Third Term Presidency

The first 24 presidential terms (96 years) the USA had 21 presidents. Terms 19-24 were naturally controlled by Republican party as victors of the civil war. Since that time there have been only four instances where the same party controlled the presidency for more than two terms. Since Harry Truman it has happened only one time.

Terms
19-20 Abraham Lincoln (assassinated) & Andrew Johnson | Republican party founded
21-24 Ulysses S. Grant & Rutherford B. Hayes & James A. Garfield (assassinated) & Chester A. Arthur | Republican- 6 terms
-25- Grover Cleveland | Democratic
-26- Benjamin Harrison | Republican
-27- Grover Cleveland | Democratic
28-31 William McKinley (assassinated) &Theodore Roosevelt & William Howard Taft | Republican - 4 terms
32-33 Woodrow Wilson | Democratic
34-36 Warren G. Harding (died) & Calvin Coolidge & Herbert Hoover | Republican - 3 terms
37-41 Franklin D. Roosevelt & Harry S. Truman | Democratic- 5 terms
42-43 Dwight D. Eisenhower |Republican
44-45 John F. Kennedy (assassinated), & Lyndon B. Johnson | Democratic
46-47 Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford | Republican
-48- Jimmy Carter | Democratic
49-51 Ronald Reagan & George H. W. Bush| Republican- 3 terms
52-53 Bill Clinton| Democratic
54-55 George W. Bush| Republican
56-57 Barack Obama| Democratic

Do you believe in the idea that a third term presidency is difficult to achieve? That given a democracy without a major war that people crave change after a while, and switch parties?

Or do you think the sample size of 64 years is too small to make a meaningful judgement?

Someone should do a statistical analysis and look at the p-values :)

Do elections have memories?

Voters sure don't.

Quote: Nareed

Do elections have memories? Voters sure don't.

No elections do not have memories, but they are not random independent events. As a general rule political leaders do not grow dearer and dearer in the minds of people. Even FDR who was elected four times saw his share of the popular vote drop each time. But his last two elections were both wartime elections.

Queen Elizabeth II does not act politically, and she tends to grow more popular over her 60 plus years as monarch. Queen Victoria was the first to realize that the secret to a modern monarchy was to stay out of politics.

Teddy Roosevelt turned 50 on October 27, 1908 just days before the Nov 2, 1908 elections. He was the youngest man to abandon voluntarily the position of POTUS. On February 27, 1951 an amendment would be approved prohibiting T.R. to run again, but at the time it was just tradition. He may have won the 1908, 1912, 1916 elections had he run. He died prematurely at age 60.

I think people focus on economic issues when wars are over, and hope that a change will improve their lot. Churchill was a good example of a great leader during wartime shown the door due to economic issues in a post war economy.

The topic of a change to a six year term for the president has been raised by Bush-Clinton. It would allow for more time to actually get things done, rather than working for two years, then campaigning for two.

Quote: Pacomartin

Do you believe in the idea that a third term presidency is difficult to achieve? That given a democracy without a major war that people crave change after a while, and switch parties?

Or do you think the sample size of 64 years is too small to make a meaningful judgement?

People get party fatigue for sure. After 8 years most things the one party wanted to and realistically could accomplish have been done. If they are running for said "third term" and suggest something the cry is "why did you not do it already?"

Quote: AZDuffman

People get party fatigue for sure. After 8 years most things the one party wanted to and realistically could accomplish have been done. If they are running for said "third term" and suggest something the cry is "why did you not do it already?"

What's the quote? “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.” - Mark Twain.

I'd be quite happy to see parties take a much longer approach to change, far too often there's change for change's sake before we really know if the last change was successful or not.

Course, sometimes you can tell quite clearly that the policy has been a steaming mess, and the diaper needs changing fast. There's often fatigue in the parties themselves, and they become lax, lazy and believe their own fantasies. Each party of course really only wants a short time in the wilderness to regroup, play opposition for a bit (cos it's much easier to play that role, though some parties seem incapable of it, often centrist/left parties) and come back steaming ahead.

Quote: TheCesspit

I'd be quite happy to see parties take a much longer approach to change, far too often there's change for change's sake before we really know if the last change was successful or not.

There is little real change in USA policy when we change parties. Some stuff around the edges.

If anybody thinks a Republican is due to be the next president, my betting window is open.

My personal opinion is voters have a very short memory, like one year. Whoever the more charismatic candidate is at the time will win.

Quote: Ayecarumba

The topic of a change to a six year term for the president has been raised by Bush-Clinton. It would allow for more time to actually get things done, rather than working for two years, then campaigning for two.

The no re-election policy is huge in Mexico. Presidents serve a single 6 year term.

In the USA, governors of 36 states and 4 territories are subject to various term limits, while the governors of 14 states, Puerto Rico, and the Mayor of Washington, D.C., may serve an unlimited number of times. Many mayorial positions have term limits. I am not aware of any political position in the USA with a "no re-election" policy.

In theory at the next election you could vote out the party (instead of the person), but in the Mexican political party(called Partido Revolucionario Institucional, PRI since January 18, 1946) held power in the country for 71 years .

There was a cynical joke I heard about the single six year presidency. Each president spends the first two years pledging transparency and political reform while using this time to destroy his political enemies. The next two years are when the president becomes as wealthy as possible. He then spends the final two years trying to find and support a candidate for successor who will not hunt him down in the first two year's of the next presidency.

I can't find a reference to it on the internet.