US Is Ripe for One-Term Presidency After 2016, Election Patterns Suggest

Reposted from my other blog, Slender Threads: What if’s of History

Historical odds are that Democrats will lose the White House in 2016. It’s difficult for an American political party to hold a White House coalition together for more than eight years. Ideologues within the parties get tired of making the compromises necessary to govern, and prefer “standing up for principle,” infighting or sitting on their hands.

Exhibit A: After eight years of Democratic control of the White House, Green Democrats (Naderites) abandoned Al Gore in 2000, handing Florida and the election to George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Exhibit B: After 12 years of Republican control of the White House, Buchananites abandoned George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Exhibit C: After eight years of Democratic control of the White House, some antiwar activists abandoned Democratic Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1968. These divisions arguably caused the loss of a close presidential election.

The political pendulum generally swings from one party to the other after two full presidential terms. Since 1952, we’ve seen four Republican eight-year terms (Eisenhower, 1953-1961; Nixon-Ford, 1969-1977; Reagan, 1981-1989; G.W. Bush, 2001-2009), and three Democratic eight-year terms (Kennedy-Johnson, 1961-1969; Clinton, 1993-2001; and Obama, 2009-2017). We’ve seen a single-term Democratic president, Jimmy Carter; and a single-term Republican president, George H.W. Bush.

Yes, the statistical odds are for the election of a Republican president in 2016. But Republicans should be careful what they wish for. If the GOP wins the 2016 election, the odds are even greater that their president will be weak, with a fragile coalition, and lose re-election in 2020. Would it not be better to lose in 2016 and come roaring back, strong enough to push through truly significant changes, with an eight-year term beginning in 2020?

The cycle since 1952 was 24 years alternating party control of the White House, followed by a one-term Democratic presidency, followed by 12 years with the GOP. Then the 24-year alternating cycle repeated itself. So we are probably due to elect a one-term president in 2016. By 2020, we will not have elected a one-term president for 28 years, the longest span in American presidential history.

If historical patterns hold, deep divisions within the Republican Party are the primary reason the White House might fall into Democratic hands after Obama completes his two terms. If by chance a Democrat wins the 2016 election, odds are even greater that he/she will serve only one term, in part because of divisions within the Democratic Party.

Pay attention, Hillary Clinton. If by chance you win the presidency in 2016, your odds of becoming a two-term president are really really long. And to Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul or other potential Republican nominees, if by chance you win the 2016 election, the odds of your party holding on to the White House for eight years are really long as well.

After a 24-year pattern of alternating control of the White House every eight years — we’ve had that since 1992 — the cycle usually breaks: either one party continues to hold the White House (for 12 consecutive years), or the other party’s coalition is too fragile to sustain an eight-year hold on the presidency.

Based on historical patterns, more important than who the Democrats nominate in 2016 is whether Republicans can heal the rifts between the Tea Party and the mainstream GOP, between deficit hawks and tax cutters, between isolationists and interventionists, between immigration accomodationalists and those hostile to immigration, between libertarian purists and corporate welfare/crony capitalists.

Similarly, the Democrats must hold together a coalition that includes “Occupy Wall Street” activists and leftists upset by growing wealth disparities, eager for more federal regulations, suspicious of corporate power as well as foreign entanglements. They may accuse pragmatists and accommodationalists of being “sell-outs.”

What were the conditions that led to exceptions to the pattern of eight years for Republicans, followed by eight years for the Democrats?

In 1976, as a result of the Watergate scandal, inflation shock and Republican divisions, Democrat Jimmy Carter won one four-year term.

In 1980, economic and hostage crises, Democratic divisions and conservative ascendency conspired to deprive Carter of a second term.

In 1988, when a strong economy and weak Democratic nominee worked to Vice President George H.W. Bush’s advantage. This advantage was only temporary, however. Bush’s luck ran out in 1992, when Republican divisions and a weak economy cost him re-election.

In the 20th century, the presidency was strengthened as an institution. Utilizing mass media to magnify their presence in the minds of citizens, presidents served longer and consolidated their powers. In the 19th century, there were 25 US presidents, while in the 20th century, there were just 19 presidents over the span of 100 years.

Compared to the 19th and early 20th centuries, presidents rarely die in office nowadays. The president elected every 20 years from 1840 to 1960 died in office. But Ronald Reagan broke that spell, survived an attempted assassination in 1981 and served out his full term. So did George W. Bush 20 years later. So America hasn’t had a president to die in office since 1963, an unprecedented record and tribute to the work of the secret service, better technology to detect weapons, and better medical care.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: