I've seen it written that the best thing that could happen to Obama would be to lose this election, as second term Presidents tend to have a difficult time of it.

Have there been any successful second term Presidents?

FDR -- four terms.

Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt

Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower

What would you consider to be a successful second term for Obama, JT?

Genuinely curious btw....I know little of US politics tbh.

Have there been any successful second term Presidents?

Bill was unsuccessful to keep Monica under his desk.

JT......you should know better, FDR was elected before the two term Mandate was brought in, as was Teddy. I thought you knew your US politics.

In which specific way was Ike's second term successful?

Simply stating second term president does not in any way imply that you are excluding those previous to the limit. In U.S. history, there have been SIXTEEN second term presidents, the vast majority of course BEFORE the two term limit.

Okay my OP wasn't specific enough, since the legislation came into place to limit Presidencies to two terms, have there been any Presidents that have enjoyed notable success in their second terms?

I'm of the opinion that the legislation back fired in many ways, but before I get into that I would like to know if there have been any success stories.

Okay my OP wasn't specific enough, since the legislation came into place to limit Presidencies to two terms, have there been any Presidents that have enjoyed notable success in their second terms?

Your OP was clear enough.

Since WWII the second term presidents have been...

Eisenhower - honestly don't remember what happened and don't feel like using Google.

Johnson - sort of a second term, took over for Kennedy in his final year, won the 64 election then things were so bad he decided against running in 68

Nixon - Watergate, (but got us out of Vietnam)

Reagan - Iran Contra scandal (but much success with dealing with the USSR)

Clinton - Monica Lewinsky scandal (but worked with hostile Republican Congress to balance the budget)

Bush 43 - the Iraq surge was a success but to say there were more problems than successes would be an understatement.

Thanks very much koheesti, while I can understand the thinking behind the 22nd Amendment it appears to have backfired to the extent that power wanes exponentially during the second term, people start to position themselves behind the new favourite and the President ends up being side lined to an extent. As Norman Lamont said of a previous British government......

"In office but not in power"

I think two stints is too short, I think it causes problems in of itself. I would say it would be well nigh impossible these days for someone to take the strain of 4 terms as FDR did, however he was re-elected by the US populace. Now they don't even get that opportunity......it's an interesting and possibly ( certainly? ) a denial of the due democratic process.

Clinton could have definitely been elected for more terms. He could be elected today. Talking Bill.

Clinton could have definitely been elected for more terms. He could be elected today. Talking Bill.

Yup...he had the popularity and charisma to ride a sex scandal.

Good inoffensive president he was.

Thanks very much koheesti, while I can understand the thinking behind the 22nd Amendment it appears to have backfired to the extent that power wanes exponentially during the second term, people start to position themselves behind the new favourite and the President ends up being side lined to an extent. As Norman Lamont said of a previous British government......

"In office but not in power"

I think two stints is too short, I think it causes problems in of itself. I would say it would be well nigh impossible these days for someone to take the strain of 4 terms as FDR did, however he was re-elected by the US populace. Now they don't even get that opportunity......it's an interesting and possibly ( certainly? ) a denial of the due democratic process.

Second term Presidents are often called lame ducks. Congress knows they won't be around much longer so they sometimes don't feel the need to cooperate. They can just wait the term out and hope their man wins the next election. It's very similar to our Afghanistan strategy - you could say we have a lame duck military now because the opposition knows their term is coming to an end in 2014 so they just need to wait it out.

Nowadays, soon after entering office, a politician starts working on re-election instead of governing. Presidents being limited to two terms, don't have that to worry about after being re-elected, but they do work toward their legacy. Congress does need to be re-elected so while a President can try to do something good, Congress doesn't have to go along.

Take the most recent example, George W. Bush...right after re-election in 2004 he said it was time to finally reform Social Security. He was right, it's a mess from Congress stealing from the Social Security "lock box" to pay for other things for decades and no one believes it will be there for much longer. However, in order to reform it, Congress would have to make some tough political decisions and neither party was much interested in risking that, so Bush didn't get very far.

Clinton could have definitely been elected for more terms. He could be elected today. Talking Bill.

Reckon it will be Hilary as next Clinton President.

Having had first black POTUS, then one with funny undergarments, the US will be ready for a female boss.

Clinton could have definitely been elected for more terms. He could be elected today. Talking Bill.

Reckon it will be Hilary as next Clinton President.

Having had first black POTUS, then one with funny undergarments, the US will be ready for a female boss.

It will be difficult for Hillary to live down the Benghazi debacle for future office. Her State Department knew there were massive security problems in Libya yet nothing was done to correct both the physical facilities or manpower failures.

Benghazi was a soft target waiting for an intrusion. Unfortunately the terrorists took action long before this administration looked at the problems.

It is too bad because Hillary might be OK. I think that she really is a moderate and that is what I normally prefer. However, I am POed at Bill Clinton right now for selling us a bill of goods on Obama when he knows better.

Reckon it will be Hilary as next Clinton President.

It will be difficult for Hillary to live down the Benghazi debacle for future office. Her State Department knew there were massive security problems in Libya yet nothing was done to correct both the physical facilities or manpower failures.

Benghazi was a soft target waiting for an intrusion. Unfortunately the terrorists took action long before this administration looked at the problems.

It will be eight or twelve years before Hillary gets a shot - she'll be as unelectable as John McCain then, due to age.

Both would have made fine presidents, but don't have the hair-grooming needed to be POTUS.

For some presidents, four years is already too long; for others, eight years is not enough. I prefer the British system, where those thought to be good PMs get kept for longer (Thatcher, in some people's opinions), and poor ones get thrown out earlier (George Brown, for example). Anyway, two of each term of four years can be a dead loss if the mid-term Congressional elections return a hostile Congress. One year at the end of each term is lost to electioneering, too.

I suppose the key to it is the fact that there is more check on a British PM, who generally has less power than POTUS. Strong PMs, like Thatcher, manage to ride roughshod over everybody else.... until one day all their rivals have had enough!

So are we agreeing that the 22nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed?

It is too bad because Hillary might be OK. I think that she really is a moderate and that is what I normally prefer. However, I am POed at Bill Clinton right now for selling us a bill of goods on Obama when he knows better.

Somehow I think that Hilary has long ago cut any umbilical cord (and probably a lot more if she has any sense) to Bill. Ex-President Clinton, a true crowd pleaser but a classic alley hound-dog in need of 2 bricks!

Still reckon that she would be great as the first female US president. Couldn't be much worse than the first Catholic, black or Mormon/flipflop POTUS.

For some presidents, four years is already too long; for others, eight years is not enough. I prefer the British system, where those thought to be good PMs get kept for longer (Thatcher, in some people's opinions), and poor ones get thrown out earlier (George Brown, for example). Anyway, two of each term of four years can be a dead loss if the mid-term Congressional elections return a hostile Congress. One year at the end of each term is lost to electioneering, too.

I suppose the key to it is the fact that there is more check on a British PM, who generally has less power than POTUS. Strong PMs, like Thatcher, manage to ride roughshod over everybody else.... until one day all their rivals have had enough!

Probably not the best example given the fact that both Thatcher and Blair stayed well beyond their sell-by date to both their own and their respective party's detriment.

Mercifully George Brown was never PM (given the fact that he was an out of control alcoholic), but Gordon Brown was almost as bad, albeit Shakespearean in his tragic nature/projectory.

So are we agreeing that the 22nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed?

I'll agree our politicians are fundamentally flawed. By that, I mean their main focus is getting re-elected when it should be running the country. If they honestly tried to do what was best for the country and not themselves, then there would be nothing wrong with a two term limit for Presidents - OR members of Congress.

So are we agreeing that the 22nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed?

I'll agree our politicians are fundamentally flawed. By that, I mean their main focus is getting re-elected when it should be running the country. If they honestly tried to do what was best for the country and not themselves, then there would be nothing wrong with a two term limit for Presidents - OR members of Congress.

Not having a presidential system in the UK (although Tony Bliar thought he was) I cannot judge all the pro's and con's, but to limit any governing/representational figure to a maximum period in power surely will always lead to a lame-duck period towards the end of such term of office?

Wherever one goes in the world, many politicians are venal creatures, looking to maintain their seat in the forum of power.

I believe that it would be far better to have a system where delegates are selected by ballot from various groupings of society - whether from workplace, community of residence or other system - and appointed for a fixed term at the equivalent pay-rate of their normal job, when aged between (say) 30 and 50 years old. No parties as such, either political or stag, but obviously those of like mind would find each other.

And of course there should be strict control of the civil service, which in UK can actively destroy the agenda of many ministers in it's current powerful position. Maybe election of senior civil servants every three years on a single fixed term as well?

So are we agreeing that the 22nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed?

Not me. Any legislation that limits terms in office is a good thing in my view. Those who say Clinton would have been re-elected to a third term are mistaken. Only in hindsight, now that his legacy has been m/l resurrected is he seen in that light. A lot of politics comes down to luck and Clinton had the good fortune to sit during an economic boom which was technology and stock market driven (which provided revenues to balance the budget briefly).

I agree and I liked Clinton as president.

i too liked Clinton but was terribly disappointed by "no sexual relations with this woman". instead he should have said

"bugger off you hypocrites! as the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth™ and at the same time Leader of the Free World© who bears huge responsibilities i am entitled any time of the day to a blowjob administered by whoever i choose!"