If Hillary Clinton wins, will she only serve for one term?

[AGA]

Historically, it has been difficult for a single party to maintain control of the presidency for three terms, let alone four. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, would she be reelected in 2020? Could a recession change the result of the 2020 elections?

[Xing]

It's impossible to tell, at this point. Far too many variables.

[NeverAgain]

I say no. If you are President, you are going to be President two terms.

[Soonerdem]

Normally I'd say she would only serve one term. But as this year has proven the republicans could screw it up. (Cruz 2020)

[Wells]

Yes, but not because she'll be ousted in 2020. She will probably choose to step down after one term.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Yes

[President Johnson]

Depends on the GOP nominee. If it's Cruz, she will win reelection unless there is a total economic downturn. If it's someone like Nikki Haley, Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan or Brian Sandoval, she's likely done. I say that TRUMP has a better chance to win a second term than Hillary if elected this year.

[ElectionsGuy]

Odds are she'll lose re-election. But Republicans blew this perfect opportunity now so they could very well blow it again.

[Virginiá]

Historically, it has been difficult for a single party to maintain control of the presidency for three terms, let alone four.

Actually, it really isn't as difficult as people say for a party to hold the White House for 3 terms in a row. History has shown that America goes through periods of dominance by one party or the other, which tends to manifest at first via dominance of presidential races. Republicans had a very strong grip on the White House from 1860 - 1932, where they held the White House for 52 out of those 72 years (and 4 of those 20 years for Democrats was only because Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's VP). Democrats held the White House for 20 straight years from 1932 - 1952, and Eisenhower marked the beginning of a shift to Republicans, who eventually went to dominate from 1968 - 1992, losing only 1 election during that time, and Ford barely lost at that, even after Watergate. Now, Democrats began developing an advantage since 1992 and is arguably turning into a lock due to demographic and generational changes.

1960 was very close, Humphrey barely lost the PV in 1968 and possibly could have won if Wallace hadn't run (this is up for debate), and Gore just barely lost in 2000, despite winning the PV. Had Gore not been Gore and/or embraced Bill, Democrats would most likely have won that election.

Could a recession change the result of the 2020 elections?

Depends how big the recession is and when it happens, but it would definitely have an effect one way or another.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Historically, it has been difficult for a single party to maintain control of the presidency for three terms, let alone four.

Actually, it really isn't as difficult as people say for a party to hold the White House for 3 terms in a row. History has shown that America goes through periods of dominance by one party or the other, which tends to manifest at first via dominance of presidential races. Republicans had a very strong grip on the White House from 1860 - 1932, where they held the White House for 52 out of those 72 years (and 4 of those 20 years for Democrats was only because Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's VP). Democrats held the White House for 20 straight years from 1932 - 1952, and Eisenhower marked the beginning of a shift to Republicans, who eventually went to dominate from 1968 - 1992, losing only 1 election during that time, and Ford barely lost at that, even after Watergate. Now, Democrats began developing an advantage since 1992 and is arguably turning into a lock due to demographic and generational changes.

If you look years-wise, the it's pretty much a tie since 1945. Democratic Presidents: 1945-1953, 1961-1969, 1977-1981, 1993-2001, 2008-2016. Republican: 1953-1961, 1969-1977, 1981-1992 and 2001-2002. Of course Republicans won more elections since 1968, while Democrats won before aside for Ike.

I see your point but I don't believe there's a think as a "lock". Advantage? Yes. But we can't take these shifts for granted.

After 1964 people believed it will take another decade or more before Republicans would even have a shot at the WH. After Carter, Democrats were considered a toast (which they were for three times). And with current polarization, I can't see post-Civil War or New Deal cycles of unbroken rule.

As of the OP, there will be fatigue in 2020 if Hillary wins now, make no mistake. But, alas, there was fatigue with FDR two last times she ran, so fatigue doesn't necessairly mean "most probably will lose". There was fatigue in 1988 and Dukakis was leading by a double digits, just to be decimated come November.

I guess my point is, it's really impossible to predict with high degree of certainty. The U.S. political history, national and statewide, is littered with broken locks.

[JMT]

It's way too early to tell, but if I had to guess, I'd say she loses reelection. Republicans nominate Paul Ryan and he wins the 2020 election.

[°Leprechaun]

Trump would probably not be re-elected; Clinton probably would, so the question is which
is worse four years of Trump or eight of Clinton? Therefore, vote for Jill Stein.

[Santander]

Eight years for Bill, eight years for Hill.

[IceSpear]

It's impossible to tell, at this point. Far too many variables.

[Suburbia]

She'll win a second term if ISIS is eliminated,  taxes are low, and job equality is a success. If IS is still around,  a national security conservative could win.

[Heisenberg]

It's impossible to tell, at this point. Far too many variables.

This.

I say no. If you are President, you are going to be President two terms.

Not necessarily. Tell that to Carter and Bush Sr.

[Mike Thick]

Gun to my head? No. But it's way too early to tell.

[Heisenberg]

Historically, it has been difficult for a single party to maintain control of the presidency for three terms, let alone four.

Actually, it really isn't as difficult as people say for a party to hold the White House for 3 terms in a row. History has shown that America goes through periods of dominance by one party or the other, which tends to manifest at first via dominance of presidential races. Republicans had a very strong grip on the White House from 1860 - 1932, where they held the White House for 52 out of those 72 years (and 4 of those 20 years for Democrats was only because Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's VP). Democrats held the White House for 20 straight years from 1932 - 1952, and Eisenhower marked the beginning of a shift to Republicans, who eventually went to dominate from 1968 - 1992, losing only 1 election during that time, and Ford barely lost at that, even after Watergate. Now, Democrats began developing an advantage since 1992 and is arguably turning into a lock due to demographic and generational changes.

1960 was very close, Humphrey barely lost the PV in 1968 and possibly could have won if Wallace hadn't run (this is up for debate), and Gore just barely lost in 2000, despite winning the PV. Had Gore not been Gore and/or embraced Bill, Democrats would most likely have won that election.

Could a recession change the result of the 2020 elections?

Depends how big the recession is and when it happens, but it would definitely have an effect one way or another.

Some could argue that we recently finished an era of Republican dominance (1969-2009), where Republicans held the White House for 28/40 years, or that Clinton marked the beginning of a Democratic dominance (Democrats won the PV in every election since 1992 except for 2004). We had a pattern of 8 years of D, 8 R, 8D recently, and one way to look at could be that we've been transitioning. We'll see how this plays out in the long run. Looking at Congress, we see that historically, it has been dominated by the party OUT of the White House, generally speaking. For example, the House had a Democratic majority from 1954 all the way until 1994. The Senate was generally Democratic majority for that period, except for 1980-1986. Meanwhile, when Clinton won in 1992, Republicans swept both chambers 2 years later, and held both majorities through the end of Clinton's presidency. So soon, we could have a period where the 1950's-1980's situation flips. Republicans have a natural advantage with the House due to geography (Usually Democrats are "packed" in smaller areas) even without gerrymandering, which of course multiplies this advantage. And if Republicans could consistently win Senate races in all Republican states, and keep winning at least one seat in most swing states, they have a solid Senate advantage. While Democrats have a "head start" in the electoral College due to CA, NY, and IL. Just my 2 cents.

[Virginiá]

I see your point but I don't believe there's a think as a "lock". Advantage? Yes. But we can't take these shifts for granted.

"Lock" may overstate the situation, but a significant advantage sounds right to me.

And with current polarization, I can't see post-Civil War or New Deal cycles of unbroken rule.

A Post-Civil War-kind-of advantage I think would be a huge stretch in most scenarios, and the New Deal era had pretty unique circumstances. However, polarization won't matter if one side simply has more voters than the other, along with a distinct EC advantage. Republicans have a serious new voter issue - They are still doing horribly with young voters and have completely struck out with minorities at this point. So every year more of their older base dies off, and where are the new voters coming from? This is a very real problem for them. If Republicans think all those young people are just going to turn conservative one day, then they better pack lots of food and camping supplies, because the political wilderness is unforgiving.

If you look at the huge deficits Republicans are posting with younger GenX'ers and Millennials, then combine with the future demographic composition of the US and the near-complete loss of non-white support, it's hard to see how they easily overcome that anytime soon. It will take them a generation or more to roll back the animosity and stunningly low amounts of support from minorities, and that's assuming they come up with a very effective plan and begin executing it immediately, which we know isn't the case right now. There is no guarantee that they will accomplish this, either. They clearly have not been able to do it with African Americans in over 50 years. They haven't even made a dent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes I can agree with that. She has a large trust / likeability gap to overcome and the public won't be nearly as forgiving for mistakes during her presidency. I don't think it's impossible that she wins a 2nd term, but it'll probably be pretty difficult. I'm hoping she steps down and lets someone else run - preferably someone a majority of the public actually trusts / likes.

I only meant to say that winning 3 terms isn't nearly as difficult as the media and others make it sound. I think people only have that idea because the last 3 presidents have each won 2 terms, which in all reality means nothing, especially considering Gore won the popular vote. On top of that, Bush's reelection margin was really weak. Have we ever had a president get reelected by such slim PV/EC margins?

[Virginiá]

Looking at Congress, we see that historically, it has been dominated by the party OUT of the White House, generally speaking. For example, the House had a Democratic majority from 1954 all the way until 1994. The Senate was generally Democratic majority for that period, except for 1980-1986. Meanwhile, when Clinton won in 1992, Republicans swept both chambers 2 years later, and held both majorities through the end of Clinton's presidency. So soon, we could have a period where the 1950's-1980's situation flips. Republicans have a natural advantage with the House due to geography (Usually Democrats are "packed" in smaller areas) even without gerrymandering, which of course multiplies this advantage. And if Republicans could consistently win Senate races in all Republican states, and keep winning at least one seat in most swing states, they have a solid Senate advantage. While Democrats have a "head start" in the electoral College due to CA, NY, and IL. Just my 2 cents.

Well the sucky part about holding the White House for so long is that your party becomes the focal point for all of America's grievances, regardless if they are your fault or not. So it is easy to lose a lot of seats in midterms and hard to make large gains in general, even in presidential elections.

As for Congress - I don't know exactly how Democrats managed to get 2 generations of control, but I think a decent amount of luck was involved. The New Deal coalition (and I don't mean the Congressional coalition) was broad and Democrats had very strong and widespread support in the south for some time. Republicans do not really have that now. For instance, in 1970, Republicans only had 3 House seats in Texas, combined to today where Democrats have 11 seats, and would have more if the maps were not rigged. In Florida 1970, Republicans only had 3 seats, whereas today Democrats currently have 10 and are set to make a net pickup of 1 - 2 seats this November due to new maps, making 11 - 12. So my point is, Republicans don't have as solid control as Democrats did.

Further, and this could be a coincidence, but the 1958 recession seemed to have solidified Democratic control over Congress, particularly in the House. You could say 2008 was the 1958 for Republicans, but Bush absorbed the brunt of that while Eisenhower had to eat the entire thing, recovery included. Right now, Democrats are in a better position than Republicans were back then. Democrats had such huge majorities that they could absorb wave-sized losses, whereas Republicans are more vulnerable. If they hadn't been able to rig the maps so thoroughly in 2011, Democrats would probably have late 90s/early 2000s-sized majorities in the House, give or take, whereas from 1958 - 1994, Republicans consistently had far less seats year after year.

[politicallefty]

I think gerrymandering vastly overstates the Republicans in the House, particularly in the past 20 years or so. If you look at 1996, there was a 3.4% swing to the Democrats, enough to give them a plurality win over the Republicans. The result was a net 2 seat gain. In any other democratic nation, that swing would won the election (if not, an extremely close result in seat count). Without gerrymandering, I think Democrats would have very narrowly regained the House in 1996. Opposite of the seat results in real life, without gerrymandering, I think Democrats would have very narrowly lost the House. As for 2000, it's possible neither party would have had a majority. The two-party vote in 2000 was under 95%.

I'm not saying all of the results are wrong. Republicans should have made reasonable gains in 2002, but on the other hand, should have had some losses in 2004. However, if you look at the swing in 2006, Democrats should gained far more than 31 seats in the House. They ended up with 233 seats. In districts that were drawn under fair and reasonable criteria, Democrats probably should have ended up with somewhere between 253-263. President Obama's election would probably have increased that majority by 15-20 seats. Now, don't get me wrong, those number would not have saved the Democratic Majority in 2010. Still, I think Democrats would not have fallen below 200 seats in 2010 (although it may have been close). However, I think President Obama's reelection would have brought Democrats up to a narrow majority in the House (low 220s).

If we didn't live in a land of pervasive gerrymandering, I honestly think the House would flip every two years given our current political paradigm. In other words, I think the Presidential vote would carry the House in presidential years. On the other hand, I think the President's party would lose the House in midterm years.

[Californiadreaming]

Yes, but not because she'll be ousted in 2020. She will probably choose to step down after one term.

That seems unlikely, no?

[Californiadreaming]

Historically, it has been difficult for a single party to maintain control of the presidency for three terms, let alone four. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2016, would she be reelected in 2020? Could a recession change the result of the 2020 elections?

If a recession breaks out sometime between 2018 and 2020 (which is likely, IMHO) and the Republicans actually nominate a competent candidate in 2020, then Yes, Hillary Clinton will only serve for one term.

[Blair]

Well she's Hillary Clinton so she'll most likely run- Presidents very very rarely serve a single term, as you get sucked into office. If you're working 18 hour days running the country, you end up investing in yourself and want to be able to defend that at an election.

It's worth noting that HRC does a lot better when she governs- she got attacked a lot in 2000 running for the Senate but once she got in people approved, same with the State Department.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

She will almost certainly run and be re nominated. Whether she gets re-elected is a different story I lean towards no  she will not be re-elected at this point, but a lot can happen in 4 years.