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.
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.
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
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.
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
No I don't think we know any of that. The primaries are an impossible thing to call. People like to look at national polls, but they are completely irrelevant In the primaries. That is because the cacuses/primaries are not a single, national election, they take place over months and the candidates change over that time.
If you go back to the early 70's which is pretty much how far back the modern primarily line up goes, whoever wins 2 out of the first 3 contests has always one the nomination, making the other 47 states almost irrelevant. The only exception to that is Bill Clinton in 92 because the first 3 were won by 3 different people, but he did win one of the three.
That is not just coincidence, there is a very specific reason for it. The big money starts to hedge their bets and they start to thrown it all behind the candidates that win early. This results in most of the other candidates dropping out of the race because their campaign coffers run dry.
This makes this year's Republican primary far harder to predict than the Democratic one. Because there are so many candidates in the polls that you can't know where those votes will go once everyone starts to drop out, so you can't even trust the polling for the early states. I would expect after the Iowa Caucuses, at least half the field will drop out, and even more after New Hampshire. So by the time you get to South Carolina, you have maybe 3 to 5 candidates in the race. So how can we take seriously a poll with 15 candidates? 25% - 30% suppourt Trump in most polls. But what really matters is who will the 70% - 75% of people who don't support Trump swing their suppourt to when their candidate drops out. That is why McCain won the nomination in 2008. He was not expected to win the nomination, but after he pulled out NH enough candidates dropped out that the Evangelical vote in SC got split between two people, and he won SC which the polls shoes him doing nothing in. The front runner that year Rudy Giuliani dropped out after FL winning no primaries, and with 46 states still waiting for their turn to vote.
I know that you are a big Trump supporter, and you certainly have cause to be excited about the current position of your candidate. But for the same rrasons early front runners often don't win, it is far from a lock. It could go down exactly as you discribed, but there are a lot of other possibilities too.
IIN that Democrats havent succeeded two Democratic terms since 1836 ?
← View full post
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.
--
Darktown
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
Darktown
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
Darktown
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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
--
billygoatgruff
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
No I don't think we know any of that. The primaries are an impossible thing to call. People like to look at national polls, but they are completely irrelevant In the primaries. That is because the cacuses/primaries are not a single, national election, they take place over months and the candidates change over that time.
If you go back to the early 70's which is pretty much how far back the modern primarily line up goes, whoever wins 2 out of the first 3 contests has always one the nomination, making the other 47 states almost irrelevant. The only exception to that is Bill Clinton in 92 because the first 3 were won by 3 different people, but he did win one of the three.
That is not just coincidence, there is a very specific reason for it. The big money starts to hedge their bets and they start to thrown it all behind the candidates that win early. This results in most of the other candidates dropping out of the race because their campaign coffers run dry.
This makes this year's Republican primary far harder to predict than the Democratic one. Because there are so many candidates in the polls that you can't know where those votes will go once everyone starts to drop out, so you can't even trust the polling for the early states. I would expect after the Iowa Caucuses, at least half the field will drop out, and even more after New Hampshire. So by the time you get to South Carolina, you have maybe 3 to 5 candidates in the race. So how can we take seriously a poll with 15 candidates? 25% - 30% suppourt Trump in most polls. But what really matters is who will the 70% - 75% of people who don't support Trump swing their suppourt to when their candidate drops out. That is why McCain won the nomination in 2008. He was not expected to win the nomination, but after he pulled out NH enough candidates dropped out that the Evangelical vote in SC got split between two people, and he won SC which the polls shoes him doing nothing in. The front runner that year Rudy Giuliani dropped out after FL winning no primaries, and with 46 states still waiting for their turn to vote.
I know that you are a big Trump supporter, and you certainly have cause to be excited about the current position of your candidate. But for the same rrasons early front runners often don't win, it is far from a lock. It could go down exactly as you discribed, but there are a lot of other possibilities too.