Reply #15: We won't be facing an incumbent in 2008

[Awsi Dooger]

I predict George Bush won't seek a third term, and it's fantasy webland that he will leave office before his term ends. We ran against an incumbent in '04 and predictably lost. Not counting 2004 (and a 2.51 national popular vote margin) as an incumbent but including 1976 as an incumbent is selective fuzzy math along the lines of TIA. Likewise, counting Lyndon Johnson as an incumbent and pretending Nixon was never re-elected as an incumbent further nullifies any of this supposed study as legit.

I applaud the energy but why twist and turn to suit your own agenda and predetermined conclusions? That was classic TIA. I thought we appropriately evicted that type of selective analysis.

You can't evaluate Roosevelt and his four terms without factoring in WW II and the reluctance to change control in that situation.. The GOP was petrified they would never regain control and that's what prompted the 22nd amendment, which was passed only after Roosevelt was elected for the fourth time.

Also, the notion that we greatly benefit in 2008 via the GOP being in office two straight terms is utter hogwash. I've pointed out many times that's still basically neutral territory. The restlessness doesn't begin until after three terms. That's why Gore would most likely have been dumped in 2004 if he had rightfully prevailed in 2000.

Just look at the last five times when a party has faced the electorate after it has been in power exactly two straight terms: 1960, 1968, 1976, 1988 and 2000. While it's true the opposing party won 4 of 5 elections in that period, all 4 victories were among the closest and most debated/disputed elections in contemporary American history, basically coin flips. The one hold of serve was a comparative rout.

Very good chance for a wee hour cliffhanger in 2008.