Could a President serve non-consecutive today?

[ChainsawJedis]

Could we have a Grover Cleveland situation where a president comes back to regain the presidency after being defeated for reelection? in this age of 24/7 media where people are branded losers for life, I say no.

[Skill and Chance]

Only if, like Cleveland, they won the popular vote, and they were as popular and faced an unimpressive President such as Ben Harrison.

This or a situation where a right wing or left wing independent takes >10% from the incumbent.

[Mister Mets]

It's unlikely, but it's possible.

It could occur under a few circumstances.

If a party has been shut out of the White House for a long time, they're more likely to forgive a one-termer trying to come back.

Certain individuals have particularly strong appeal to major segments of primary voters. I think if Obama had lost narrowly to Romney, he'd be a credible candidate in 2016, just because he would have a large chunk of Democratic primary voters on his side.

[retromike22]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

[Mr. Smith]

Nope, 1980 was the last place...Ford probably could've come back [assuming he didn't lose nomination] and defeated Carter.

[Indy Texas]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

He didn't want it badly enough.

Allegedly, he at one point was considering just retiring after one term.

[Sumner 1868]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

He was even worse in the 1992 popular vote than Herbert Hoover in 1932.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

The biggest challenge a former president would face is probably having to face down a bunch of younger, fresher candidates in the primaries who want their chance and would argue that they represented the future rather than the past.

I think, in this day and age, even a defeated president who won the popular vote would have a hard time.

[Free Bird]

Had Romney won, this season would have been probably an Obama/Hillary rematch.

[Mr. Smith]

Had Romney won, this season would have been probably an Obama/Hillary rematch.

Given the Obamacare hysteria created by the right wing/plutocratic media and those Very Serious People...Obama would've gone down in flames...he would be done.

Obama 2020, that could've happened....but 2016...forget it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Benjamin Harrison, John Adams, and Gerald Ford were narrowly defeated as well, but Cleveland was the only one to win the popular vote while being defeated for re-election.

[GMantis]

What about Gore in 2004? He comes very close to the conditions suggested earlier.

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W Bush in 2008 if he loses the election in 2004 despite winning the popular vote by over 1 million votes (which is possible)

[OSR stands with Israel]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

He was even worse in the 1992 popular vote than Herbert Hoover in 1932.

Becuase of Perot because If Perot wasnt there Clinton Probably would have won 51%-48% or by 3% instead of by 6%

[Sumner 1868]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

He was even worse in the 1992 popular vote than Herbert Hoover in 1932.

Becuase of Perot because If Perot wasnt there Clinton Probably would have won 51%-48% or by 3% instead of by 6%

I know that, but the fact so few were willing to vote for him when faced with a elite millionaire who served as a "none of the two" option says a lot about how little true support Bush had. I think he would have lost by about four or five points in the popular vote without Perot, though his performance in Electoral College would have been drastically improved.

[Sumner 1868]

George W Bush in 2008 if he loses the election in 2004 despite winning the popular vote by over 1 million votes (which is possible)

Why? His first term was already awful.

[OSR stands with Israel]

George W Bush in 2008 if he loses the election in 2004 despite winning the popular vote by over 1 million votes (which is possible)

Why? His first term was already awful.

Well but not to most of the country as the time as even if he would have lost Ohio he would win the popular vote which would make Republicans in an ironic way think the election was rightfully his and  they would nominate him for president in 2008. And due to the Economic Collapse in 2008(Inevitable by 2002) Bush would defeat Kerry by a healthy margin.

[Türkisblau]

I could see a situation in which a president has something devastating happen at the end of their term, be defeated by someone incompetent, and then come back in an "I told you so" kind of campaign (kind of like Cleveland did).

Also, something like a strong president declining a 2nd term due to health concerns or a family crisis then coming back 4/8 years later would be pretty compelling.

[Sumner 1868]

The only who had a real chance of this was Gerald Ford, who never served a full term in any case.

[Mister Mets]

What about George H.W. Bush in 1996?

He was even worse in the 1992 popular vote than Herbert Hoover in 1932.

Becuase of Perot because If Perot wasnt there Clinton Probably would have won 51%-48% or by 3% instead of by 6%

Papa Bush still wasn't a base favorite. He'd have the same issues as Ford.

Had Romney won, this season would have been probably an Obama/Hillary rematch.

Given the Obamacare hysteria created by the right wing/plutocratic media and those Very Serious People...Obama would've gone down in flames...he would be done.

Obama 2020, that could've happened....but 2016...forget it.

It would still be non-consecutive terms.

[Replicator]

A lot of people including presidents don't think it's legal to serve two terms if they're not consecutive. It could happen but let's look at the bigger picture. It's happened once in 239 years so think of how unlikely it is to happen again.

[DS0816]

Re: Could a President serve non-consecutive today?

Could we have a Grover Cleveland situation where a president comes back to regain the presidency after being defeated for reelection? in this age of 24/7 media where people are branded losers for life, I say no.

No.

[Nym90]

The most plausible scenario I see is a major health issue that causes an otherwise popular President to not run for reelection, but which is resolved by the time of the next election four years later such as a heart attack, cancer etc.

Returning from a defeat to win again would be less likely but it's not unthinkable at all if the President lost in a close and controversial election. For example, if Bush in 2004 or Obama in 2012 had lost in a 2000-like fashion (winning the popular vote nationally, losing the critical state by a few hundred votes with doubts as to the result's legitimacy, etc), they certainly would have had a strong case for a rematch four years later.

[Mister Mets]

A lot of people including presidents don't think it's legal to serve two terms if they're not consecutive. It could happen but let's look at the bigger picture. It's happened once in 239 years so think of how unlikely it is to happen again.

There's no legal issue here.

Part of the reason we haven't seen it is that Presidents tend to win reelection.

[Replicator]

Most candidates who are elected president also only have a very small window to win. Ronald Reagan couldn't win in the 60's or 70's. By the 90's he would've been too old even by perception. It took Bush Sr. years of resume building to make it to the White House. Would Clinton have been elected in a post 9/11 society or would he have been seen as the candidate of Sept.10? Obviously Obama wouldn't have been elected prior to 2000 even with experience. Political careers only have a very small window. Has Hillary Clinton's window closed or will she overcome being the candidate of Sept.10, White Water, having battered wife syndrome for staying with her cheating husband, and allowing Chris Stevens to be killed for her party's political gain?