It is something of a truism of modern American politics that the next campaign begins right after the polls close on the last one. This may be something of an exaggeration but we are already hearing whispers about who might run for the Republicans and even speculation as to whether or not Biden might choose to retire in 2013.
At the risk of encouraging this kind of early handicapping I thought I’d take a moment to offer a bit of a historical perspective on what 2012 might bring. Obviously this is purely speculation since many things can happen over the next four years but when you look at things over the long term they do tend to follow the overall trend.
I will be examining the campaigns from 1896 through 2004. I chose to start with 1896 because most political experts think this is when the modern political campaign began. During that time period we saw eleven periods of partisan control. Of those eleven, ten were at least two terms long (the only exception being Jimmy Carter). So that is good news for Obama and the Democrats.
On the other hand, of those eleven, only four were longer than two terms, so the odds would tend to give the GOP an edge for 2016 and beyond. If you’d like to look at this in more detail please keep reading.
As I mentioned, we had eleven periods of partisan control during the 1896-2004 range, of which only four were longer than two terms.
Period 1 lasted from 1897-1913. During these 16 years the Republicans kept control of the White House under three Presidents (McKinley, T. Roosevelt and Taft). Being one of the four exceptions to the two terms or less rule it could offer a guide to the Democrats but I don’t think it is one they are going to be able to follow.
For one thing, part of the formula here featured the assassination of McKinley, which is obviously not something we want to see happen again. Also we had the dynamic personality of Theodore Roosevelt. Taft’s win in 1908 was basically a third term for Roosevelt. While it is possible Obama could demonstrate similar popularity that would allow the party to win a third term it would not gain them a fourth.
In addition the Republicans were simply the dominant majority party during this period and while the Democrats have certainly had success I do not think they have reached that point of dominance yet.
Period 2 lasted from 1921-1933. Three terms for the GOP under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. As with period 1 we had the death of a President and a clearly dominant party in order to accomplish the three terms. Let me be clear here when I say clearly dominant I don’t mean just that one party or the other may get more votes but that one party is so dominant that winning is almost a foregone conclusion. That is not the case here
Period 3 lasted from 1933-1953 and is the biggest stretch featuring 5 straight terms for the Democrats under FDR and Truman. This kind of dominance required a major depression, a world war, the death of a President and a period of clear dominance by one party. Again I don’t see this as a model for Obama (nor do I think he wants a depression and a world war).
The last time we had more that two terms was 1981-1993 under Reagan and Bush. This one is probably the best option for Obama and the Democrats in that neither party had clear dominance over the other and there were no exceptional events like assassination/death of a President or a major war.
The two keys to their success were the huge popularity of President Reagan in 1988 and the incredibly bad campaign waged by Dukakis and the Democrats in that year. If Obama can retain high approval ratings into the 2016 race and if the GOP helps out by running campaigns like 2006 and 2008 then the Democrats could win a third term.
The sole one termer was Jimmy Carter from 1977-1981. Obama could also repeat this pattern if he is unable to get control of many of the problems in the economy and foreign policy.
The remaining are all one- or two-termers and match into the normal pattern
- 1913-1921 for the Democrats under Wilson
- 1953-1961 for the Republicans under Ike
- 1961-1969 for the Democrats under JFK and LBJ
- 1969-1977 for the Republicans under Nixon and Ford
- 1993-2001 for the Democrats under Clinton
- 2001-2009 for the Republicans under Bush 43
This kind of pattern, two terms in and two terms out, switching from party to party in regular cycles is quite typical.
So while I would not tell Republicans to be making any plans to reoccupy the White House in 2013, I also would not tell the Democrats to plan on being there much past 2017 at the most.
In my next post, I will discuss prospects for Congress in the upcoming campaigns of 2010 and 2012