History and two term Presidents
As we approach the final weeks of this campaign, there are a few things to remember besides Barack Obama’s voodoo economics of giving almost everyone a tax cut while paying for everyone’s health care and increasing government spending while balancing the budget by the light of the silvery moon.
And that is there are a lot of things that impact Presidential contests that have nothing to do with the candidates or the campaigns.
Chief among these truths is the historical fact that the party of two-term presidents almost never keeps the White House.
For well over the past 100 years, Ronald Reagan has been the lone two-term President whose party’s non-incumbent kept the White House after running twice and leaving office.
Even the multi-term FDR’s successor, Truman, was President by the time he had to run. But look through history’s list. The two successive wins by Clinton, Nixon, Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson. Besides, Reagan, you have to go back to Ulysses S. Grant to find a President who won twice and then was succeeded by a non-President of his own party, and that was decided by a Congressional commission (Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote and the electoral college was contested). It’s that rare. It’s another testament to the greatness of Reagan that George H. W. Bush won so soundly after Reagan’s consecutive victories.
The country has a long history of trying the other party after electing the same person twice in a row. That’s what John McCain is fighting. Obama’s campaign is no different from Clinton’s 16 years ago, or Carter’s 32 years ago, or Kennedy’s 48 years ago (16 year cycles?).
But, Democrats beware. The Republican resurgence after these leftward tilts were of landslide proportions. Yes, they’re cyclical too, but they were enough to launch Nixon, Reagan and the only Republican Congress in over a century.
Plus the fact that since the 70s winner of Virginia’s Governorship is usually whatever party isn’t in the White House. (Yes, Clinton gave us Allen and Glimore and Bush gave us Warner and Kaine, just like Reagan/Bush gave us Robb/Balilies/Wilder. At least Carter gave us John Dalton)
That’s what McCain is fighting against. It’s not the economy and it’s not Obama’s campaign. It’s not health care. It’s that Ronald Reagan isn’t in the White House, but a Republican is.
Will McCain defy 150 years of history?
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
I think the answer to this is fairly obvious. After eight years in office, none of the Presidents fufilled their campaign promises.
The reason for that is simple as well. You can’t please all the people all the time. Also, after eight years in office it’s easy for the opposing party to cherry pick all the flaws of that Presidents policies and then promise their guy or girl can do better.
I’ve been saying this for a while, at the very start of the campaign season. Maybe McCain should have become a Democrat. Think he would have better chances then?
While the last eight years may help to solidify an Obama win, I think the hurdles he has overcome to arrive where he is now levels the playing field a bit. If Obama wins, it will be due in a small part because a Republican has been president the past eight years, and in a large part because of who Obama is and how he has campaigned.
Admittedly, a McCain win would be impressive. Unfortunately, and many of us know this, his win will likely not be attributed to his character or how well he ran his campaign.
I can’t believe I am saying I hope McCain manages to pull off a win, but I do. If Obama does win, I think you nailed it when you said a Republican landslide will follow once we realize the error of our ways.
It amazes me that Obama is running on a Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid agenda and winning. History and the economy must be the reasons. Come on, W’s approval ratings are low, but the approval ratings for the Congress are lower. But voters often vote with their hearts instead of their heads.
If reason prevails, McCain will triumph. Let’s hope for that.
By no means is this race over. What I am saying is that if McCain pulls it off, he’ll do what no one has done in over 150 years – win while being on the heels of a two-term Presidential winner of the same party who has low approval ratings.
No. Even if McCain did – he would do it by being a not-Bush/ not-GOP.
Not that Bush or the GOP, or McCain have any idea what they stand for anymore…
Brian,
Just to clarify and make sure it’s out there, I appreciate your insights in this post. Great job!
Now…do you want a cookie as well?
Nah….just a beer.
Perhaps McCain wouldn’t be sinking in the polls if he had tapped someone more reasonable then Palin for VP? I know the pundits say VP selections do not decide elections, but I wonder if this instance might prove them wrong.
I really, really like McCain. I had pretty much decided that McCain was going to get my vote as long as he picked a good VP (remember, old man Reagan had George H. W. Bush as a VP) and then McCain announced he had selected Palin. He rallied the base and alienated moderates.
I really like McCain, however it is a package deal. With Palin on the ticket under old man McCain I am probably going to end up voting for Obama. I’m still not quite sure. I have looked at my ballot and eliminated every other candidate other then Chuck Baldwin thus far. Chuck is running under the “Independent Green Pary” so I doubt he’s going to swing my vote, but I am going to look into it. Obama is probably going to end up getting my vote and the blame for this falls on the uncompromising conservatives who insisted on someone like Palin for VP.
David, if your support is so fickle that you’d change a vote for McCain to Chuck Baldwin all because of your dread of Palin, I feel bad for you.
With your constant use of the term “old man” I wonder how well sexism goes with your ageism.
Quit playing your ageism/ sexism cards.
Palin is too risky and far too dangerous for our nation to take even a chance that she could become President. She has demonstrated a lack of logical thinking, an inability to grasp difficult issues, a clannish abuse of power, an absent desire to learn more about the difficult issues facing our nation today, and perhaps most importantly, her insecurity combined with arrogance results in her being an individual who uses authority in responses/ policy to cover for all of the proceeding. She is a dangerous choice.
Fortunately most independents and Democrats, and many Republicans have reached similar conclusions and will be casting votes against her – and McCain whose judgement led him to risk our nation’s future on someone so utterly unqualified.
Brian,
I think you are uninformed if you do not understand that the age of our President might be of concern. During his second term in office Ronald Reagan’s presidentlial briefs had to be cut shorter and shorter just so that he would not fall asleep during them. Age does matter. With age comes the increased concern for age related health issues. How many young men/women end up in nursing homes?
As for Baldwin, I eliminated him after just a few seconds of research on the internet. Chuck Baldwin got Ron Paul’s endorsement and that was enough for me. My vote is going for Obama. I am not an enthusiastic supporter of Obama mind you, do not ask me to campaign for him, it is just that I can not cast my vote for McCain with Palin as VP.
Mark? You use a term like “clannish” and tell ME to stop playing race cards?
LittleDavid, if presidential briefs are anything like your comments, I can understand someone falling asleep during them.
Voting for inexperienced Obama because you think McCain’s VP would be inexperienced, even though she’s more experienced than Obama?
You were better off when you were attacking old people.
Brian,
Well my comments were not so boring that it put you to sleep, you responded to them!
I do not object to Palin due to her experience, only due to her politics. John McCain selected a right wing extremist to sit behind him ready to grab the reigns. Look at her stance on birth control. She got pregnant and gave birth while serving as governor. I do not want an 8 or 9 months pregnant Commander in Chief.
What was John McCain thinking when he tapped Sarah Palin? Perhaps he already is starting to show signs he is getting senile.
WOW!
So you don’t want a woman in office who might actually get pregnant.
I need to say nothing more.
Wow, Brian Kirwin seems to think a woman being pregnant is not demanding upon the woman.
Wow indeed.
LittleDi…er, David.
I said no such thing, as evidenced by your wimp-ass “seems to think” wording.
Tell me, Undersized, why do you think women can’t handle “demanding?” Is it personal experience?
Brian – I knew you were whiny, but I didn’t realize you were sooooooo sensitive (or simply illiterate?) Go find yourself a dictionary and look up the term “clan”. Clannish defines Palin’s record of appointments and retributions perfectly.
Mark, is that all you got? Dictionaries?
Please, someone find me a commenter worth the time.
I think I hurt poor little B’s feelings.
What a real conservative – not a GOP-slave – logical perspective on Palin and by default McCain?
Read Peggy Noonan’s WSJ column:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122419210832542317.html
I don’t see Noonan saying anything about pregnancy.
Brian,
Go back and read your own short post where you said:
“So you don’t want a woman in office who might actually get pregnant.”
You were dead on with what I do not want, at least if the office we are talking about is Commander in Chief. I do not think it was too much of a stretch for me to understand from your comment that you did not have a problem with it. That the stress levels of being CIC might be too much for a pregnant woman.
While serving as a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy every woman who served under me who got pregnant would, after only a few months into her pregnancy, show up with a light duty chit from her Navy doctor. Then as her delivery date drew near she would go on maternity leave where all she had to do was sit and home and mind her and her baby in the wombs health and show up for her doctor’s appointments.
Now I never questioned the justification for this because I thought pregnant women deserved this special consideration. But if Sarah Palin is going to prove a pregnant woman can serve as Commander In Chief with all the stresses involved then I guess all the pregnant women who served under me where really just malingerers.
I think not. I still think pregnant women deserve special consideration and I think Sarah Palin’s personal viewpoint on birth control makes her unsuitable to be the person waiting to grab the reigns from John McCain if something should happen to him.
I really like John McCain, but if John wants my vote he has to ditch Sarah. That’s not likely to happen, so I guess I am going to have to vote for Obama.
[...] Kirwin began the discussion by saying what he’s said before about election cycles and how there is hope for conservatives heading into the midterm election. He also expressed his [...]
3TQtY5WNka2YZ