Is it normal that democrats havent succeeded two democratic terms since 1836 ?

63% Normal
22 Comments

History seems to think so!

1836, the Democratic Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson by defeating four Whig candidates

The only other time since 1836 is when President Franklin D. Roosevelt succeeded himself in 1940 by running for an unprecedented third term. (This one doesnt really count now since he was only succeeded by himself, not by a different Democrat, and now we have a strict two-term limit for Presidents)

Since then, they never succeed past two terms.

So i'd say the probability of a Democrat winning in 2016 is next to nil.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to hold power longer and have more Republican successors. So it is more likely that when Republicans win in 2016, they won't lose the Presidency again until 2024 at minimum, but maybe 2028 or later !

Voting Results
63% Normal
Based on 8 votes (5 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 22 )
  • donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
    8 years ago

    who fuckin cares

    fuck politics fuck politicians and fuck nonstop coverage of a clown show leadin up to an election thats STILL 13 FUCKIN MONTHS AWAY

    if any of them assholes was in my yard id shoot em down in a fuckin second without a single thought bout it

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • DonaldDump
    8 years ago

    The Democrats are losers. Trump is a winner.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • [Old Memory]
    8 years ago

    Democrats and republicans both work for the same.

    My biggest issue with Trump is that he is a billionare, which tells me that he will be more concerned about the corperations because he doesnt know how it is to live like a regular man with no money.

    What we need is an average joe citizen to be president. Someone who knows whats its like to have to work to get by and can sympathize with the average american,

    someone who has not experienced poverity cannot empathize with the average low income worker.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • billygoatgruff
    8 years ago

    After FDR was reelected for a fourth term, he passed away almost at the beginning of that term and was replaced by Harry Truman. Harry Truman, after serving one term in place of FDR, than ran for a second term himself and was reelected. So together FDR and Truman served a combined 5 terms and 20 years.

    I disagree with your reasoning for doing so, but even if you want to disregard FDR's third term, that is still 4 consecutive terms. If you disregard Truman's first term because you say it was really FDR's 4th term, that still leave 3 consecutive terms.

    Any way you slice it, your two term facts are wrong.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Darktown
      8 years ago

      I mayhave misunderstood. Its from this article. Comfusing stuff.

      http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/01/historic-re-election-pattern-doesnt-favor-democrats-in-2016/

      Any way you slice it, things look pretty grim for the Dems.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • billygoatgruff
        8 years ago

        I don't have to read an article to be aware of Presidential succession. But I can tell you that in modern times for either party, more than two terms has been a struggle. In the 66 years between the end of Truman's administration and the 2016 election, holding the office more than 2 terms has occurred only 1 time. It was the Republican's, when Reagan and H.W Bush served a combined 3 terms. But that is a 66 year time period immediately following a 20 year 5 term hold by the Dems. To suggest that Republicans are any better at it than the Democrats I think is a stretch. I suspect your source is choosing to understand the facts in a way that supports their predetermined point.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Darktown
          8 years ago

          Alright, so at least we agree that after 0bama's second term is up, the ball goes back to the other team, which will make all the yardage gained by the Dems for nothing

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • billygoatgruff
            8 years ago

            No, we don't agree on that. I said it has been difficult in modern history for either party to hold more than two terms, I didn't say it was impossible. I don't think the 2008 election or the 2000 election or the 1980 election and so fourth dictates the result of the 2016 election. It is 13 months away and we don't even know who the candidates are. I think it is a bit early to call it for either party.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Darktown
              8 years ago

              Well we know Trump will be the republican nominee. The question is who will the democratic nominee be. If Biden runs, it will be him, if not, probably Sanders. Hillary likely wont make it to the starting gate what with all her problems. But either way, Trump would beat Sanders or Biden easily so unless the Dems can pull a rabbit out of a hat i dont see it happening

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • thegypsysailor
    8 years ago

    Uh, what about JFK/Lyndon B. Johnson? Am I missing something there? Wasn't that two consecutive Democratic administrations? And that's just off the top of my head.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Darktown
      8 years ago

      Read it again. Dems never succeed AFTER they have had two consecutive terms. We just had two Dem terms (Obama followed by Obama), so their time is definitely up according to long term statistics.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      2
      2
        -
      • thegypsysailor
        8 years ago

        One man twice is not two consecutive terms, as you were describing it, IMO.
        If we have the Republicans for the next 16 years it will be the end of the US as we know it. There will be no middle class, no affordable college loans, no help for those in need and a HUGE deficit. Immigration will be completely out of hand and law and order will not exist for the poor.
        But hey, life will be great for the 1%. Are you one of the 1%?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        3
        3
          -
        • DonaldTrump
          8 years ago

          You sound like a Communist.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • thegypsysailor
            8 years ago

            I really don't think your ears are working very well. When is the last time you cleaned the bullshit out of them?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
        • Darktown
          8 years ago

          Sounds good to me. And yeah, i'm Jewish so i am in the top 1%. Well probably more like top 2% if you dont count my family but i'll be top 1% soon enough :)

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1