Presidential term - What about one 6 year term?

[TGHusker]

In light of recent polls, I was thinking of the bigger picture. It seems that most presidents 'run out of gas' by year 6 of their presidency. I wonder if governance would be more efficient if the president had one 6 year term. They would not be burdened by a partisan re-election campaign which may allow them to work more efficiently wt Congress - both parties. They could operate above the political fray going on at the party level (of course they would be more inclined to take their party line put there would be less pressure to do so). I think a 6 year term would allow the president to be more pragmatic - like Clinton became after the 1994 elections. Instead of a presidential election in year 4, the congressional elections during years 2 & 4 can be the 'corrective' action to reign in a president if needed.

 

After the year 6 congressional elections, we have all of the discussion of a lame duck president and nothing gets done until the next president is elected. It often seems that year leading up to the Presidential election is a real waste - nothing but political posturing.

 

 

For this to work, we may need term limits on Congress as well so the entrenched ideas of career politicians gets removed as well

 

Of the 2 term presidents during the past 100 years, only FDR seem to ward off a big down turn - mainly due to his handling of WW2.

GWB, had Iraq/economic decline; Reagan had his Iran/Contra; Clinton - his Monica - impeachment proceedings; Nixon was heading toward impeachment. Eisenhower, I don't recall issues/scandals other than the country was ready to get a new, fresh start - thus JFK. Eisenhower represented the era of WW2 - USA was ready to move on. And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

What say you??

 

 

This week's polls:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

http://zogbyanalytics.com/news/471-zogby-analytics-poll-president-s-approval-plunges-is-it-all-over-for-him

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/john-zogby-is-it-all-over-for-obama/article/2550415

[knapplc]

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

[LukeinNE]

I am actually inclined to agree. Presidents' second terms are basically never as good as their first ones. Significant policy achievements almost always come in the first four years, and of all the presidents since WWII, only Bill Clinton has ended his second term as popular as he began it (and Clinton was basically a wash). Second terms have turned into little more than keeping the seat warm for 4 years.

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

[TGHusker]

 

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

 

Knapp, that is an eye opening link and you are correct on your statement above. I wonder if the difference now is the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama and Newt and Boehner. After the 94 congressional election and then the bitter 'govt close down', Clinton became more pragmatic and so did Newt and they agreed to disagree but also agreed to work together where they could. I think Obama is more uncompromising in his ideals (and I don't mean that in a bad way - he is a true believer) and our current House Speaker is more of an obstructionist - because he is also a dufus who has no original ideas like Newt did. Your link may provide more information as to why the ACA did not receive any Repub votes. 1st I heard of it. Yes, Front Line tends towards being a lib show, but if this is all true and no reason to doubt it - I'll stand wt you and blame the repubs for the majority of the ineffectiveness of current governance.

[TGHusker]

I am actually inclined to agree. Presidents' second terms are basically never as good as their first ones. Significant policy achievements almost always come in the first four years, and of all the presidents since WWII, only Bill Clinton has ended his second term as popular as he began it (and Clinton was basically a wash). Second terms have turned into little more than keeping the seat warm for 4 years.

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

I'd agree and perhaps easier to pass as a constitutional amendment.

[knapplc]

 

 

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

 

Knapp, that is an eye opening link and you are correct on your statement above. I wonder if the difference now is the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama and Newt and Boehner. After the 94 congressional election and then the bitter 'govt close down', Clinton became more pragmatic and so did Newt and they agreed to disagree but also agreed to work together where they could. I think Obama is more uncompromising in his ideals (and I don't mean that in a bad way - he is a true believer) and our current House Speaker is more of an obstructionist - because he is also a dufus who has no original ideas like Newt did. Your link may provide more information as to why the ACA did not receive any Repub votes. 1st I heard of it. Yes, Front Line tends towards being a lib show, but if this is all true and no reason to doubt it - I'll stand wt you and blame the repubs for the majority of the ineffectiveness of current governance.

 

 

Serious question - this has been in the news for a year and a half. How do you not know about this?

[Junior]

 

 

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

 

Knapp, that is an eye opening link and you are correct on your statement above. I wonder if the difference now is the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama and Newt and Boehner. After the 94 congressional election and then the bitter 'govt close down', Clinton became more pragmatic and so did Newt and they agreed to disagree but also agreed to work together where they could. I think Obama is more uncompromising in his ideals (and I don't mean that in a bad way - he is a true believer) and our current House Speaker is more of an obstructionist - because he is also a dufus who has no original ideas like Newt did. Your link may provide more information as to why the ACA did not receive any Repub votes. 1st I heard of it. Yes, Front Line tends towards being a lib show, but if this is all true and no reason to doubt it - I'll stand wt you and blame the repubs for the majority of the ineffectiveness of current governance.

 

 

Based on what? You think the ACA was Obama's preferred choice of medical coverage vs. single payer?

[carlfense]

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

[LukeinNE]

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

 

 

Explain?

[carlfense]

 

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

 

 

Explain?

 

Look at any of the contested primaries in the last few months. Do you think that those primaries encouraged candidates to compromise?

 

Term limits = more contested primaries.

[NUpolo8]

 

A bigger improvement (imo) would be Congressional term limits though. With a substantial percentage of both chambers being retired every 2 years, we'd have a better chance of not having everything politicized to kingdom come.

 

I think that Congressional term limits would encourage more polarization.

This is absolutely 100% correct. Look no farther than the irretrievably corrupt and broken California political system as evidence.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

And now Obama, seems to have run out of energy based on the Zogby poll.

 

 

I'd say the president's situation has quite a bit to do with this: LINK

Knapp, that is an eye opening link and you are correct on your statement above. I wonder if the difference now is the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama and Newt and Boehner. After the 94 congressional election and then the bitter 'govt close down', Clinton became more pragmatic and so did Newt and they agreed to disagree but also agreed to work together where they could. I think Obama is more uncompromising in his ideals (and I don't mean that in a bad way - he is a true believer) and our current House Speaker is more of an obstructionist - because he is also a dufus who has no original ideas like Newt did. Your link may provide more information as to why the ACA did not receive any Repub votes. 1st I heard of it. Yes, Front Line tends towards being a lib show, but if this is all true and no reason to doubt it - I'll stand wt you and blame the repubs for the majority of the ineffectiveness of current governance.

 

Serious question - this has been in the news for a year and a half. How do you not know about this?

More serious questions, do you assume that only Republicans do this when a Democrat is in office? And that the opposite doesn't or didn't happen?

[carlfense]

More serious questions, do you assume that only Republicans do this when a Democrat is in office? And that the opposite doesn't or didn't happen?

I don't think that I've seen this level of legislative inactivity at any other time in my life. Have you?

[NUpolo8]

 

More serious questions, do you assume that only Republicans do this when a Democrat is in office? And that the opposite doesn't or didn't happen?

 

I don't think that I've seen this level of legislative inactivity at any other time in my life. Have you?

I think the post Katrina Bush years were nearly this bad.

 

I'm of the belief that this kind of obstruction has been the norm for a decade, starting with W's second term. It could be compounded now because Obama is one of those political figures who's popularity actually goes up when he doesn't do anything. So when he stands pat and delivers political theatre, and he's inordinately talented at that, for the most part his legacy and popularity remains at a level that protects him post 2016.

 

So here we are.

[knapplc]

You believe these things. Could we see some links showing this to be true?