The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan. It implies that Americans' desire for party change may be among the strongest of predictors. On the other hand, this party streak breaking is completely irrelevant for any other elected branch of the government as seen by the unending cycle of easy defense for incumbents in office.

>The most apt analysis I've read was that from a historical standpoint Clinton was trying to do something even very strong candidates have trouble doing - keeping a party three terms in a row for the White House. There's only one president that's done it to date and it was George Bush, Sr following Reagan.

The Democrats actually managed it back after the Great Depression. Three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed by one of Harry Truman.

Yep, and the Republicans did it 3 more times before that. And then there's Jackson/Van Buren three terms Dem which immediately follows the first big run of Thomas Jefferson and co running 7 terms as the Democratic-Republican party.

So really, it's just uncommon in the last sixty-odd years.

So when the 22nd amendment was passed to limit the president to two terms in 1951 that seems to have changed the dynamics considerably.

Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have a good control group to be able to know for certain. I think there is some psychological effect the term limit has on voters. For many the end of a second terms appeals to them as an opportunity of a fresh start (for better or worse), which may translate into electing a leader from a different party.

Technically FDR was elected to 4 terms (not 3), but died in the 4th.

Didn't he die in his 3rd term? Truman was re-elected on his own in 1948.

FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944 (death, succeeded by Truman); Truman in 1948.

Thanks. I should've looked that up before commenting!

That is certainly true; its very hard for a political party in a genuine liberal democracy to hold onto power for more than 2 or 3 4/5 year cycles.

The problem with that analysis in this particular case is that it is an attempt to normalise what is a fundamentally abnormal election (which is what a lot of people unfamiliar with the historical and current European and international politics generally are guilty of doing through ignorance). This wasn't a normal change of the guards, and is part of a trend that we are seeing across the world. A charisma candidate that is frankly unsuited for office, with almost no real institutional support from any recognisable political peers, and a disdain for the norms of liberal democracy just beat in a head to head contest a candidate that is fundamentally a normal, if flawed, candidate.

"a demagogue with authoritarian tendencies that considers the norms of a liberal democracy to be a inconvenience and subordinate to the needs of order "

You know she lost right?

Every politician must be a demagogue to some degree, but Trump appeared to say one thing to one group, and then the next day, say the direct opposite to another group. It's a matter of degree. What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.

> What does he _actually_ stand for? Nobody truly knows.

Sure, we do. It's easy. Just look at someone's actions and ignore what they say.

Trump's entire career very clearly about making things better for Trump. Simple extrapolation indicates that's what his presidency is going to be about too.

If you happen to be like Trump -- a wealthy US business owner -- you may get some improvement in your life as a sort of halo effect. But otherwise, a Trump presidency is good news for no one whose name doesn't rhyme with "Ronald Rump".

The next day? Trump wasn't afraid to say the opposite in the next sentence.

He just has a faster release cycle, more iterations.

I seem to recall at least a few threads on HN over the past couple of years that suggested politics needs to be more agile.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, it is hard to argue that 2016 is more a time of institutional weakness than 2008.

If I had to guess your definition of what counts as an institution is much narrower and fairly specific to banking and international finance.

When I say institutions I mean the political institutions that support and enforce the norms liberal democracy which make the key difference between say Russia and Egypt vs the US or France as models of democracy, specifically in these cases of presidential democracies.

How so? What makes 2008 more politically dysfunctional than 2016?

Are you referring solely to the economic situation with the housing bubble?

Economic crash and burn? Major financial institutions going under? GM?

Edit: parent edited his comment, so now mine seems off.