Since 1901, only T. Roosevelt and R. Reagan were endearing enough to maintain their party's control of the White House after they left office. They both served two full terms, respectively.
R Roosevelt, Theodore1901-09
R ^Taft, William H. 1909-13
D Wilson, Woodrow 1913-21
R Harding, Warren 1921-23
R *Coolidge, Calvin 1923-29
R Hoover, Herbert 1929-33
D #Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1933-45
D *Truman, Harry 1945-53
R Eisenhower, Dwight 1953-61
D Kennedy, John F. 1961-63
D Johnson, Lyndon 1963-69
R Nixon, Richard 1969-74
R Ford, Gerald 1974-77
D Carter, Jimmy 1977-81
R Reagan, Ronald 1981-89
R ^Bush, George H.W. 1989-93
D Clinton, William J. 1993-2001
R Bush, George W. 2001- 2009
^Taft and Bush Sr. were the only men “elected” after one man of the same party served two full terms before them.
*Harding/Coolidge/Hoover served for total of 12 years altogether, but neither served eight full years. Truman was not elected his first term.
# FDR served 12+ years.
2007-10-17 02:46:12 · 12 answers · asked by Brandon ツ 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The 22nd Amendment now limits service to 8-10 years.
2007-10-17 02:47:37 · update #1
Regardless of what history depicts, I agree with you that we are probably going to end up with a democrate president next month....however, us republicans can always have hope right!
2007-10-17 02:54:07 · answer #1 · answered by curiousfuturepublicadmin 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I have observed this pattern. So I wish the ones the democrats were running were not so far left. If someone moderate was in power it would be ok, but it is more polarized than usual on both sides. And the left could have a much more dangerous way of messing things up such as introducing more socialism etc. So us Republicans have to try to stop that at all costs.
2007-10-17 04:59:01 · answer #2 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the last 45 years since Kennedy, no one who has more than two syllables in his last name has become president. That leaves out Rudy and Obama. So we have to go with Hillary Clinton or John Edwards on the democratic side, and Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson on the republican side. McCann doesn't have a chance so It should be Hillary against Mitt or Fred. No way Hillary will win against one of those two.
You heard what I said. I'm voting for FRED!
2007-10-17 03:59:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If they go into it with your attitude, then you're right...
But the thing with statistics is that every single event is unique and independent and the die has no memory. Just because it' happened that way 20 times or a million times before in no way forces it to happen that way this time.
You want a democratic win? Then support your candidate and get their message out... don't sit on your duff because "history says it's a cake walk".
2007-10-17 02:54:43 · answer #4 · answered by aptacularcray 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
History is history, and it is important to learn from it. But that does not mean that republicans should pack up ang go home. It's important to live up to your promises and follow through. Remember, history is in the past, and the 2008 is in the future. No one acually knows what will happen yet.
2007-10-17 02:52:37 · answer #5 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
History also dictates that the leading party in the House and Senate loose seats when there is a discconnect from the USA.
Go Censure VLAD THE IMPALER,
your congress is a joke.
2007-10-17 02:52:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
History does not predict the future, only revals trends of the past which may or may not repeat. Of course, if Hillary gets elected, it will mean and end to the USA as we know it, so historical perspectives will be moot.
2007-10-17 03:33:13 · answer #7 · answered by SteveA8 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not just past history, but recent history as well. After the Republican performance this last 7 years, it would have to be a very stupid nation indeed to vote them in once again.
2007-10-17 02:56:57 · answer #8 · answered by mstrywmn 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
But history never had a women (possibly) running for president. Or a black man (possibly). Not being prejudice or anything, just stating the facts.
2007-10-17 03:00:53 · answer #9 · answered by generalrop 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only if there are enough idiots who will vote for them...
2007-10-17 02:50:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋