Surprising lack of one-term Presidents?

[Reaganfan]

With the back and forth divisions of politics in America the last 10-12 years, you would expect that our presidencies would be back and forth as well. After all, Congress has gone from GOP to Democrats to GOP in just four years, but we continue to have Presidents re-elected at an amazing rate. By all indications, George W. Bush should have lost re-election, then John Kerry would have had Katrina and the economic downturn, leading to the election of a Republican, then that President would have just lost re-election to a Democrat. Maybe something like this:::

Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
George Bush (2001-2005)
John Kerry (2005-2009)
McCain/Allen/Romney (2009-2013)
Obama/Hillary/Whoever (2013-)

My question is, why is it easier to sweep an entire congress out twice within four years, but nearly impossible to beat a President once in four years?

One thing of note...if only men voted...the results of the last 30 years of Presidential elections wouldn't be too different, except Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have lost re-election. Is it possible that women voters and certain voting blocs make it next to impossible?

[Franzl]

One thing of note...if only men voted...the results of the last 30 years of Presidential elections wouldn't be too different, except Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have lost re-election. Is it possible that women voters and certain voting blocs make it next to impossible?

If only men voted, a lot of things would be different. You can't assume the same parties, candidates, policy positions, etc.

[bballrox4717]

Both Bush and Obama had challengers who ran poor campaigns, based on the base's anger against the president. Reagan and Clinton made clear arguments as to why they would be better  than Carter and Bush Sr and won. Kerry and Romney bungled that opportunity and let their opponents define them too easily.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Most of the prez have been swept out with scandle and congress on the other hand isn't dependent on scandle, based on the economy. Most of the second half of Bush's second term was filled with scandle as the same with Clinton. Whereas Obama no such scandle arosed.

[Vosem]

Most of the prez have been swept out with scandle and congress on the other hand isn't dependent on scandle, based on the economy. Most of the second half of Bush's second term was filled with scandle as the same with Clinton. Whereas Obama no such scandle arosed.

While I can't predict anything, no scandal had 'arosed' yet in January '97 or January '05.

[memphis]

Small sample size. Can't say anything meaningful. Though it is interesting that we're rounding ot the first  consecutive trio of two termers since Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Although if you give Truman FDR's last term, which he was the prez during most of, you have FDR (3), Truman (2) and Ike (2).

[Vosem]

Historical coincidence, really. And I wouldn't say this until Obama's comfortably left office in January 2017; God forbid, but not counting Obama himself, 20.9% of Presidents have died in office of resigned. That's a very non-negligible amount.

[Beet]

With the exception of the Kennedy assassination and Watergate, there would have been no one-term president from 1933 to 1980.

[memphis]

Historical coincidence, really. And I wouldn't say this until Obama's comfortably left office in January 2017; God forbid, but not counting Obama himself, 20.9% of Presidents have died in office of resigned. That's a very non-negligible amount.

Fortunately, medical care and basic hygiene have come a long way since we started having Presidents. And so have security measures. And Obama's only 51. I'd give his odds of surviving his presidency at much better than 79%. Is there an actuary in the house?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Number of elections since 1932 in which an incumbent president was re-elected: 11

Number of elections since 1932 in which an incumbent president was defeated: 4 (including 1932 itself)


Number of elections since 1932 in which no incumbent president ran, but the incumbent party retained the White House: 1

Number of elections since 1932 in which no incumbent president ran and the incumbent party lost the White House: 5


Barack Obama was an incumbent president. So were Bush Jr. and Clinton. They're not the anomaly.

1976/1980 and 1988/1992 were the anomalies.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As I mentioned during the election, one reason why I was increasingly confident Obama would be re-elected is a pretty simple fact, when G W Bush lost in 1992, he lost by 5% and 202 EVs... and it was the smallest margin for an incumbent president to be defeated... btw, I don't count Ford as it was his first election.

So my point is, incumbency is the most powerful re-election tool a president has. People are inherently conservative when it comes to voting someone out. It generally takes a personal failing which impacts on the country - and that leads to incumbents being thrown out, rather than voted out.