My memory from school is that “lame duck” referred to a term of office after replacements had been elected but prior to the new officials taking office. Recent usage in the news media uses the phrase time served in office when it is known they will not run again. By that definition a president’s entire second term and any official who announces his/her retirement.
Did the definition of lame duck evolve, am I remembering wrong or are the pundits using the phrase wrong?
I’d say that the popular usage has taken on an expanded meaning.
Originally, the term referred to a session of Congress that occurred after the election. The lame duck session took place between December and March, when the new president was sworn in.
The phrase is too good to be limited in that way, and now it’s routinely expanded to include the usages that you mention. Anyone who’s not going to be subject to another election is a lame duck.
This kind of expanded meaning is the norm and almost all words and terms exhibit expansion over time. Probably has something to do with the expansion of the universe from a force known as quintessence, a word whose meaning expanded to take on that context.
I think it’s not quite *that *broad. A lame duck is anyone who has become politically impotent due not being subject to reelection. Many politicians still wield considerable influence even if they will not be running again.
And as Barack Obama keeps saying, we have only one president at a time and George Bush is it. That didn’t keep anyone from referring to Bush as a lame duck starting after the 2004 election. People have objected to calls for reform that would give the president a single six-year term because they say it would make him or her an instant lame duck.
It is a figure of speech, not an objective valuation of power.
Every president of Mexico (and of Panama too) is a lame duck from inauguration, since they get only a single term.