Posted on 03/28/2012 6:05:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
A version of this column appeared originally in THE DAILY BEAST.
As he campaigns for re-election, Barack Obama pursues a profound and uncommon honor denied to nearly two-thirds of his predecessors. Contrary to a widely held popular belief, political history doesn’t anoint incumbent presidents as automatic winners or even presumptive favorites. The numbers show that most presidents fail in their efforts to maintain a long-term hold on the affections of the fickle public and that Obama will face an uphill struggle in attempting to reprise his epic victory of 2008.
Of the 42 men who served as president before the current incumbent, only 15 won two consecutive elections.
Among the others, 5 died during their first terms, 7 incumbents declined to run, 5 tried but failed to win their party’s nomination, and 10 won the nomination but lost their bids for re-election. What’s more, three former presidents (Martin Van Buren, Millard Fillmore and Theodore Roosevelt) attempted to make comebacks and roared out of retirement as third party candidates; all three of them failed miserably in November, winning between 10 and 27 percent of the popular vote.
The numbers look even worse for second terms if you remove the early “cocked hat” presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe) who easily won re-election before the emergence of the modern two-party system. Washington and Monroe, for instance, both eased into second terms without campaigning and without facing even token opposition. With these early chief executives withdrawn from the equation, 70 percent of those who have served as president since 1825 (26 of 37) failed to win two consecutive terms.
Some of these one-termers counted as obvious failures, rejected by big majorities of their contemporaries and winning scant respect from historians. Even at the time, no one expected John Tyler, James Buchanan or Andrew Johnson to renew their leases on the White House. But other presidents who lost bids for a second term played big roles in history and have earned many admirers throughout the generations. If Barack Obama fails in his bid for re-election, he will join such estimable predecessors as John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Grover Cleveland (who came back from his second-term loss to win a non-consecutive victory), William Howard Taft (who returned to Washington as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) and George Herbert Walker Bush.
Moreover, two powerful presidents generally labeled “great” or “near great” by historians found themselves nonetheless thwarted in their ambitions to win re-election. Both Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served as Vice Presidents who succeeded to the presidency upon the death of wildly popular incumbents (Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy), then won a full term in their own right. Widely expected to seek re-election, both men fared poorly in early primaries (Truman actually lost in New Hampshire to the little known Tennessee Senator Estes Keefauver) before withdrawing as candidates—and insisting that they’d intended to withdraw all along.
Of the fifteen presidents who prevailed in winning two consecutive terms (or four, in the case of FDR) nearly all of them count as historical giants and successful, significant chief executives. The only two arguable exceptions would be Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) and George W. Bush (2001-09), and prominent academics have recently led a major resurgence in Grant’s historical reputation while Bush admirers await a similar re-evaluation for that undeservedly reviled war leader.
In considering the chances for Obama’s re-election, it’s obvious that he doesn’t count as either a sure loser with a thin or non-existent list of accomplishments, nor does he qualify as an obvious winner with a Rushmore-ready profile and a resume of immortal achievements. In other words, President Obama won’t experience the resounding rejection that doomed the re-election hopes of Franklin Pierce, Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, nor will he register the inspiring vote of confidence that gave Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Ike and Reagan back-to-back victories.
Despite the attempt at apotheosis by the glowing new, Tom Hanks-narrated documentary “The Road We Have Traveled,” Barack Obama can’t run as that sort of triumphant titan; nor need he hide as the feckless, dreary disgrace of conservative propaganda. He clearly occupies some middle ground among first termers, suggesting a fierce, closely contested battle against his all-but-certain opponent, Mitt Romney.
The long, sour, discouraging GOP primary battle has produced soaring Democratic hopes that the public will overcome all doubts and embrace Obama due to fear and loathing of the Republican alternative. But the inevitable course of the re-election struggle will make the race a referendum on whether the public wants another four years like those they’ve just experienced. Clearly, this particular race could go either way, but history shows that whenever once-elected presidents seek a second chance, more often than not the people say no.
Yeah, right. Lessee.
We (the GOP) have the former Governor of the Bluest State in the Union, who has more baggage than a full jumbo jet headed overseas, and is a member of a weird religion (no, I’m not an anti-Mormon bigot - face the facts, by most standards, Mormonism IS weird).
Obama has the MSM pulling for him, along with ACORN and the Unions and most major urban area governments, all of whom are prepared to commit massive vote fraud in his favor. He has enormous sums of money (so what if his fund raising falling off a bit - he still has tons of money) and didn’t have to spend any of it a primary. He has the support of the parasite classes and the illegal aliens. He has a sizable minority that will vote for him, no matter what.
The only thing holding him back is his record or lack thereof. His major accomplishment, ObamaCare, is incredibly unpopular with the general populace, and may, possibly, be nullified by the SCOTUS. Of course, Romney has the same issue with RomneyCare, in the People’s Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.
Add to that, the fact that the ‘Pubbies are too gutless to hit Obama hard where it counts, and you can see a crippled GOP campaign.
Folks, get real. It ain’t lookin’ good. Unpopular or not, Obama has a lot of edges and will be hard to beat.
And even if Romney wins, we’re probably not going to like him much.
In my book he is a loser (about the nicest thing I could say about him) and he has a list of accomplishments - all, 100% bad. I cannot think of any President, going all the way back to Nixon, that has such a completely negative track record. Consider:
I'm sure I could go google "obama failures" and come up with a list of hundreds. These are just the ones off the top of my head (BC - before coffee). You all get the idea. hussein is the most accomplished (negatively) President ever. If he wasn't a textbook narcissist he wouldn't even try for re-election. Has to be counting on trying to steal/manipulate his way back into office.
I agree, What the Looter class does not understand is that a cow has to be bred once in a while or they go dry.
Our cow is starting to go dry.
It is time to ease off on the milking and start thinking of getting her bred or there will be no milk for anyone, and she will end up as a McDonalds hamburger.
I don’t think the GOP intends to take the white house this time. We need to get rid of the GOP leadership as badly as we need to get rid of Obama.
I’d happily make a deal to vote for Romney in return for the resignations of McCain, Graham, Boehner and about a dozen others.
Obama will win, and by a landslide. We are living in a country whose people are no longer guided by wisdom, and who, in fact, disdain it. The population has been intentionally dumbed-down, as evidenced by the fact that it elected Obama to office. There is no opposition to his rule; if there were, there would be legitimate candidates being offered up from the Republican “side”, which I am beginning to doubt exists any longer.
BTW, I haven’t taken my shoes and socks off to check the math, so if any of my FRiends can prove me wrong, I would be DELIGHTED that you did so.
You are using selective math.
Be choosing the subset that you picked, the numbers are correct, but the choice skews the results.
Did you know that zero percent of black pResidents have ever been re-elected?
” - - - the numbers are correct, - - - “
Whew! Thanks! I was going to take my shoes and socks off right after my second cup of coffee, but you have saved me the trouble! Thanks!!!!!
______
My point was that there are a lot of factors in calculating predictability from such a small set of numbers, and I chose one subset to show that it is probable BY THE NUMBERS that The Obamanator will be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
_________
BTW, send some rain our way, as Texas is still in a drought!
If he were a white man, there is ZERO chance he would win a second term, but Obama has racism in his deck of cards.
If he were a white man, there is ZERO chance he would have won 1 term, but Obama has racism in his deck of cards.
I'd love to.
In W PA it is now raining like a Texas longhorn pissing on a flat rock.
We have had so much rain this winter, that even my multiple french drains are passed helping.
Algore is correct, weather changes and obama is also correct, we all are hoping for change.
Hey brother, can you spare a dime?
All of these items and many more were lies. Obama's ruled against the will of the American People, against the Constitution and against the law. The public is innocent of all of this.
Who's fickle again?
Bump
Bad enough Medved is a RINO, but tripe like this is worthless.
I can sum up his entire atricle in 5 words: Presidents usaully don’t win re-election.
So, why did Reagan and Clinton and Baby Bush get re-elected. The economy.
Why did Carter and Daddy Bush get unelected. The economy.
It’s the economy, stupid. That is why this idiot article from RINO Medved, and his “this could go either way but odds are against re-election” is worthless.
This is Carter II. We don’t have the massive inflation, but unemployment is worse as is real GDP growth. Everything they are calling GDP growth is the FED buying it’s own debt and wartime deficit spending. There is no genuine GDP growth. GDP should be shrinking.
No, Obama has no chance against this Carter II economy. A RINO like Medved isn’t capable of seeing that.
Obama will win, and by a landslide. We are living in a country whose people are no longer guided by wisdom, and who, in fact, disdain it. The population has been intentionally dumbed-down, as evidenced by the fact that it elected Obama to office. There is no opposition to his rule; if there were, there would be legitimate candidates being offered up from the Republican “side”, which I am beginning to doubt exists any longer.
“Didn’t ZerO effectively blurt this to Medvedev the other day?”
He sure sounded awfully confident that he was going to win.
(One wonders what will happen to this big ball of wax.)
BTW I don't listen to Medved, but just because you call him a RINO, doesn't make him one.
Yes, I scanned the entire article. Scanned as in, quickly read the entire article. In your points, you even left out the point he made that the trend of 2 termers was much stronger early in US history and not so strong now.
My response was not that he was wrong, but that he was right for the wrong reason - hence the worthlessness of this article.
I fully explained my position that the recent 2 termers from Reagan to Clinton, got credit for strong economies, while the recent one termers got blame for weak economies.
We are in a weak economy. That is all you need to know. Medved acts like the 2nd term presidential election is just some random coin flip with the incumbent losing more than 50% of the time. If I didn’t know better, the article reads like it is giving cover to Obama for losing re-election. I realize that is not the jist of the article.
But the article treats this election like a coin flip, when it is not. Obama will lose because the economy stinks. That is the point I made in my response, against Medved’s coin flip.
Hence my conclusion the article is worthless. It doesn’t take into account the economies and circumstances of those who won and lost re-election.
Calling him a RINO was just a thtow-away comment. You are right that saying it doesn’t make it true. Looks like I’m far from the only one who knows this.
“Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America’ (RINO op-ed)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2673459/posts
“Vanity Radio [Rebuttal to Medved’s RINO love-letter]”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1782832/posts
Don’t Pin Your Hopes On Palin (Michael Medved Demands Moderate Candidates, GOP Nominee In 2012)
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2639738/posts
RINO Michael Medved rips Rush Limbaugh for ripping Obama
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2011/02/20/rino-michael-medved-rips-rush-limbaugh-for-ripping-obama/
RINO Michael Medved Supports Open Primaries
http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=1488
Michael Medved Rejects Conservatives and Embraces Romney
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/23/michael-medved-rejects-conservatives-and-embraces-romney/
Six Big Lies About John McCain
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2008/01/23/six_big_lies_about_john_mccain/page/full/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.