WI: Non-Consecutive, Two Term President in 20th Century

What if, in the latter half of the 20th century, we had an American president who served two terms non-consecutively? That hasn't occurred since Grover Cleveland and it is taken as an impossible thought in modern American politics because of it. I don't think it's something we would understand exactly how to interpret in the modern era.

In terms of the modern political cycle, this would be a leader that is instantly free to do whatever they please; they have no worries about reelection. It's a political party which does not necessarily have a candidate in line to succeed them; the president can't run again, and the vice president will only have 4 years to run on as vice president, and it will be open probably to a battle between the sitting vice president and the leading candidates in the party 4 years earlier (possibly some new rising stars), probably with the VP and everyone else on similar footing. It's a news cycle that won't be able to do the same narrative they know and hammer ever election cycle.

Don't know how to make it happen ?

You need something to stop them running for a consecutive term but not make them unpopular, say they are injured and then healed ? what else would bar them from an election ? With no long term effects.

JSB

How about this possibility? John Kerry squeaks out an Electoral College victory in 2004 but loses the popular vote. Jeb Bush, the family's first choice for president, is the 2008 nominee and wins because the financial crisis began on Kerry's watch. Which may or may not set up a Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush matchup in 2012.

Gerald Ford is the obvious answer. He was openly angling to run in 1980 and was initially considered a co-frontrunner for the GOP nod alongside Reagan. However, Reagan's success in the pre-primary made Ford wary of running again, as he was concerned he couldn't beat Reagan.

So have Reagan not run again for some reason. Or maybe have Reagan narrowly beat out Ford for the nomination in 1976 but then have Reagan lose to Carter. That might discredit Reagan enough that he either doesn't run again or loses support among party leaders, who, placing a premium on electability, gravitate to Ford.

Ford would certainly have defeated Carter in 1980, though he'd only be able to serve a single elected term. Probably would pick a relative conservative —*maybe Jack Kemp or Paul Laxalt — as his running mate.

Have Ronald Reagan have a health problem in 1978. He did a cigarette ad. mMaybe he smoked. He drops out. gGerald Ford runs and wins.

Dewey beats Truman (for real!)


Dewey beats Truman by exactly 1 Electoral Vote then is needed (267-226-38), but still loses the popular vote by ~4%, his term is marred with overseas misadventures, he's primaried by Taft, and people still try to draft Eisenhower for either party. Truman is rehabilitated much quicker and he manages to convince Bess to let him run for one more office, and fix the mistakes left by Dewey. Truman would be President 1945-1949, 1953-1957, and is all goes well he might even be President 1957-1961, but that's unlikely.

George HW Bush runs again in 1996 after Clinton does much worse than IOTL and possibly has a scandal DURING the election cycle not after.

suppose it would help if Perot is discredited somehow after 1992? maybe even shown some coordination with Clinton-Gore campaign?

Mitt Romney somehow wins the electoral college in 2012, but loses the popular vote to Pres. Obama. Obama, who was still decently popular at the time of the election (roughly 50% - if not more so), speaks about calm and supporting Romney, who many, especially in the black community, feel is illegitimate. He gains a great deal of goodwill from the American people with his handling of such a stunningly difficult defeat (Ohio proved the tipping point, with the President losing the state by a mere thousand votes or so) and leaves office with soaring approval ratings.

Romney comes in, instantly finds senate Democrats combative (after two years of House obstructionism, they're ready for payback ... plus, Republicans couldn't grab the senate). The fiscal cliff happens, as there is no deal reached between House Republicans, Senate Democrats and the White House. The economy is off to a shaky start in 2013 and things spiral a bit out of control.

Romney finds it difficult connecting with the American people early in his presidency, which hurts his overall image. His popularity isn't bad - but rarely eclipsing 50% by mid-2013. Eventually, the economy slowly begins to recover from the initial shock of the fiscal cliff, but its growth is tepid and Americans become increasingly wary of the overall economic situation.

The NSA leaks still happen, and Romney gets a bulk of the blame, even though it's evident the issue played out under both Bush and Obama. The IRS scandal isn't nearly as wide, though there are rumors that the IRS did target leftist groups under Bush (and some conservative groups under Obama).

Romney struggles to get things done in his first two years. He's never successful at repealing Obamacare, which slowly gains acceptance into the mainstream - and his Tax Relief Act is dead on arrival once it reaches the Senate. With his hands tied, and the economy shaky, the Republicans nearly lose the House in 2014 and fail to make gains in the U.S. Senate, even though they had a favorable set up.

Much of the media at this point starts suggesting Romney is a one-term president. His approval, much like Obama's in 2011, slips to the low 40s.

He's not entirely unpopular - but he's in that gray area where his reelection odds are iffy, especially in the new political landscape of hyper partisanship.

Obama, however, is seen as widely popular again outside the lens of the Washington media. He helps stump for midterm Democrats, works on an initiative to help black male youths, and hints at potentially running against Romney again in 2016.

With polls in mid-2015 showing Obama soundly beating Romney, speculation really heats up - especially when Hillary announces she won't seek the presidency. Finally, after much hemming and hawing, Obama announces his plans for reelection.

He faces no real challenge in the primaries, even though former Vice President Biden showed interest.

Romney faces no real Republican challenger, wrapping up the nomination, and entering the election year with a 45% approval rating.

In the end, key shifting demographics deliver the White House back to Obama, who defeats Romney with over 300 electoral votes and a margin of three-points in the popular vote.

Romney leaves office respected for his attempt, but often considered ineffective in guiding the country through the partisanship divide. Obama steps in with a new term of his own - and growing international challenges.

Far worse Clinton scandals?
Have Clinton caught to have not only simple rumours of scandals with white house interns, but also caught red handed without any clothes between three female interns who also naked, inside oval office.

While this time slick Willy cannot lie about it, have Yeltsin of all people condemn his "moral degradation" along with Khameini issuing messages about "western immoralities", Prince Charles to honestly avoid Cammila now and instead building an image of family man to distance himself from Clinton's scandal, and have Gaddafi said "he think he'll try to emulate Clinton"

And this affect international markets really badly.

And oh, have this occured in 1994

Americans will said "We trade George HW Bush for him?"

Slick Willy gets impeached, Al Gore serves as interim president until 1996, George HW Bush run and win in 96

The best bets are Wilson/Truman losing the EV in 1916/48 and coming back in 1920/52 or Ford losing the '76 primary and making a comeback in '80.

What about FDR declining to run in '40, with the election going to Wilkie, and then deciding to run again in '44 with better health from not carrying the weight of the country on his shoulders during the war years?

Plumber said:

The best bets are Wilson/Truman losing the EV in 1916/48 and coming back in 1920/52 or Ford losing the '76 primary and making a comeback in '80.

Click to expand...

Actually two more possibilities, though they're kind of second-order:

(1) Carter narrowly defeats Reagan in 1980. Without a clear leader, the stage is set for Ford to make a comeback in 1984.

(2) Eisenhower opts out of reelection in 1956 (as he nearly did). Nixon defeats Bill Knowland to become the GOP nominee, defeats Adlai Stevenson, and serves from 1957 to 1961. But following the '58 recession, he narrowly loses in 1960 to JFK. Still, he's only 46 when he leaves office, so he remains active in GOP politics and runs for a second term in 1968, winning, and serving again from 1969 to 1973.

Emperor Norton I said:

What if, in the latter half of the 20th century, we had an American president who served two terms non-consecutively? That hasn't occurred since Grover Cleveland and it is taken as an impossible thought in modern American politics because of it. I don't think it's something we would understand exactly how to interpret in the modern era.

Click to expand...

It might happen this way: President A takes office at the age of 44 in say 1960, having united his party. He is quite popular. But partway through his term he resigns due to health issues, possibly as the result of an assassination attempt. The VP takes office, but the party divisions resurface, and he mismanages a crisis, leafing to a severe defeat in the next election (1964).

By the time of next off-year election (1966), A has recovered from the health problems, and is elected U.S. Senator from his home state. He does not run for President in 1968, due to lingering health questions (it's a lot more serious if the President gets sick than one of a hundred Senators). His party narrowly wins. He of course does not challenge the incumbent in 1972, instead being re-elected to the Senate. In the meantime, he's become a fitness buff: running 5K races, pumping iron.

The party narrowly loses in 1972, due to divisions and fumbling by the President.

In 1976, A again runs for President. He's only 60, everyone knows he can do the job, and there is no question about his health. He has been an "elder statesman" of the party, on good terms with all factions. He wins handily.

Here's another scenario. A is VP. He and the President seek reelection, but the President is killed in an accident/drops dead a few weeks before the election, and the other party wins. A serves as President for the remaining three months. Four years later he runs for President and wins.

Nixon is the most plausible one. After all he's the only one off the top of my head that was able to win a presidential election after losing one in the 20th century.

Teddy Roosevelt was getting ready to run again in the 1920 election but died in 1919. He was still popular.

Bee said:

Teddy Roosevelt was getting ready to run again in the 1920 election but died in 1919. He was still popular.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if he hadn't run in 1912 (or had Taft die of a heart attack in office and have him run and and win then), he could have run in 1916 and won easy.

Remember that even Grover Cleveland won a plurality of the popular vote when he lost the electoral vote in 1888.