The odds are that whoever wins the 2008 election will not be re-elected.

[Bicoastal]

Why do I say this?

Let's start with 92 thru 08. George W. Bush was elected* to two terms, directly after Bill Clinton's two terms. The last time that happened was nearly 150 years ago, when when Ulysses S Grant was elected in 1868 and 1872--immediately after Lincoln was elected in 1860 and 1864. (We're talking about the elections, not whether they served their entire term.)

So, whens the last time when three consecutive presidents were elected to two terms? It's happened only ONCE: between 1800 and 1818, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were each elected to 2 terms each.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen--but if it did, it would be only the second time in nearly 200 years that three men each held office for so long. And it took the obliteration of a rival political party (Federalists) to make it happen, so...:think:

[annabanana]

1. If he manages to make any headroads against the mess he's

been left.. he will sweep into a second term.

If no one can see a nudge in the right direction, it will be hard to get him back in there. People's patience has plumb run out.

[babylonsister]

3. Yep. If Obama produces, and I know he will, he'll be fine. nt

[Hobarticus]

18. You'd have to be nuts to want to follow Dubya's train wreck....

...and hopefully nuts enough to be able to fix it.

[Ian David]

2. We've never had a successful coup in The United States until 2000, either. n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

6. yes, we have

[Ian David]

7. You mean when The Constitution was ratified? n/t

[MadBadger]

4. Go find me the odds of a black man becoming President.

[Bicoastal]

5. Good point. nt

[VP505]

14. What do you believe people thought the odds were that

a MORON could get elected?

[blonndee]

20. Yay!

[jojo54]

8. He (or any Dem)

won't get very far if there isn't a majority in both houses. I'm afraid the sheeple will make sure there are no blank checks for Obama, like there was for the Idiot-In-Chief.

[EOTE]

15. Oh, there will be...

if Obama's in the White House, we'll have big majorities in both houses, I'm confident of that. In fact, I think that will happen even if Obama loses, but especially if he wins. The problem will be fighting against the fraud in the Presidential election.

[jojo54]

26. Yep, there's also that.

"Hacking Democracy" really stunned me, even though I had already heard of all the bullcrap that went on.

[DS1]

9. And if we make enough Dem progress enough to get Hillary in there

I'm all for that.

[Poll_Blind]

10. I haven't seen bullshit like that in a long time. Thank you for the chuckle.

Your OP belongs in the Astrology Forum, and that's the kindest thing one could say about it.

PB

[Bicoastal]

12. I'm not pulling these facts out of my ass--and election results represent national trends.

All I'm saying is that a quarter-century spent under only 3 different presidents is a rare thing in our country's history. It was unusual enough that Bush won a second term after Clinton's 8 years in office--a strong incumbency in the White House isn't usually this pronounced.

You the last time that a president belonging to Party A won two terms after a president belonging to Party B won two terms? Never

[DCKit]

16. FDR was elected 4x. EOM

[frogcycle]

21. you aren't pulling facts out of your ass - just your oddsmaking

[fishwax]

11. I think the obliteration of a political party is a possibility this time around too

:evilgrin:

[Ravy]

13. I have arrived at the same conclusion for a different reason.

The next president cannot allow us to slide further down the tubes.

The remedy for this massive republican debt means that ALL of us will suffer in some way to get this ship righted. The money the republicans stole from the public will never be recovered, and we will all have some pain.

Either the next president will not address this, in which case he will badly need to be kicked out, or he will do his job and be unpopular because he will be doing unpopular things to people who don't deserve it, but must pay the price to get us back on fiscal track.

[frogcycle]

17. historical stats do not determine odds

the odds are that the next pres will be a one-termer because the economy is crashing and the deep recession will make it easy to unseat him

but only if its Obama

the odds are if mccain is the next pres he'll be the last - the cabal will close the deal on the coup and there won't BE any more elections

[undeterred]

19. thanks debbie downer

:nopity:

[Bicoastal]

23. I wish I could delete this stupid post...

...I'm a lover of Presidential stats and trivia--and I didn't mean any ill will towards Obama by it. Hell, I've been an ardent supporter of his since Iowa!

If it only it wasn't too late to edit. :(

[undeterred]

24. Maybe you can hide it!

It is interesting stuff... but 230 years isn't really that long.

[flvegan]

22. Things have changed in the last 150. Just an fyi.

Stats aside, odds are that if the individual who is indeed elected does a fantastic job, he may very well be re-elected.

[TheMadMonk]

25. Try learning some statistical analysis.

So you can understand why it is can not be applied so simplistically to this situation.

Your reasoning (such as it is) is akin to claiming this time for sure, with respect to the Cubs/Red Sox (or whoever) simply because it's been so long since they last won.

This is not a game of chance where the odds of any specific combination of events is independent of outside influences.

It is the performance or perceived performance of the players involved that will determine who wins this time and the next.