. . .chances are they will be his last!
I don’t recall any political “dynasty” lasting for more than twleve years, the last one being the Reagan-Bush dynasty of 81-93. Why is this? Do presidental candidates have a hand in this by picking weak running mates? Does the public go out of its way in the name of change? Is the VP a poor internship for the presidency? Or is it something else entirely?
SterlingNorth
McCain in 2004
SterlingNorth:
I disagree. I think whoever wins this fall has a strong chance of reelection, if the economy stays strong.
If not, …
Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.
-Thomas Paine (fugitive slave catcher)
I disagree too. If I remember correctly only two presidents that ran for re-election were defeated. One of those being Bush.
An independent who would have voted for McCain. Will NOT vote for Bush.
FDR was elected four times, his VP Truman once.
Also, just because something hasn’t happened yet is not in itself proof that something can’t happen
Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat
Well, there is the business cycle. I don’t think we’ve tamed it yet, just had a good long boom.
With the overvaluation of tech stocks according to classical measurements, we may be headed for a downturn and recession, as we weed out all the losers in the internet world. If so, Gore is doomed on general principles; I don’t think even Washington could survive such a recession.
No matter where you go, there you are.
hehe single dad… 666 posts
however the internet hasent gone down yet it could turn down now or in 4 years. I think both gore and bush are doomed to incompetency(is that a word? :))
In addition to the sixteen year Democrat FDR-Truman “dynasty” Larry Borgia already mentioned, there was also a sixteen Republican run of McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft.
Ah, technical glitch. That’s what I missed most about this board. Anyway there were supposed to be some additional words following my repost of Little Nemo’s post. I’ll try again.
I remember saying that the FDR situation is now illegal, thanks to an amendment to the Constitution. Since then, I don’t recall any vice president serving more than one term as president (including Harry S Truman). Again I ask, Why? (Did Truman run again?)
Maybe an unintended consequence.
I think I also said that SingleDad made an interesting observation about the business cycle. Carter and Bush (the elder) were victims of quality of life. Why didn’t I remember to think of that?
But the question in my first post still stands. Do presidental candidates have a hand in this by picking weak running mates? Does the public go out of its way in the name of change? Is the VP a poor internship for the presidency? Or is it something completely different?
if they are victims of quality of life then they should be good enough presidents to improve the quality of life to be reelected
By dping what? How should our president really do anything about our economy, beyond appointing the federal reserve chairman?
You know, doing what is right is easy. The problem is knowing what is right.
–Lyndon B. Johnson
Sorry, Sterling, I guess I misunderstood your OP. I thought you were commenting on how long a particular party could hold on to the White House before the public decided on change for change’s sake.
I agree that the Vice President’s office is often a poor place to look for Presidential material. Most VP’s are chosen for one of two reasons; either they’re a second tier politician who agrees with the President (Quayle, Bush, Mondale, Humphrey, Nixon, Truman, and Gore would fit in this category) or they’re a leader of a faction that the President is trying to co-opt (both Johnsons, Rockefeller, Bentsen, Theodore Roosevelt, Wallace, and Garner fit this category). But there have been effective Presidents to emerge from both categories: Nixon and Truman both started out as “shadows” of the strong Presidents they served under, but both became effective Presidents when it was their time.
Little Nemo- just to be contrary for contrary’s sake, I think Nixon falls more into the category of ‘faction leader that the Presidential candidate was trying to co-opt’. Nixon was one of the leading McCarthy-ites in the early '50’s, and Eisenhower’s selection of Nixon was partially an appeasement to McCarthy and his backers.
As for political dynasties and long runs- the longest run of single-party control of the White House is FDR and Truman’s 1932-1952 control (“The only way a Republican is going to get into the White House these days is to marry Margaret Truman” -Groucho Marx, 1949), seconded by Republican control from 1868-1884 (actually exceeded, should you consider Andrew Johnson a Republican given that he was Lincoln’s VP, in which case Republican control lasted from 1861-1884).
As for Gore/Bush Jr. being a one-termer, I think it depends upon two things. First, the timing and severity of the inevitable recession. No good economic times last forever, though for some reason at the height of every boom comes some new bizarre theory as to why this boom will never end (“Tech stocks, don’t you understand? Why, the Internet is immune to recession!”). If the recession hits in 2001-2002, the President might pull things out enough by 2004 to make a strong re-election campaign; conversely, should the recession wait until 2005 or later, well, no problems there. But should it hit in 2002 or 2003, well, remember our dear un-re-elected George Bush Sr. and Jimmy Carter.
The second issue is Congressional control. As much as we hear “The American people don’t want this gridlock in government!” the American people seem to be bent upon keeping the Presidency and Congress in the hands of different parties. Thus, in many ways I think the next President’s success will come down to how much of his own failures he can blame upon the other party’s control of Congress (see Harry Truman for a brilliant example of this- he managed to blame all of the country’s problems on a “Do-nothing Republican Congress” and won an out-of-nowhere victory). I think that Bush Jr. also has a serious obstacle here- should he win the election and the Republicans keep control the House, there will be a lot of pressure on him to actually fulfill his (and Congress’) promises. The same pressure from Democrats in '93 and '94 helped screw up Clinton’s presidency and got the Republicans to control Congress for the first time in forty-odd years.
JMCJ
Give to Radiskull!
threemae, many of the presidents initiative effect business. Let’s see, calling for greater spending, dealing with oil producers, trade agreements with other countries, new laws that inhibit business such as the ADA, and so on…
This comes from the OP to John Corrado’s Is the Vice-Presidency Morally Destructive thread. I find that an interesting hypothesis. George Bush, who popularized the term “Voo-Doo Economics” (though he never had a firm grasp of speaking, John) had to sell out in becoming Gipper’s VP. But supposedly it’s seen as the good springboard into the Presidency. But was there a chance of him being president without Reagan? Could Bush have made a good president without being VP? However I’d say that the VP isn’t any more corrupting than any other position of power. I’ll give it more thought and post it in your own thread.
Anyway, I’m glad I’m not the only one skeptical about the “internet economy”.
I think that the candidates, when going about picking running mates, will choose someone who won’t outshine them(intentionally or otherwise). Call it the sidekick complex.That’s why I’d doubt that Bush Jr. would pick Powell as a running mate. Whomever Bush picks will probably be some factor of appeasement to both the McCain faction, and those who dislike the “Religious Right”.
Anyway as somewhat of an agreement to threemae, I think we do tend to give too much credit to political leaders over economic success and failures. Though the administration has a slight hand in determining the business climate, Business is up to business.
FDR and Truman served twenty years, not sixteen.
Nixon, who had been Eisenhower’s vice president, served more than one term. (Truman didn’t run again. The 1952 Democratic candidate was Adlai Stevenson.)
rocks
If we posit this not in terms of political dynasty (frankly, the Republican-Democratic dynasty of the early 1800’s was quite a bit longer than anything in the 1900’s), but in terms of the staying power of Veeps after their president quits, THEN we can say with some confidence that Gore better get what he wants done in his first term.
The only Vice-President to be elected to serve the two terms following the terms his president served is Thomas Jefferson, in 1800 and 1804. He was, of course, a special case as Vice-President, as he didn’t belong to the party of his president (John Adams). Of the rest of the vice-Presidents, the closest to accomplishing TJ’s feat was Richard Nixon, who managed two terms of his own by election, but had to wait 8 years, having lost at his first bite at the apple in 1960. Also close, so most think, was Silent Cal, who chose not to run in 1928 despite the support of the ruling party at the time (Republicans); perhaps Cal was prescient and didn’t want Hoover’s fate. Teddy Roosevelt stepped down so that Taft could win in 1908; he might well have managed the feat, as might Truman in 1952 (Truman was allowed to run for another term having been grandfathered by the terms of the 22nd Amendment), but in Truman’s case, he might have lost to Eisenhower. Martin Van Buren lost his second election, as did Bush; in Van Buren’s case, ironically the man who beat him, William Henry Harrison, died almost immediately and was succeded by his Vice-President, John Tyler, who was a Whig in name only; the party disowned him as president because he behaved like a Democrat.
So, historically speaking, should Gore win, the likelihood of his making it through 8 full years is pretty slim.
We’re talking about Al Gore here, right?
Consider that whoever gets elected has a real problem. Our Armed Forces are in rough shape. Remember when we bombed Bosnia? We freakin’ ran out of missles! We had to monkeyfuck old ICBMs. Enlistment is down, morale is nonexistent, our level of technology has grown stagnant, and the fellows who’ve tried to make a life out of the military – the career sergeants and staff sergeants who make the whole thing work – have spent the last eight years getting their benefits cut, then forced into early retirement.
Nobody seems to care very much about this right now. But in the next four years, whoever’s president has to takes steps to rebuild what’s been neglected the last eight years. If they don’t, sooner or later we’re gonna end up in a situation where we’re incapable of taking direct military action. That pretty much guarantees the guy won’t get re-elected. Nobody wants a wimp in office.
If he DOES take steps to rebuild, that’s gonna cost money. Why, people will ask, are we throwing money at the Pentagon when the world’s so stable, and we have all these social problems? Bingo, out in four years.
Whatever Al Gore or Bush do, they’re doomed to four years. Neither one has the personality or force of will or communication skils to be able to overcome something like that.
Dynamic, they are not.
We’re talking about Al Gore here, right?
Consider that whoever gets elected has a real problem. Our Armed Forces are in rough shape. Remember when we bombed Bosnia? We freakin’ ran out of missles! We had to monkeyrig old ICBMs. Enlistment is down, morale is nonexistent, our level of technology has grown stagnant, and the fellows who’ve tried to make a life out of the military – the career sergeants and staff sergeants who make the whole thing work – have spent the last eight years getting their benefits cut, then forced into early retirement.
Nobody seems to care very much about this right now. But in the next four years, whoever’s president has to takes steps to rebuild what’s been neglected the last eight years. If they don’t, sooner or later we’re gonna end up in a situation where we’re incapable of taking direct military action. That pretty much guarantees the guy won’t get re-elected. Nobody wants a wimp in office.
If he DOES take steps to rebuild, that’s gonna cost money. Why, people will ask, are we throwing money at the Pentagon when the world’s so stable, and we have all these social problems? Bingo, out in four years.
Whatever Al Gore or Bush do, they’re doomed to four years. Neither one has the personality or force of will or communication skils to be able to overcome something like that.
Dynamic, they are not.
I believe that after awhile, people get tired of the status quo and decide to shake things up a bit. Happened here in NY when Cuomo got beat by Pataki. Pataki impressed no one as far as I could tell, but people were just tired of Cuomo.