Most successful two term President since FDR?

[Mr.Phips]

That is just being picky.  He was essentially co-president from 1961-1963.

Oh, really?  The historical record would disagree with you.

Ok then.  If we are going to be this picky about it, I would have to say Reagan.  He was probably the only "two term" President since FDR that got most everything he wanted and it was a half Democratic Congress at that. 

What's being picky about saying that LBJ wasn't "co-president" from 1961 to 1963? Seems like a pretty clear statement of fact.

Ill conced the point about that part.  Its the part where people try to label Truman and LBJ as non two term Presidents that I think people are being too picky on. 

[bballrox4717]

Voted Clinton, but on second thought I should have voted Reagan. If immigration reform passes, foreign policy continues to be a success, the economy gets better and if he is scandal free we might be saying Obama within 10 years.

[Mr.Phips]

Voted Clinton, but on second thought I should have voted Reagan. If immigration reform passes, foreign policy continues to be a success, the economy gets better and if he is scandal free we might be saying Obama within 10 years.

The fact that Clinton couldnt get healthcare reform through is what puts Reagan ahead of him in my view. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Ill conced the point about that part.  Its the part where people try to label Truman and LBJ as non two term Presidents that I think people are being too picky on. 

Truman became President 3 months after the start of the term; LBJ took office nearly 3 years in.  There's a difference, if you can appreciate it.

[Mr.Phips]

Ill conced the point about that part.  Its the part where people try to label Truman and LBJ as non two term Presidents that I think people are being too picky on. 

Truman became President 3 months after the start of the term; LBJ took office nearly 3 years in.  There's a difference, if you can appreciate it.

I do appreciate it. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ill conced the point about that part.  Its the part where people try to label Truman and LBJ as non two term Presidents that I think people are being too picky on. 

Truman became President 3 months after the start of the term; LBJ took office nearly 3 years in.  There's a difference, if you can appreciate it.

I do appreciate it. 

Also Truman was not subject to the 22nd Amendment, so he was never a lame duck president in the sense that term is used today.

[Yank2133]

That is just being picky.  He was essentially co-president from 1961-1963.

Oh, really?  The historical record would disagree with you.

Ok then.  If we are going to be this picky about it, I would have to say Reagan.  He was probably the only "two term" President since FDR that got most everything he wanted and it was a half Democratic Congress at that. 

What's being picky about saying that LBJ wasn't "co-president" from 1961 to 1963? Seems like a pretty clear statement of fact.

It is not.

LBJ had little power under Kennedy, hence why he hated being VP. If anyone can be called 'co-president" in those years it was Bobby Kennedy.

[pbrower2a]

Eisenhower. Probably the best of the lot. He stayed off the McCarthy bandwagon, stood with the Supreme Court on desegregation, got the Interstate Highway system started, had no scandals. He could have done nothing to stop the rise of Fidel Castro. He left the budget in good shape.

His VP almost got elected in 1960 against a strong opponent, and Nixon would have won the election over Kennedy if he had been more photogenic.

LBJ would be top except for the War in Vietnam.  Reagan had Iran-Contra, which may have had ramifications in Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait.  Clinton deftly avoided disastrous wars and kept surpluses paying off the national debt.

Nixon resorted to political backstabbing and the people that he tried to ruin politically ended his Presidency early. 

George W. Bush was an absolute, unqualified disaster. The only defense that  one can have with him is that one agrees with his political beliefs -- which is something that many liberals can say about Jimmy Carter, too.   

[Cryptic]

Voted Ike.  As others have said, LBJ is weighted down by Vietnam.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Reagan, duh.

[angus]

Some of these aren't really two-term presidents.  Truman, Johnson, and Nixon did not serve two full terms.  (Of those, I think Johnson was the most successful.)  Obama has not yet served two full terms.  That leaves only four two-term presidents.  I think that all were moderately successful.  Reagan was the most successful--cold war, Reaganomics, partial dismantling of the welfare state, GOP/conservative movement renaissance, Star Wars, nuclear weapons reductions, increased defense spending ("peace through strength"), tax reform, etc., were all powerful legacies.   I don't think I'd have done all those things, or wanted them, but it was an astoundingly successful attempt to change the national priorities, or direction of the country's policies.

[TNF]

Eisenhower.

[DemPGH]

Man, I miss the '90s, especially the late '90s. Clinton. The more time that elapses the more that time grows fonder in my mind.

Boom, stability, and relative peace. That's all you can want.

The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight and Reagan's second term saw little but scandals. And I vaguely remember a rather topsy-turvy economic climate in the late '80s.