Odds are, whoever is elected president in 2016 will be re-elected in 2020.

[MohRokTah]

It's a fairly safe bet given the enormous advantage an incumbent president has in any election. So long as nothing unforeseen happens, most likely whoever is elected president in 2016 will serve until January 20, 2025.

The following Supreme Court Justices will all be in their eighties when the next president takes office:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy

Whoever is elected president in 2016 will most likely appoint replacements for three of those and probably all four. That president will shape the course of the court for the next twenty years at least.

Anybody who says they will not vote for the democratic nominee, regardless of whom that nominee eventually is, is a total and complete fucking moron.

[Dan de Lyons]

1. Uh...

How can someone who is elected in 2016 be re-elected in 2024?

After FDR's third term, the Republicans pushed through a constitutional amendment giving term limits to the presidency. Two terms.

[MohRokTah]

3. Fixed the Title. eom

[MohRokTah]

5. BTW, didn't have to change the text

I meant 2020 but was thinking of my text and how the replacement would be elected in 2024, thus the next president will most likely serve until January 20, 2025.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Skip a term?

[WhiteTara]

50. Thanks Dan,

I thought maybe I had not got the memo about length of Presidential terms.
Welcome

[liberal N proud]

2. You fixed it

I was trying to do the math on that one.

[MohRokTah]

4. Fixed the Title. eom

[winter is coming]

6. Your big selling point on "vote Dem or else!" is Supreme Court Justices? You're falling back

to that position two years before Election Day? What a resounding vote of no confidence in Democratic candidates.

[MohRokTah]

9. No, I'm making a point about differences between ANY DEmocrat and ANY Republican

after seeing a "not a dime's worth of difference" type post in another thread.

"Not a dime's worth of difference" got us John Roberts as CJ, and Samuel Alito as an AJ.

"Not a dime's worth of difference" put us in Afghanistan for the past 12 years and will be there another 2 years when we could ahve been out after less than 3 years, having accomplished what needed to be accomplished.

"Not a dime's worth of difference" put us into an unnecessary war with Iraq.

So tell me, what will "not a dime's worth of difference" mean if Jeb Bush appoints Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer's replacements to the court?

[Armstead]

24. Not a dimes worth of differnce brought us...

Banking and Finance Deregulaiton that crashed the economy and led to Too Big to Fail banking and investment institutions. Followed by an administration that brought the same crew that helped wreck the economy in to "fix" it

Telecomm "Deregulation" that gave all of the nation's radio and TV stations to Clear Channel and a few other monopoly corporations with no obligation to serve the public.

Enough of a vote supporting Bush that he was empowered to invade Iraq

etc.

[winter is coming]

46. By jumping straight to Supreme Court Justices, you imply that *that's* going to be the most

important, and perhaps the only, noticeable difference. I wouldn't cede that ground so easily, and certainly not before we even know who's running.

[MohRokTah]

47. I am pointing out the absolutely most CRITICAL issue, not only for 2016, but also for this year.

Remember, the President requires the advise and consent of the Senate.

60 votes are required to forestall a filibuster.

And we are on the verge of a GOP run Senate come January of next year.

So as of right now, there is no issue more important than this one.

ALL OTHER ISSUES COMBINED ARE NOT EVEN HALF AS IMPORTANT!

[winter is coming]

48. Shouting at people and calling them morons isn't likely to persuade them to vote Dem.

You want to convince someone there's a difference between parties? List several differences, some of which are likely to affect your audience in near-immediate, concrete ways, e.g., their job. Not everyone's going to "get" that Supreme Court nominations matter in the way that you do. If want people to vote for your candidate, you need to find an argument that convinces them, not just one that convinces you, no matter how obvious you think the choice is.

[WinkyDink]

7. I should live so long.

[dawg]

8. I'll probably vote for the left-most candidate with a realistic chance of winning.

All my life, that has been the Democratic candidate, and will likely be so again in 2016. But nothing in life is guaranteed.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. Shaming the base is not your strong suit

[whatthehey]

12. By what

linguistic or logical contortion would the real base ever need any "shaming" or even reinforcement to vote for the party whose base they represent? Unless you agree with the OP's conclusion, however low you rank their reason or persuasive ability, you are nowhere fucking near the base.

[Capt. Obvious]

14. Welcome to DU

[whatthehey]

16. Thanks - where do I go for the base?

[Capt. Obvious]

22. The Carter

[MohRokTah]

13. I'm not shaming the base.

The base is with me and whomsoever the nominee will be.

That's why it's called "the base".

I am pointing out the idiocy of those ludicrous people out there who claim the "not a dime's worth of difference" bullshit.

[Capt. Obvious]

18. And how many people here

are going to sit on their hands (certain states get freebies: you live in Vermont and want to vote 3rd party? go nuts!)?

Your OP - which is completely unoriginal on this site - is the equivalent of running around typing GOTV as if that means something.

This needs to be sent to your neighbors, not to DUers.

[MohRokTah]

21. From my counts, at least 15 at the current time

Though I must admit, my ignore list continues to grow.

[Capt. Obvious]

27. You should name names

[MohRokTah]

28. That would be calling out.

I'd prefer not to violate TOS and put the idiots on ignore.

[Capt. Obvious]

31. That's not a TOS violation

so that's a cop out.

It could be considered a CS violation but most juries don't consider it one.

I can understand not risking an adverse jury but I know you'd love to name names. The fact that you gave an exact number (some people say they just use weasel word descriptors) shows that you have a list of members that have apparently announced they are not voting for the D in 2016.

Just think of the high fives and +1's you'll get when you make the list public.

[MohRokTah]

32. I've seen posts hidden over it.

Not gonna risk it to make you happy.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. You should send me the list then

[Agschmid]

30. I wish there was a pretzel smiley, just like this one...

[Autumn]

49. A pretzel smiley would be ever so nice.

[Sheepshank]

33. I don't think reminding people that SC is in the balance

is a bad thing. The regular Joe on the street, and the numerous newbies don't often think of voting DEM from the perspective of SC nominees. Slamming the OP for what you think is your noble cause isn't really all that creative here in DU anymore.

[MohRokTah]

34. Yes, and four seats on the court are up fro grabs.

Two to the left and two to the right.

That means whomsoever wins in 2016 will likely create a 6/3 split court for a generation, one way or the other.

[Capt. Obvious]

43. No, it's fucking boring

Let's have another fucking thread reminding the members here that the President appoints SJC members.

Some may have forgotten.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Tell it to the candidates who want our votes. "Not as bad" is piss poor advertising.

[whatthehey]

19. ...but impeccable logic

I don't give a tinker's fart about ideals and unicorns and rainbows. One of two people will be the next POTUS: whomever the Dems nominate and whomever the Reps nominate. It is in the strictest terms a zero sum game. Not supporting one supports the other in real, practical impact.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. It's still up to the candidates to convince the voters to vote for them.

That's the impeccable logic of democracy.

[MohRokTah]

20. "Not a dime's worth of difference" thinking is pure idiocy.

And failing to realize what's on the line is "not a dime's worth of difference" thinking.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Tsk. Tsk. Apparently, not as bad, is good enough...for you.

Opinions differ.

[MohRokTah]

26. Anybody who would think "not a dime's worth of difference"

is no Democrat, and never has been one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I've been a Democrat since 1965...you?

[Armstead]

17. Oh just shut up

You were making reasonable points until "Anybody who says they will not vote for the democratic nominee, regardless of whom that nominee eventually is, is a total and complete fucking moron."

Disagreements, including strong ones, are fine.

But can't you ever make a point without being insulting?

[quinnox]

35. You are making an awful lot of assumptions that may not come true

For example, what if an ultra conservative Democrat managed to become the candidate, think a Zell Miller type (before he went totally insane) or Joe Lieberman, and maybe the republicans nominate a moderate or even liberal republican, think of a mold like Lincoln Chafee or John Huntsman.. I sure know who I would vote for in that scenario, and it wouldn't be the Democrat.

Unlikely to happen? Sure, but stranger things have happened.

[Spider Jerusalem]

36. I wouldn't put my money on that

it's a bit early for making forecasts, but: conventional oil production peaked almost 10 years ago, around 2005-2006, and has been flat, since. There's been enough unconventional production from things like tar sands, deepwater offshore wells, and oil shale to make up demand; however, there are some credible estimates that conventional production will decline around 2015 and unconventional won't fill the gap: if that happens, all bets are off, because it'll mean another 2008-style global recession/depression--and if it happens in 2015 with Obama still in the White House? The Republicans are going to win even if the Democratic ticket consists of clones of FDR and JFK. And if it happens between 2016-2020? Whoever wins in 2016 will be a one-term president. Guaranteed.

[Blue_Adept]

37. But what if I want to vote Republican just to hasten the end of the American Empire?

Yes, there are plenty of differences between the two sides. Plenty of similarities as well, though not in the classic good way that used to allow things to work.

But at this stage, I just don't see things getting back to any sort of resemblance to normal working mode in government because of how castigated it has been over the last thirty odd years. The demonization won't change and it's only going to get worse.

[MohRokTah]

39. The you shouldn't be posting on DEMOCRATIC Underground. eom

[Blue_Adept]

41. I've only voted Republican once, and that was for Governor Weld

A Republican back when you could get behind them.

Votes since have been for some good people. Gore, Kerry, Obama twice. Markey and Warren as well as getting a little Kennedy time in.

But the deluge of things that have happened in the last twenty years really makes it hard to get behind either party when the strings are controlled elsewhere.

[Proud Public Servant]

38. Actually, odds are you're wrong

Parties don't tend to hold the White House for 16 straight years, absent extraordinary events (like the utter collapse of an opposition party, as happened in the early 19th century, or the association of one party with treason, as happened in the late 19th century).

In the last 100 years, the only time a party has held the White House for four consecutive terms was under FDR. Otherwise the longest 1-party occupancies have been:

1921-1933 (GOP)
1981-1993 (GOP)

(Beyond that, note that you have to go all the way back to 1820 to find the most recent incident of a 2-term president being succeeded by a 2-term president from their own party.)

The odds are just as likely that, if a Dem is elected in 2016, s/he will be voted out of office in 2020.

[former9thward]

40. The odds are very much against it actually.

We have had three straight two-term presidents. That is very unusual. The odds are that the pattern will revert to the norm and that the person elected in 2016 will not be elected in 2020.

[Rhymes With Orange]

44. I'm not worried about 2016 at all.

Who do the Pukes have that could actually win? Look at the last two they sent up. I'm hoping palin runs. That would be hilarious.

[H2O Man]

45. Respectfully disagree.

I do not think that it's safe to say that who wins in 2016 is likely to win re-election in 2020. In fact, it is more likely that whoever wins in '16 will not win re-election.

I absolutely agree that the selection of USSC judges -- in fact, any and all federal judges -- is a huge issue, that demands our closest attention.

I strongly disagree with your final statement, which can only serve to divide people, and make meaningful conversations more difficult. That type of nonsense hurts the chances of electing democrats.

[unblock]

51. 21 out of 43 presidents have been elected to a second term, just under 50%.

it is indeed a big advantage, but actually the historical odds are that a president will not be elected to a second term for one reason or another.

[DavidDvorkin]

53. What's the number if you exclude those who died during their first term?

[unblock]

54. that would eliminate jfk, harding, taylor, garfield, and w.h.harrison.

so, 21 out of 38, just over 55%.

the hurdles prior to winning re-election are physically surviving the first term, choosing to run again (eliminating 3 more presidents, so 21 out of 35, or 60%), and winning the nomination (eliminating 5 more, so 21 out of 30, or 70%). passing each of these hurdles of course improves the historical odds of winning re-election.

[DavidDvorkin]

55. Interesting

Thanks.

[gwheezie]

52. I have several issues that are important to me

but I do believe there will be an attempt to overturn Roe so I will vote for whoever the dem is because I believe there is a better chance that a dem will not nominate someone to the court who would side with the right on Roe.