Why is the rule of "8 years for each party" so strict?

[buritobr]

Since 1952, this rule was broken only in 1980 and 1988.

Even in 2004 and 2012, when the incumbent presidents did not have very high approval rates, they were reelected.

Even in 1960 and 2000, when the president had high approval rates, their vice presidents were not elected.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

'Tis the way God designed it, young one.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Because everyone knows that it takes six, not 4 yrs to get anything accomplished, that's why some countries like Russia has a six yr term rule.


However, we may be seeing the end to this, like it almost happened in 2000, where VP Gore won the popular vote, like Tony Blair's Labour party, Dems having Hilary may beat back the G O P and extend the term to 3 terms, having Obama done what he has done on his watch with the immigration issue.

[DS0816]

Since 1952, this rule was broken only in 1980 and 1988.

Even in 2004 and 2012, when the incumbent presidents did not have very high approval rates, they were reelected.

Even in 1960 and 2000, when the president had high approval rates, their vice presidents were not elected.

The past streaks, since the Republican realigning presidential election of 1860, were as follows:

 • 1860 to 1892: Republicans, 6
 • 1896 to 1928: Republicans, 4; Republicans, 3
 • 1932 to 1964: Democrats, 5
 • 1968 to 2004: Republicans, 3
 • 2008 to 20xx: Democrats, pending

Citing 1952 is timed with television in the U.S. That could have something to do with some of this. The change with media. And, 60-plus years later, more change with media is happening.

I don't think there's an 8-year rule. I have noted that, when switching parties in the White House, it's rare for the party booted out to come back and win the next election cycle. Since the Republicans first competed in 1856, there were only two periods of exceptions: 1888 (Republican pickup) and 1892 (Democratic pickup), which were Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland having unseated each other during a realigning period for the Republicans; and 1976 (Democratic pickup) and 1980 (Republican pickup), which was Jimmy Carter having unseated never-elected Gerald Ford, and then Ronald Reagan having unseated Jimmy Carter much attributed to inflation.

A lot of people who thought Mitt Romney was going to unseat Barack Obama, in 2012, assumed that 7-percent unemployment "rule" in connection to how far back polls date (Gallup was in the late-1930s). What they didn't factor was past voting of presidential outcomes pertaining to the electorate's pattern rate of party-flipping the presidency.

The "8 years" rule is more a coincidence than anything else. And if 2016 becomes a Republican pickup of the presidency, one can go ahead and convince himself it's yet another example of just that.

[hopper]

I think people get sick of the Presidents Party after 8 years. The exception being Truman being elected in 1944 and re-elected in 1948 after Roosevelt's 3 terms and Bush H.W. getting elected after Reagan's 2 terms.

Its hard to defeat a Presidential Incumbent too. For example, Obama hit Romney hard on airing attack ads in swing states in the summer of 2012 and Romney never recovered from that. The President can spend money like that but a challenger cannot spend money on ads like that that early I don't think in the summer time.

I do think the Dems can dominate the Presidency until 2028 barring any gaffe-prone candidates till the Republicans modify themselves which they will do eventually.

[Mr. Smith]

Whoa there, Truman was only elected ONCE! FDR was re-elected FOUR times

And anyway, incumbency almost always has the advantage unless they get in very hot-water (as was the cases of 1976, 1980, and 1992), and some of these incumbents would've been re-elected easily for thirds. [Definitely the case for Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower, and possibly the case for Reagan]

However without that, the opposing party is almost always given the benefit of the doubt.

[Nichlemn]

It's not. The White House is not a metronome.

[Mister Mets]

It could all be a coincidence. A slightly different environment in 1960, 1968 or 2000 would have resulted in parties holding on for three terms, given how close those elections were.

There are other factors. Part of it is political talent. It's typical for parties to have weaker candidates after two terms in the White House.

When in power, some politicians are effective at delaying the consequences of their actions until they're reelected. The Iraq war went sour after 2004. The Obamacare website fiasco happened after the 2012 election.

Swing voters have a tendency to give politicians some time to fix everything. But their patience is typically exhausted after two terms.

There is another rule that I've noticed that is related to this. Parties peak, and steadily lose votes. This occurs even when the party holds on to the White House (George HW Bush got less votes in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984, FDR got less votes in 1944 than he did in 1940, and in 1940 he got less votes than he did in 1936.) Parties usually peak in the first reelection, and since the time of relative parity started in 1952, it's rare for them to keep enough support in the next election.

[DS0816]

It could all be a coincidence. A slightly different environment in 1960, 1968 or 2000 would have resulted in parties holding on for three terms, given how close those elections were.

There are other factors. Part of it is political talent. It's typical for parties to have weaker candidates after two terms in the White House.

When in power, some politicians are effective at delaying the consequences of their actions until they're reelected. The Iraq war went sour after 2004. The Obamacare website fiasco happened after the 2012 election.

Swing voters have a tendency to give politicians some time to fix everything. But their patience is typically exhausted after two terms.

There is another rule that I've noticed that is related to this. Parties peak, and steadily lose votes. This occurs even when the party holds on to the White House (George HW Bush got less votes in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984, FDR got less votes in 1944 than he did in 1940, and in 1940 he got less votes than he did in 1936.) Parties usually peak in the first reelection, and since the time of relative parity started in 1952, it's rare for them to keep enough support in the next election.

Teddy Roosevelt's full-term election in 1904 bucked the trend. He surpassed the 1900 re-election of William McKinley. And that was a Republican presidential realigning period that began with McKinley in 1896. McKinley's electoral results remind me of 2008/2012 Barack Obama. We certainly wouldn't compare a 2008/2012 Obama to a 1860/1864 Abraham Lincoln or a 1932/1936 Franklin Roosevelt or a 1968/1972 Richard Nixon.

[buritobr]

It's not. The White House is not a metronome.

Yes, I understand.

There is no doubt that there was no fixed rule before the WW2.

And now I realised that even after the WW2, it was only a coincidence. One could argue that there is a "8 years for each party rule" considering that among the elections of 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 2000 and 2008 (six elections) in five of them the party which was not in the White House won. In 1988 the party which was inside won and in 2008 the party which was outside won. Since the margins were almost equal, the average between 1988 election and 2008 election is zero. In 1960, 1968, 1976 and 2000, the party which was outside the White House won, but all of these elections were almost tied. The average margin was not much higher than zero.
So, according to the average result of 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, 2000 and 2008, it is hard to conclude that there is any bias.

[hopper]

I forgot I  saw today that Harding won in 1920. Coolidge  won in 1924 and Hoover won in 1928 all as Republicans. Of course in 1932 Hoover was defeated in a landslide to FDR.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Why is it so hard for Democrats to hold the White House when they don't run an incumbent?

Haven't since 1856 (yeah, I know, I know...Gore won the popular vote...that's why I said it was hard, not impossible).

[Skill and Chance]

Why is it so hard for Democrats to hold the White House when they don't run an incumbent?

Haven't since 1856 (yeah, I know, I know...Gore won the popular vote...that's why I said it was hard, not impossible).

It's a quirk of history arising from the post-Civil War Republican strength and FDR running 4 times.  A non-incumbent Dem would have unambiguously won in 1944 due to WWII.  1940 would be dicey but would probably have also been a Dem win with a non-incumbent if the GOP ran on repealing the New Deal.

[nclib]

Since 1952, this rule was broken only in 1980 and 1988.

Even in 2004 and 2012, when the incumbent presidents did not have very high approval rates, they were reelected.

Even in 1960 and 2000, when the president had high approval rates, their vice presidents were not elected.

1960 and 2000 were extremely close, and 2004 and 2012 were relatively close. Not saying the rule isn't relevant, but part of it is coincidence.

[buritobr]

'Tis the way God designed it, young one.

But why did God allow that this rule was broken in 1980? Why did He harm a very religious man? Why did He help a b-movie actor?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Why is it so hard for Democrats to hold the White House when they don't run an incumbent?

Haven't since 1856 (yeah, I know, I know...Gore won the popular vote...that's why I said it was hard, not impossible).

It's a quirk of history arising from the post-Civil War Republican strength and FDR running 4 times.

It also seems to be that Democrats have a knock-down, drag-out fight for the presidential nomination when they don't have a sitting president in the running (1860, 1896, 1920, 1952, 1968), thus weakening them for the general. Republicans...not so much.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Roosevelt's win was narrower in '44 than '40...I think a nonincumbent Dem would've probably won in '40 due to the improving economy (after the '37 recession) and because Democrats were the nation's majority party, but '44's unpredictable. It's difficult to imagine FDR not running (much easier to imagine him not running in '40).