It depends on what you mean by the norm.
We've had 3 two-term Presidents in a row. There are only two viable Presidential candidates each year. For the sake of looking at probability, let's look at statistical probably based on the (assumption) that each year each candidate has a 50/50 chance of winning. This of course excludes real life factors that change the probability. It's just saying we have 2 candidates, so it's a coin toss.
There is a 1 in 4 chance for either trend, either one-term or two-terms, to go three in a row. As it stands Clinton was a two-term. That leaves a 50% chance for the next President to also be a two-term, and a 25% chance that the President after that would be a two-term President.
Originally posted by whodeyIncumbent presidents always have had an advantage, but not insurmountable.
Considering that since 1980 every president has served two terms, except for 4 short years with Bush Sr., can we safely assume that the two term president is now the norm?
I also think both Clinton and Obama were helped by the fact that they got bombed in their first midterm. After having given an enormous win to the GOP in the midterms people saw that didn't make that much of a difference and went back to the incumbent.
Originally posted by whodeyHistorically the incumbent has an advantage, so in that sense it is the "norm". I don't think the trend is new, though.
Considering that since 1980 every president has served two terms, except for 4 short years with Bush Sr., can we safely assume that the two term president is now the norm?
Okay that's enough of that. Obama is technically a two-term president, but with an IRS commissioner who had to pay back taxes to be confirmed, several buddies from Chi-town in prison or headed there, a freeloading wife who takes one lavish vacation after another on the American taxpayer, and proven records that as a citizen of Indonesia, he received aid reserved for foreign students, this America-hating Marxist with an extremely deep understanding of Islam is likely to run into the problems faced by many second term presidents - fatigue, hubris, scandal.
Originally posted by sasquatch672lol
Okay that's enough of that. Obama is technically a two-term president, but with an IRS commissioner who had to pay back taxes to be confirmed, several buddies from Chi-town in prison or headed there, a freeloading wife who takes one lavish vacation after another on the American taxpayer, and proven records that as a citizen of Indonesia, he received ai ...[text shortened]... ikely to run into the problems faced by many second term presidents - fatigue, hubris, scandal.
Yes, he's "technically" two term President. The technicality being that he won reelection by an electoral landslide.
Barack Obama is only technically our PRESIDENT in the same way that the SF Giants are technically the World Series Champions.
On a side note, and I'll say this now that the election is over....
I do think each President should only get one 8-year term. I don't think four years is enough time to make real change, and during the first term every President can really only be focused for a couple years before they start focusing on reelection. It would also help curb the political posturing that happens with opposition party members in the Legislature trying to make the President a "one-term President."
I say this knowing it's entirely possible the next President could be a Republican.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperQuestion for you: How many guys in your platoon sit around and watch the other part of the platoon work? Half? I have to believe you'd get pretty tired of somebody not pulling their weight. Somebody injured - that's one thing. You'd do whatever you had to do to help him, wouldn't you? (Except if you're Obama and you don't want to make any Libyan citizen angry, so you abandon your diplomats to die).
On a side note, and I'll say this now that the election is over....
I do think each President should only get one 8-year term. I don't think four years is enough time to make real change, and during the first term every President can really only be focused for a couple years before they start focusing on reelection.
I say this knowing it's entirely possible the next President could be a Republican.
So why is it any different out of uniform? People really need help, you help them. But one half of the country paying for the other? That makes sense to you?
Originally posted by sasquatch672If you win a second term you effectively become a lame duck pretty quick.
Question for you: How many guys in your platoon sit around and watch the other part of the platoon work? Half? I have to believe you'd get pretty tired of somebody not pulling their weight. Somebody injured - that's one thing. You'd do whatever you had to do to help him, wouldn't you? (Except if you're Obama and you don't want to make any Libyan c ...[text shortened]... ou help them. But one half of the country paying for the other? That makes sense to you?
How many times after a two term president does that party retain power?
(I don't know the answer - but I'm guessing not often)
Originally posted by invigorateBush Sr. won after 8 years of Reagan, but that's the only time it's happened since FDR's 4 terms followed by Truman winning one term.
If you win a second term you effectively become a lame duck pretty quick.
How many times after a two term president does that party retain power?
(I don't know the answer - but I'm guessing not often)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell, between 1960 and 1980 not a single one of five incumbent presidents served a full two terms. I remember reading an article when I was a schoolboy (probably around 1994 when Clinton's first term was in trouble), talking about how "a failed one-term presidency has become the norm" or words to that effect. At that point, Reagan was the only president in thirty-five years to have completed eight years in office.
Historically the incumbent has an advantage, so in that sense it is the "norm". I don't think the trend is new, though.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperEight years is a very long time for a democratically elected leader to serve. That would, I think, be unparalleled in other democratic countries. On the other hand, two years for the whole House of Representatives is extraordinarily short by international standards; and the fact that a third of the Senate gets re-elected every second year surely also contributes to this mode of perpetual campaign. How about six-year presidential terms (renewable or non-renewable, as seems more appropriate) and three-year terms for representatives? The Senate too could be rejigged so that half the body was elected every third year, and then all the politicians would have more time to get on with the jobs in between the electoral years.
On a side note, and I'll say this now that the election is over....
I do think each President should only get one 8-year term. I don't think four years is enough time to make real change, and during the first term every President can really only be focused for a couple years before they start focusing on reelection. It would also help curb the p ...[text shortened]... t."
I say this knowing it's entirely possible the next President could be a Republican.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIn the constitution the south drew up after secession the president got a single 6 year term. There were actually some pretty interesting ideas in their constitution. Here's a link
Eight years is a very long time for a democratically elected leader to serve. That would, I think, be unparalleled in other democratic countries. On the other hand, two years for the whole House of Representatives is extraordinarily short by international standards; and the fact that a third of the Senate gets re-elected every second year surely also contr ...[text shortened]... all the politicians would have more time to get on with the jobs in between the electoral years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution