Hacker News Reader

Comment by devonkim | Hacker News Reader

The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.

View on HN

>The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan.

The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.

Technically FDR was elected to 4 terms (not 3), but died in the 4th.

Didn't he die in his 3rd term? Truman was re-elected on his own in 1948.

FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 (death, succeeded by Truman); Truman in 1948.

Thanks. I should've looked that up before commenting!

Yep, and the Republicans did it 3 more times before that. And then there's Jackson/Van Buren three terms Dem which immediately follows the first big run of Thomas Jefferson and co running 7 terms as the Democratic-Republican party.

So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.

So when the 22nd amendment was passed to limit the president to two terms in 1951 that seems to have changed the dynamics considerably.

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have a good control group to be able to know for certain. I think there is some psychological effect the term limit has on voters. For many the end of a second terms appeals to them as an opportunity of a fresh start (for better or worse), which may translate into electing a leader from a different party.

That is certainly true; its very hard for a political party in a genuine liberal democracy to hold onto power for more than 2 or 3 4/5 year cycles.

The problem with that analysis in this particular case is that it is an attempt to normalise what is a fundamentally abnormal election (which is what a lot of people unfamiliar with the historical and current European and international politics generally are guilty of doing through ignorance). This wasn't a normal change of the guards, and is part of a trend that we are seeing across the world. A charisma candidate that is frankly unsuited for office, with almost no real institutional support from any recognisable political peers, and a disdain for the norms of liberal democracy just beat in a head to head contest a candidate that is fundamentally a normal, if flawed, candidate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com