicans is demographics which completely favor any Democratic candidate when it comes to the presidential election. Remember this very important fact; Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past six presidential elections.

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Rubio would do well in a debate, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary will also do well. The big problem for Republicans is demographics which completely favor any Democratic candidate when it comes to the presidential election. Remember this very important fact; Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past six presidential elections.

Keep in mind that the majority of both democrats and republicans say that they do not trust Hillary.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hillary is going to run on gun control and increased immigration.

Do you seriously think she has a chance? Look at what just happened.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Tell us again how the Republicans will get obliterated in 2010, Jake

 

[westwall]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

You are dreaming. Trump would wipe the floor with her. He's not afraid to call her out over her BS like the professional politician class is. Cruz likewise would use her like a mop. He's way smarter than she is and would absolutely crush her because he too ain't afraid to call people out. Kasich or Christie would turn to puddles however.

 

[auditor0007]

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Rubio would do well in a debate, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary will also do well. The big problem for Republicans is demographics which completely favor any Democratic candidate when it comes to the presidential election. Remember this very important fact; Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past six presidential elections.

She will eventually have to debate her republican opponent. With her baggage and the trust factor against her, she doesn't have a chance. That does not preclude another rino as pres though.

She will destroy a Carson, a Trump, a Rubio. A Cruz would commit suicide after the first debate.

Kasich or Christie could easily handle her.

Rubio would do well in a debate, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary will also do well. The big problem for Republicans is demographics which completely favor any Democratic candidate when it comes to the presidential election. Remember this very important fact; Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the past six presidential elections.

Keep in mind that the majority of both democrats and republicans say that they do not trust Hillary.

Imo, that will change once we know the Republican nominee and Hillary picks her running mate. Her choice for VP will be very important to voters, and I still believe that she will end up picking Julian Castro, but we will see. While Hillary needs to take some of the blame for voters not trusting her, she has been bashed up and down, from side to side, and around in circles by conservatives over Benghazi, and it's really been overboard. Had Democrats gone after Reagan for the Lebanon debacle or had they gone after GW over 9/11 or the Iraq war, could you imagine how much of a mess that would have created? There is no doubt there are many Americans who feel Bush and Cheney should be in prison, but Democrats never went after either of them. Of course, Republicans ignore all that and then use the Benghazi tragedy as a political issue. In the long run, I do think that is going to backfire on them. Yes, die hard right wing cons will hold on to their vitriol for her, but the rest will see it as nothing more than vengeance.

 

[jon_berzerk]

indeed it was a bad night for the democrat brand