But then he got replaced 4 years later. Unlike what happened in Russia.

But there's a real treath that he can become president again. The real problem is that there's big gap in how the democrats see the world vs how republicans see the world. From the outside it's really mindblowing how differently they see and interpret the world. And the same is happening all over the world.

When it comes to defense, republicans and democrats see the world similarly. It's the one topic which you could say there's no gap in their desires. Republicans and democrats place utmost value in the American hegemony.

That didn’t happen with Bush, who conjured up a premise with multiple lies in order to justify going to war. And then 3 years later, he got re-elected.

That was by far the most disappointing US election. Electing a bad president is clearly a risk of democracy, but re-electing a bad president, that's incomprehensible. And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.

> And yet that was the only presidential election in decades where the Republican candidate got the majority of the votes.

That election was 2004 of course. Reagan got 58.8% in 1984, so two decades prior (decades as you noted).

Obama got 52.9% in 2008. And prior to that for a Democrat? More than two decades prior, wherein Jimmy Carter barely scratched out a majority popular vote at 50.08% in 1976.

Lyndon Johnson of course got 61% in 1964. The monster that put us deep into Vietnam and wrecked the country got the highest popular vote percentage for the Democrats in the past century.

The two highest in modern US history, Lyndon Johnson and Nixon. What does it say about the people of the 1960s and 1970s? It says a lot of terrible things about their ability to judge character and make rational decisions.

I think parent actually meant plurality, at least that’s how I read it.

However these numbers are quite interesting. Some people attribute Nixon’s second election to his promise of withdrawing from Vietnam and one can easily blame the war for the problematic 1968 election for the democrats. LBJ was probably even gonna be the first sitting president to loose in a primary before he announced his non-bid.

I’m guessing the 1964 for election he was pretty much just riding the popularity of the recently assassinated John F. Kennedy. (Plus the war hadn’t escalated at this point).

So it took 7 more years with Bush. Again, not comparable to Putin - not even close.

Actually just 5. I miscalculated somehow that there are 3 years between 2003 and 2004 (?)

However the significant bit here is the fact that Bush was re-elected despite lying about the reasons going to war.

Yes, because Trump is no Putin when it comes to maintaining power, and the US is a much more stable democracy with strong checks and balances.

Definitely a strong case for term limits. If Putin had left after 8 years, he would now be considered a great president. He wasn't perfect, but he stabilised the Russian economy after the bankruptcy of the 1990s.

He could have left a great legacy, but his addiction to power has become his ruin. And quite possibly that of Ukraine and Russia.

Didn’t Putin get his term limits removed? He did stick to them initially when his PM Medvedev was President.

i wonder how putin got there.

Yeah, the capitol coup guys weren't well trained and failed, fortunately. Everybody has a lot of luck

...this time.

We have a history of that, unfortunately.