99Jasper's blog
Posted at 1:04pm on Feb. 25, 2007 Multiple terms, incumbency, and presidential politics
By 99Jasper
I was doing some thinking about an idea I've occasionally referenced in this blog -- namely, the concept that history favors the Democrats, perhaps strongly so, in next year's presidential election. The main justification usually given to back up this assertion is that the American people almost always decide to give the other party a shot at the executive branch after its opponent has enjoyed multiple terms in office. But is this idea valid?
Well, a little research revealed that one has to put this idea into context.
During the post World War II era (which I'll define here as elections occurring after Harry Truman left office), there have been five presidential elections (1960, 1968, 1976, 1988, and 2000) that gave voters the opportunity to keep one of the two parties in power for a third term. On only one of those five occasions, 1988, did the American people opt for a third term with the same party.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:09am on Feb. 8, 2007 Get busy, Mr. Mayor. Or Romney Here I Come.
By 99Jasper
A commenter on this thought-provoking blog piece made the observation that presidential hopeful Rudolph Giuliani is "as likely to appoint conservative Justices as any other candidate."
Really, I thought. More so than Brownback? Newt? Hunter? Tancredo?
Anyway, this really is they key question for me concerning the Guiliani candidacy; I'll frankly admit that a pro-life Guiliani would be something of a perfect candidate for me, a somewhat more moderate GOPer than many of y'all. Maybe I just haven't followed his statements carefully enough, but I have no firm idea that he's a vociferous proponent of federalism, and I have no firm idea on how he views Roe. And I don't think that's by accident, because I get the impression that Rudy doesn't want us to know what he thinks of Roe. Maybe that's because he loathes the 1973 decision and doesn't want to offend moderates or liberals (so as to be competitive in a general election), but maybe it's because he has no intention of using the office of the presidency to protect the lives of the unborn because, he's, you know, "pro-choice".
Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
