Third Term Presidency

Quote: Wizard

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: Pacomartin

A brokered convention refers to a situation in which no single candidate has secured a pre-existing majority of delegates prior to the first official vote for a political party's presidential candidate at its nominating convention. Through most of the US history brokered conventions were the norm.

The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.

1948 Harry S. Truman-303; Thomas E. Dewey-189; Strom Thurmond-39
1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower-442; Adlai Stevenson-89
1968 Richard Nixon-301; Hubert Humphrey-191; George Wallace-46
1976 Jimmy Carter-297; Gerald Ford-240
1980 Ronald Reagan-489; Jimmy Carter-49
1984 Ronald Reagan-515; Walter Mondale-13
1988 George H. W. Bush-426; Michael Dukakis-111

A "nearly" brokered candidate is one that "nearly" went to multiple ballots, as they had no clear candidacy before the election, but the situation was settled by some arrangements or decisions just before the convention which allowed them to be chosen on the first ballot.

I guess we have two political traditions, both running for about the same length of time (since Harry Truman).
(1) Out of 2 brokered candidates and 5 "nearly" brokered candidates the have been zero winners in the general election.
(2) Only one time has a party won a third term.

Tradition (1) says the Republican candidate won't win if come the election he/she is a brokered or near brokered candidate. It's based on the belief that if a party can't get unanimously behind a candidate, than the undecided voters won't either.

Tradition (2) says the Democratic candidate won't follow President Obama's two terms. It's based on the belief that people want change after a while as the "bad" is more memorable than the "good".

Personally, I think that Tradition (1) is more descriptive of human nature. If the Republican candidate's were not motivated by personal gain, at least 9 of them would quit immediately.

These two traditions converged in 1952. Truman was very unpopular after 4 Democratic terms all won by FDR. Truman had served 3.5 years of FDR's fourth term. But Truman was battling a "brokered candidate" and Truman won.


The two traditions nearly converged in 1988. Although Reagan had been very popular for two terms, his VP George Bush was not as well liked. But Michael Dukakis was the product of a "nearly" brokered convention, and G. Bush won.

Quote: Pacomartin

The two traditions nearly converged in 1988. Although Reagan had been very popular for two terms, his VP George Bush was not as well liked. But Michael Dukakis was the product of a "nearly" brokered convention, and G. Bush won.

We have unusual history going on right now, however. I cannot remember a time when one party has basically cleared the field so well for a candidate in an open election. The brokering has effectively happened before a ballot has been cast.

John Murtha was a congressman from Pennsylvania. Although he was a Democrat, he was also an Army Colonel in the Vietnam war, so he was highly respected by Republicans. Murtha was targeted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress, but he was impervious to scandal. Several times His campaign actually used to pay a dentist who lived in the small city in his district to run against him. It sounds strange but campaign contributions go to practically zero if you have no opposing candidate.

In 2004 Murtha ran unopposed, but he raised $2,271,169 in contributions and spent $1,559,185
In 2002 Murtha was opposed by the dentist. He raised $2,405,385 and spent $2,386,861, his opponent raised and spent $17,584

Quote: AZDuffman

We have unusual history going on right now, however. I cannot remember a time when one party has basically cleared the field so well for a candidate in an open election. The brokering has effectively happened before a ballot has been cast.

I kind of think of John Murtha's elections when I think of Martin O'Malley. One would think that his career is finished by opposing the anointed Democratic candidate, but I think he is part of the machinery.

Quote: Pacomartin

I kind of think of John Murtha's elections when I think of Martin O'Malley. One would think that his career is finished by opposing the anointed Democratic candidate, but I think he is part of the machinery.

I'm not seeing the big conspiracy here. Hilary is the only name on the Democratic side. O'Malley is a no-name outside of Maryland. Also, few voters want to waste their vote on somebody with no chance, unless he wants to make a statement vote on somebody like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.

In conclusion, Hilary isn't the big favorite because the "machinery" appointed her but because she is a big name opposed by no-names.

Quote: Wizard

In conclusion, Hilary isn't the big favorite because the "machinery" appointed her but because she is a big name opposed by no-names.

I think you missed the point of my post. John Murtha wasn't the overwhelming favorite to win his district because of machinery, but because he was likeable, and the first Vietnam veteran to run for office. But after a while nobody wanted to bother to run against him, and he was frequently unopposed. He was not raising as much money for re-election because there was no interest. By his tenth election, his campaign was giving money to the Republicans just so he had some opposition.

I don't think the Democratic presidential candidate race is a big conspiracy, but I think the Democrats probably urged Martin Malley to run just so their was some opposition to Hillary. Unopposed candidates bring out a cynicism in the voters. But I don't think that Martin Malley will become a pariah in the Democratic party.

It is different than in 2012 when President Obama had four Democratic contenders that qualified for convention delegates.
Attorney John Wolfe, Jr.,
Prison inmate Keith Russell Judd,
Perennial candidate Jim Rogers, and
Pro-life activist Randall Terry.

I think that if a Democratic governor or ex-governor had run against President Obama, he would risk becoming a pariah within his own party.

Now Ronald Reagan ran a campaign against incumbent President Ford, but he didn't end up a pariah. But President Ford had never been elected.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think the Democratic presidential candidate race is a big conspiracy, but I think the Democrats probably urged Martin Malley to run just so their was some opposition to Hillary. Unopposed candidates bring out a cynicism in the voters. But I don't think that Martin Malley will become a pariah in the Democratic party.

I don't think we disagree but I just didn't like the "machinery" comment. I don't dispute O'Malley may have been asked to run by the party but I also think he may have a long-term plan to keep running every open election until he is noticed. He is young so can play the long game.

Quote: Wizard

I don't think we disagree but I just didn't like the "machinery" comment. I don't dispute O'Malley may have been asked to run by the party but I also think he may have a long-term plan to keep running every open election until he is noticed. He is young so can play the long game.

Isn't the long term grooming of a candidate and the populace by the party the definition of "machine"?

Historically, Vice-Presidents have always been natural contenders for the top job. Joe Biden had a chance to shake things up this cycle, but appears to have been forced out for the good of the Clinton steamroller. I will not be surprised if he was promised a cushy ambassadorship to give it up.

Quote: Wizard

In conclusion, Hilary isn't the big favorite because the "machinery" appointed her but because she is a big name opposed by no-names.

The machinery cleared the field for her. Debbie Schultz likely did much behind the scenes to keep other candidates out. Did every possible name Democrat candidate decide they just did not want to run?

Quote: AZDuffman

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

I wish more people understood how well this represents reality.

I wonder if 1984 [which HRC said was her favorite book], and animal farm are still required reading in school?

Quote: petroglyph

I wonder if 1984 [which HRC said was her favorite book], and animal farm are still required reading in school?

Never read Animal Farm but loved 1984
The movie was filmed where the book took place in 1984 :-)
The movie stayed very true to the book :-)

In todays world, China reminds me of 1984 in how they monitor the internet