How can another 1988 happen?

[Suburbia]

1988 is the last time a political party won a third consecutive term. The first time since 1948, when President Truman won a fifth term for Democrats in 1948....

It could have happened in 1992, 2000 and 2016 had things gone in the right way, especially 1992 and 2000.....had there not been an economic recession in the early 90s and Clinton did not run, Bush would have won reelection in '92.

Can another 1988 happen?

[sg0508]

Of course it can. 

[Del Tachi]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College. 

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

[Sir Mohamed]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College. 

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College. 

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

Imagine how bad it would have gotten for the GOP I’d say Lehman gets delayed by a year and McCain pulls of an upset win .

[Suburbia]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College. 

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

So, had Gore-Lieberman won in 2000; 2002 would have been a GOP wave?

[SInNYC]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College. 

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

So, had Gore-Lieberman won in 2000; 2002 would have been a GOP wave?

Yes.
Republicans would have campaigned on '9/11 was inevitable after the Clinton/Gore decimation of the military, and nobody in the world respects us now'. ...and thrown in gratuitous references to how Iran humiliated us Carter and now Al Qaeda is humiliating us under another D president.

[President Johnson]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College.  

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

So, had Gore-Lieberman won in 2000; 2002 would have been a GOP wave?

Would depend on how Gore performs in the aftermath of 9/11, or - more precisely - how his performance is viewed, I guess. 2002 was still somewhat of an exception with 9/11 and less polarization than today. 1998 already was for other reasons. With today's polarization, you would have assume any party getting three terms in the White greatly suffers downballot. Especially the Democrats could fall to a level in the senate that would take two or three consecutive favorable cycles to recover from.

[Sir Mohamed]

I mean, 2000 and 2016 would have both been "another 1988" if not for the Electoral College.  

There's nothing special about the 2-terms-and-then-you're-out rule

Yup, though after 8 years, there's always some desire for a change. The Lichtman test may be flawed, but it has some truth in it. And of we apply them, it says that incumbent usually get reelected unless their term was a total failure, before the party in power switches without the incumbent and a less successful 2nd term.

The question is whether winning 3 or more consecutive terms is in either party's interest long term, because the White House party would almost certainly be heavily decimated downballot after 3 midterm losses in a row. Dems would have been in horrible shape after 2018 had HRC won. The GOP would have been in trouble after 2022 already during a 2nd Trump term. Add another term on that and you got really shellacked downballot.

So, had Gore-Lieberman won in 2000; 2002 would have been a GOP wave?

Would depend on how Gore performs in the aftermath of 9/11, or - more precisely - how his performance is viewed, I guess. 2002 was still somewhat of an exception with 9/11 and less polarization than today. 1998 already was for other reasons. With today's polarization, you would have assume any party getting three terms in the White greatly suffers downballot. Especially the Democrats could fall to a level in the senate that would take two or three consecutive favorable cycles to recover from.

Yup, 2002 was a special case due to 9/11. That said, I'm not fully convinced that midterm would have been as D-friendly as it was R-friendly IRL. Really depends on how Gore handles national security policies and whether he can convince voters that Dems are strong on national security.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

I suppose, although it's increasingly unlikely.  Especially now, when you have strong demographic trends against the party in power (noncollege whites under Obama's 2nd term and educated suburbanites under Trump). 

Yup, 2002 was a special case due to 9/11. That said, I'm not fully convinced that midterm would have been as D-friendly as it was R-friendly IRL. Really depends on how Gore handles national security policies and whether he can convince voters that Dems are strong on national security.

The GOP only flipped the senate in 2002 because the senators from Missouri and Minnesota were killed in plane crashes and Republicans (very narrowly) flipped their seats.  

Also, the new congressional maps were much more GOP friendly in the South, as this was the first time the GOP actually controlled this region on a state level.  Just look at TX and GA maps in the early 90s, lol.  There's a very good case the GOP would lose the house in 02 under the old lines.