In the past 96 years it has happened only once, and that was by an incumbent, which is no longer legal.
So it will defy history, should the Dems win this Presidential election. On top of that it will either be a woman or a Jewish Democratic Socialist, — also defying history.
No wonder, every Joe Blow is persisting so, to win the Republican nomination, since if history tells the tale, one of them will be our next President.
I don’t know, seems rather arbitrary, not really a FORCE of history. 2 term presidents have been more normal recently. This just doesn’t take into account everything that is going with the parties themselves right now.
In the past 96 years it has happened only once, and that was by an incumbent, which is no longer legal. So it will defy history, should the Dems win this Presidential election. On top of that it will either be a woman or a Jewish Democratic Socialist,—- also defying history. No wonder, every Joe Blow is persisting so, to win the Republican nomination, since if history tells the tale, one of them will be our next President.It's actually been 217 years Tim since Washington's first inauguration, and the Founders left out the term limitations originally stated in the Articles Government. Washington saw the potential for an entrenched president and ducked out after two terms, setting a precedent followed by his successors until Roosevelt. The 22nd Amendment now prevents us from voting for Obama again. So that leaves me wishing for a Social-Dem Jew or a woman for the high office. Either one would be fine with me. I favor Bernie's platform but unfortunately the moderates see him as to "out there" whatever the hell that means. Hillary is more electable IMO. And let's hope History is wrong because Trump's looking more and more like he's going to be the nominee for the Repubs. And the more outrageous his comments e.g. Rubio is a P...., the more his rabid followers cheer him on. He's at least 20 points ahead of the rest of the pack with no one closing in on him. Cap't Jack
As always I appreciate your input and clarification of historical matters. Here is a quote from the federalist.com that "fills out" my point: "In the modern two-party era (beginning with the first Republican Party presidential campaign in 1856), there have been 16 elections following the re-election of an incumbent president; in 11 of those races, there was no incumbent on the ballot. An analysis of those elections shows a startlingly uniform pattern over time: the incumbent party (i.e., the party that won the last election) consistently lost ground relative to the challenger party (the party out of power), especially when running without an incumbent on the ballot. And in nearly every such election, that loss of popular support was evident in closely-divided battleground states, rather than confined to uncompetitive states. The trend has persisted in winning and losing elections, in elections with and without third-party challengers, in times of war and peace, booms and depressions. It has become more, rather than less, pronounced in the years since World War II, and at all times has been more pronounced when the incumbent party is the Democrats." Certainly, this election cycle seems different than those we (who have lived through some) are familiar with, so who knows what will happen, and therein lies some hope, but any sense of complacency about the Democrats assuredly winning, is, I think, misplaced.In the past 96 years it has happened only once, and that was by an incumbent, which is no longer legal. So it will defy history, should the Dems win this Presidential election. On top of that it will either be a woman or a Jewish Democratic Socialist,—- also defying history. No wonder, every Joe Blow is persisting so, to win the Republican nomination, since if history tells the tale, one of them will be our next President.It's actually been 217 years Tim since Washington's first inauguration, and the Founders left out the term limitations originally stated in the Articles Government. Washington saw the potential for an entrenched president and ducked out after two terms, setting a precedent followed by his successors until Roosevelt. The 22nd Amendment now prevents us from voting for Obama again. So that leaves me wishing for a Social-Dem Jew or a woman for the high office. Either one would be fine with me. I favor Bernie's platform but unfortunately the moderates see him as to "out there" whatever the hell that means. Hillary is more electable IMO. And let's hope History is wrong because Trump's looking more and more like he's going to be the nominee for the Repubs. And the more outrageous his comments e.g. Rubio is a P...., the more his rabid followers cheer him on. He's at least 20 points ahead of the rest of the pack with no one closing in on him. Cap't Jack
In the past 96 years it has happened only once, and that was by an incumbent, which is no longer legal. So it will defy history, should the Dems win this Presidential election. On top of that it will either be a woman or a Jewish Democratic Socialist, --- also defying history. No wonder, every Joe Blow is persisting so, to win the Republican nomination, since if history tells the tale, one of them will be our next President.No matter how many times a coin flip comes up heads, the odds that the next flip will be heads are still 50/50. With this crop of self-defeating Republicans, we are almost guaranteed another third-in-a-row Democrat--fortunately for all of us. Lois
No matter how many times a coin flip comes up heads, the odds that the next flip will be heads are still 50/50. LoisWe're flippin' a coin this year to decide the election? How did I not here about this?
When you put it that way Tim, it almost makes sense. I admit I have been caught off guard by the swings back to conservatism in my lifetime. Liberals (very broad brush here) suffer from a short attention span. If there is a problem, like kids being shot, or dirty water, they’re great, they fight like hell. But once the battle is won, they forget there is a larger war. Conservatives also have short attention spans, but they forget things like how their last hero screwed them or what America used to actually be, which is something no one really wants back.
Anyway, we need to take this joke seriously, or it won’t be funny once it becomes president.
Both Conservatives and Liberals in this country can barely meet the standards within their own ideological group let alone applying positive benefits to the electorate at large.
Conservatives have pandered to their electorate for decades while actually only serving a relative minority of wealthy interests.
Liberals have pandered to too many side-issues which are somewhat noble but have used too much political currency wastefully while not using that clout across the wider electorate.
For example this late rush to the Church by Dems concerning wages is a couple decades late and a dollar short.
Both parties have sinned in this manner. That’s why we have the phenomenon of Sanders/Trump.
No matter how many times a coin flip comes up heads, the odds that the next flip will be heads are still 50/50. LoisWe're flippin' a coin this year to decide the election? How did I not here about this? It's the same every four years.
Certainly, this election cycle seems different than those we (who have lived through some) are familiar with, so who knows what will happen, and therein lies some hope, but any sense of complacency about the Democrats assuredly winning, is, I think, misplaced.You'd think the Democrats would have learned all the lessons they needed about complacency in 2000, but nah. Maybe it'll be better this year, we can hope.
Certainly, this election cycle seems different than those we (who have lived through some) are familiar with, so who knows what will happen, and therein lies some hope, but any sense of complacency about the Democrats assuredly winning, is, I think, misplaced.You'd think the Democrats would have learned all the lessons they needed about complacency in 2000, but nah. Maybe it'll be better this year, we can hope. CC, Tim and I had a heated discussion in the "Overton Window" thread concerning this. TimB might not think there's a connection...I do. It bounces off what you said above. The Democrats have forgotten far more lessons than whatever you're referring to in 2000. What you're referring to in 2000 is exactly what Tim is talking about in this thread. The pendulum swings East, then the Pendulum swings West. My argument was: if the Democrats apparently represent the majority of the people, and the majority of the people are so called "naturally liberal"(as we often hear..and I agree with) then how in the hell do the Dems justify being pulled to the center right so often? How do they justify the complete collapse of labor? They can't...because they are shills. They haven't learned any lessons and they aren't interested in learning any lessons. That is the main reason the pendulum swings. If the majority of the people are being taken care of then guess what? They're going to keep picking winners.