Because it’s never too early to start thinking about the next election, I thought I’d check out the List of Presidents of the United States and just see what the history was in terms of incumbent party versus challenging party after a two term President. I skipped the beginning Presidents because things were so much different during the time of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. So, we’ll start with Andy Jackson and go from there:
- Jackson succeeded by same party – Martin Van Buren (1 term).
- Lincoln/Johnson succeeded by same party – Ulysses Grant (2 terms)*
- Grant succeeded by same party – Rutherford B. Hayes (1 term)
- McKinley succeeded by same party – Teddy Roosevelt (2 terms)*
- Roosevelt succeeded by same party – William Howard Taft (1 term)
- Woodrow Wilson succeeded by opposing party – Harding/Coolidge (2 terms).
- Harding/Coolidge succeeded by same party – Herbert Hoover (1 term)*
- Franklin Roosevelt succeeded by same party – Harry Truman (2 terms)*
- Harry Truman succeeded by opposing party – Dwight Eisenhower (2 terms)
- Eisenhower succeeded by opposing party – JFK/Johnson (2 terms)*
- Nixon/Ford succeeded by opposing party – Carter (1 term)
- Ronald Reagan succeeded by same party – George H.W. Bush (1 term)
- Bill Clinton succeeded by opposing party – George W. Bush (2 terms)
- George W. Bush succeeded by opposing party – Barack Obama (2 terms)
*I clearly had some trouble figuring out how to organize those cases where an incumbent won re-election but the vice-president filled some of the first or second term.
No terribly clear patterns, but I guess it looks like in modern times, it’s been less likely for the two term President’s party to win the following election, and almost impossible to win the next two elections.
VP Andrew Johnson who became President when Republican Lincoln was shot was a Democrat..
Dog,
Your research demonstrates the rule of thumb that two-termers are succeeded by the other party. I suspect this is why the more moderate Republicans held back in this election, knowing that Obama would likely be reelected and that there will be a shot for them in 2016.
Unless the Insurrectionists work their will…
Carlito, not sure what more “moderate Republicans” you’re talking about who “held back.” Romney was about as far left as you can go in the Republican Party. Of course, Romney’s views were always changing. His main philosophy is that he wanted to be president.
Chris Christie, Jeb Bush (although he would be better off if his name were Jeff Jones), Bobby Jihndahl. But you know, Paul, as I read off the names I listed, these guys aren’t first teamers.
Maybe I should have left the word “moderate” out and just said other Republicans with name recognition.
But I agree with you on Mitt. If I had been a Democrat in MA during his term he might have been a little left of me. But I would have been generally satisfied.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think Daniels could have had a shot at the nomination with his college MJ offense? Were there other reasons Daniels didn’t take a run?
He’s got that hinky once and future wife situation where he divorced then re-married; apparently with something odd but maybe not disclosed in the middle.
I’m a little vague on the details, because I honestly don’t care and don’t personally think his relationship to his wife qualifies or disqualifies him from office. But the little I did hear about suggested that it could cause some rockiness on the national campaign scene.
Thanks, Dog. I still lived in NM when Daniels was first elected, so I paid no attention.
In light of no real clear pattern, it seems like it’s more a question of the actual names on the ballot. Given that it is (thankfully) a long time until the next general election, do you think that the Democratic nomination is Hillary Clinton’s to turn down?