Second Terms.

[Bo]

Why are they almost always bad.

Bush- Katrina, Iraq
Clinton- Impeached
Reagan- Iran contra
Nixon- Watergate
LBJ*- Vietnam
Ike- Economic downturn. GOP loses very badly in '58
Truman*- Korea
FDR- Supreme Court packing plan
Wilson- League of Nations failure.

Coincidence or something more.

*Not a second term. But were incumbents who were reelected.

You're forgetting that a lot of these Presidents also had problems in their first terms. FDR had the Great Depression, Truman had a severe recession and hyperinflation, Ike had a recession, Nixon had a recession and high inflation, Reagan had a severe recession, Clinton had a miserable screwup on healthcare reform, and Bush Jr. had a recession and 9/11. Also, a lot of the problems Presidents experienced in their second terms began in their first terms--such as Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clinton's affair, and the Iraq War. However, it does seem that in many cases the Presidents appear to care less and take more risks in their second terms simply due to the facts that they have nothing to lose electorally anymore.

[Bo]

Why are they almost always bad.

Bush- Katrina, Iraq
Clinton- Impeached
Reagan- Iran contra
Nixon- Watergate
LBJ*- Vietnam
Ike- Economic downturn. GOP loses very badly in '58
Truman*- Korea
FDR- Supreme Court packing plan
Wilson- League of Nations failure.

Coincidence or something more.

*Not a second term. But were incumbents who were reelected.

You're forgetting that a lot of these Presidents also had problems in their first terms. FDR had the Great Depression, Truman had a severe recession and hyperinflation, Ike had a recession, Nixon had a recession and high inflation, Reagan had a severe recession, Clinton had a miserable screwup on healthcare reform, and Bush Jr. had a recession and 9/11. Also, a lot of the problems Presidents experienced in their second terms began in their first terms--such as Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clinton's affair, and the Iraq War. However, it does seem that in many cases the Presidents appear to care less and take more risks in their second terms simply due to the facts that they have nothing to lose electorally anymore.

Excuses, excuses. The fact of the matter is that all of the presidents listed sucked.

Says you.

[Bo]

And don't forget McKinley and Lincoln's second terms either.

Lincoln - well, lets just say his second term didn't go so well for him
McKinely - see Lincoln.

[Bo]

I will say that Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton had successful second terms for the most part.

Ike-1958 and 1960 recessions
Reagan-Iran-Contra
Clinton-Impeachment

[Bo]

I will say that Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton had successful second terms for the most part.

Ike-1958 and 1960 recessions
Reagan-Iran-Contra
Clinton-Impeachment

Those are all minor. I've never heard anything bad about the 50's. How bad of a recession was it. The 1960 Presidential Election made the US look like heaven so Ike must have left on a good note. Ronald Reagan wasn't effected badly by that scandal and obviously recovered in no time. Clinton was popular when he left office because the GOP fell for his trick and went after his affair when there were 900 other things he could've been impeached for.

Unemployment hit 7.5% in 1958, then came down to 4.8%, and then bounced back up to 6.6% by the time Ike left office. And Reagan's approval ratings did take a hit by Iran Contra. They were in the 40s for a year or two and then they were in the low 50s for another year, in comparison to over 60% before Iran-Contra broke out. Also, Reagan had high unemployment (at about 6.5-7.5%) for a large part of his second term. As for Clinton, the impeachment didn't hurt his job approval ratings, but it did take away a lot of time that could have been used to handle more important issues.