U.S. 2008 Election

[DarthTex]

I like Romney the best, unfortunately due to McCain's back handed political two-step, he's dropping out I don't like McCain, he's too egotistical, thinking "the world/life/US" owes him the presidency. Unless Romney is the VP selection I'll be voting with the Constitutional Party this year. More of a "no confidence" vote than anything. Maybe I'll "write in" Romney

 

Billiary is way two slimy & slippery for my tastes, and Obama too naive and inexperienced. Huckabee reminds me of the stereotypical self-centered wanna-be: "Me! Me! Me! I'm the President, look at my power. Give me money and respect." Yuck Luckily he doesn't have chance for the presidency, but unfortunately he might get the VP spot for kissing McCain's arse. And another thing about McCain, he's too willing to change his views to try and make people happy (to get their votes). He needs to remember "You can't please all the people, all of the time", but he sure in heck is trying. Idiot

[DarthTofu]

It's odd- as soon as I decided that I liked Romney more than McCain, he dropped out of the race. McCain is too much of War-mongerer in retrospect, but some of the people I've talked to say that they think we need a war-mongerer to get ourselves out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow I don't really think a war-mongerer will do much more than escalate the situation. We're in a very similar spot to Vietnam right now- we don't fully get why we're there and we can't really leave without losing face.

[SOCL]

Not that I find it a contradiction to be adamantly against most, if not all of the GOP's policies and platform, and then defend one of their candidates, much less the leading one, but I don't think McCain is really that much of a hawk, at least when you compare him to the members of the current administration. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Rice: those are hawks. McCain, in my personal opinion, has only taken on this nonsense about 'staying until the job's done' (whenever that is, and by whose ever decision it is decided...) in order to gain certain votes among the GOP constituency he wouldn't regularly have got. Remember, McCain opposed, if only nominally, going into Iraq at its outset, but going into an election he realized that wasn't a particularly popular line to take with the Republican electorate, so he took that line. Remember, the first stage of the Presidential race is to win the party, and only after that does one need to worry about winning the country. In order to win the GOP nomination, McCain severely needed to change his outward appearance (and I don't mean his physical form), namely by supporting the wars and most of the Bush Administration policies concerning them. I doubt he truly believes much of what he's spouting at the moment, but politics are politics and they require a certain level of doublespeak to get one through them. Once he has the Republican nomination, and I'm rather certain at this point that he will, we'll likely see his rhetoric change, if at least moderate, for the sake of the general electorate, but more so for the sake of Electoral College. It will be interesting to see what sort of rhetoric he uses about the war after he has the nomination and see if he sticks with the hawkish bit, or if he goes back to the more peaceful, use-of-diplomacy McCain that used to characterize him. If he wins the presidency, it will be even more interesting to see what sort of rhetoric he uses then, too. If he goes back to his old self, then he did sell-out like a typical politician, but suppose he doesn't, eh? Suppose he continues his current policy of 'staying the course' and so on about Iraq and Afghanistan? What then? Will Republicans still dislike him? I have the feeling that the answer is yes, but I don't think they'll be justified at that point. This concept of 'flip-flopping' seems to at times extend conveniently so that President Bush can say in a debate with Al Gore in 2001 that he doesn't believe in using the military for nation-building, but does that very same thing at the end of the year and again in 2003. 'The situation changed'; yes, I'm quite well aware of that, but are Republicans willing to let the situation change for McCain? Perhaps McCain truly did have a change of heart. Has that been considered? If his rhetoric doesn't go back to his moderated policies of the past, doesn't that mean he's simply solidified his opinions? After all, not everyone (and certainly no one) can make up their mind at the age of twenty about everything and then never change their mind again.

 

Or I suppose they could, but then they're proving to have never matured their thinking.

 

 

As for the Obama/Clinton race, I've noticed something interesting with the more typically Republican voters I've spoken to: when given a choice between the two, most of the moderate Republicans and the overall independents prefer Obama over McCain, and in most instances Obama over Clinton. What I think most don't realize, though, is that McCain does not have the sort of popular movement behind him that the leading Democratic candidates have and will not win the General Election in November. What needs to be realized is if the current poll numbers continue the way they are, the general race will come down to a Clinton vs. McCain. This will alienate many of the hardliner Republicans to vote--like Tex--for somewhat obscure and otherwise 'spoiler' third parties, like the Constitutional or Libertarian parties. The independents will likely find themselves stuck between the (conservative) old-order and the (liberal) old-order, for which they'll likely weigh in favor of Clinton if only for a weariness to the conservative old-order, which is associated heavily with the Bush Administration--indeed, people are seeking change in nearly any form it shows. Moderate Republicans will likely be split between casting their lot with a disliked Republican and a disliked Democrat, many probably voting for McCain, though, if only out of spite for Clinton and not necessarily in favor of the former. In the end, this will not be enough votes to carry McCain to the White House and will likely result in a second Clinton Administration, a prospect many people--Republican and Democratic--do not want. (Yeah, Republicans, remember when the Democrats didn't want a second Bush Administration? Now the shoe is on the other foot!) If they want to avoid this, I encourage many independents and moderate Republicans to cast their primary lots with Barack Obama, a person seen as favorable when given the choice against both Clinton and McCain. This will act as a spoiler vote against Clinton (Republicans, you needn't think you're voting in favor of Obama as much as you are against Hillary Clinton) and perhaps result in Obama winning the Democratic presidential nomination. If this happens, then come November, you may cast your votes as wish, secure in that Hillary Clinton will not be president. Granted, Republicans may not want a President Barack Obama, but would you prefer a President Hillary Clinton, who seems apparently going to win the General Election? I think most Republicans can put up with a minimum of four years of Obama, perhaps eight--they made it through eight of Bill Clinton and the Democrats made it through eight of Bush, so I think we can work together on this one.

[Eagle]

Concerning McCain:

The fact that he has been a captivity in the vietnam-war and also has been tortured so he still has problems today raising his arms, lets me believe that this guy rather dislikes making war.

 

[joke]

Unless he doesn´t start talking about vietnam that it´s "unfinnished business" after his election. Than you better prepare for the worst. [/joke]

[Jahled]

It's odd- as soon as I decided that I liked Romney more than McCain, he dropped out of the race. McCain is too much of War-mongerer in retrospect, but some of the people I've talked to say that they think we need a war-mongerer to get ourselves out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow I don't really think a war-mongerer will do much more than escalate the situation. We're in a very similar spot to Vietnam right now- we don't fully get why we're there and we can't really leave without losing face.

 

Afghanistan was a thoroughly justified war to wage against the Taliban we armed during the cold war, given they harbored terrorists responsible for numerous evil deeds besides even 9/11, who's extremist version of Islam stems from the Saudi-Arabia and the religious schools they finance in Pakistan, our refills at petrol stations pay for. It was also a thoroughly winnable war by NATO and a retrained Afghanistani National army before some Neocons behind the throne in the White House lost the plot and got to adventurous with their political vision of the world with the world and wage war in Iraq. But there you go, tune in to to much radio shock jocks first thing as you drive to work ranting about the world through emotional response rather than thoughtful introspection, and their you have it, a Caligula for the 21st Century; voted in by a nation, laughed at for being an ignorant imbecile, and equally feared for the destruction his reign has wrought, by the rest of the world. Without Iraq, we would could have largely militarily eradicated this Islamic extremist infestation and made it's apparent attraction to twats far less with rebuilt civil infrastructure in Afghanistan with the obvious benefits to the Afghanistani population, and probably helped the Pakistani army make some inroads in bringing some order to the north of their country where these Islamic muppets 'hide.'

[Moribundus]

I know, who's going to win, Mike Huckabee. He's got Chuck Norris backing him up

 

http://hinca.net/blog/2008/01/and-new-us-president-is.html

 

He isn't serious, is he?

[SOCL]

I'm 110% with you, Jahled. Afghanistan would be secure and stable had we not invaded Iraq. Heck, the example of Afghanistan may have even led to a revolution in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein without American and Coalition decision.

 

 

I just President Clinton (that's Bill Clinton, the President before the incumbent) speak at George Mason University, my alma mater. He was, of course, pitching for his wife, but I must say, I rarely hear such clear, precise, and excellent words come from a politician, especially not from this administration. The man is a genius when it comes to speaking in front of crowds. He addressed hecklers when they needed addressing and ignored them when such action was called for. He never flinched or tripped over his words. For the love of God, the man can actually speak an entire paragraph without pausing to think awkwardly between every sentence and/or word, like a certain important chief executive I know... Seriously, though, he was quite inspirational. Everything he said about what Hillary Clinton is running for I agreed whole-heartedly with, but if it wasn't because I see the Democratic Party in danger of losing with her as a candidate... Well, let's say it's not what she stand for or even who she is, but the perception far too many people have of her that prevents me from casting my lot with her. I only wish we could have Bill Clinton in the White House again, and though a lot of people say that will be the case if Hillary wins (and I among them), I'm not sure it's the direction needed. If she does win, though... Well, I won't exactly complain.

[Darth_Rob]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidental team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

[SOCL]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidental team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

Not that I disagree with you about the case of Presidential dynasties, but what makes it unhealthy for a republic like the United States? You've had the Adam's (father/son) and the Roosevelt's (cousins) and nobody seems to think they were bad choices. I don't see a reason to say it's bad for the country.

[Moribundus]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidental team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

 

This sounds quite undemocratic to me. Family member of a former president is a citizen as anyone else and thus should treated as such. By disallowing him candidacy, you're basically limiting his rights and treating him differently based on his family background (which is one of the few things in life he couldn't choose).

 

Although I agree that having two dynasties for such a long time at least stinks, 'blaming' the candidates seems like a wrong fix (and for the wrong problem).

[Darth_Rob]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidental team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

Not that I disagree with you about the case of Presidential dynasties, but what makes it unhealthy for a republic like the United States? You've had the Adam's (father/son) and the Roosevelt's (cousins) and nobody seems to think they were bad choices. I don't see a reason to say it's bad for the country.

 

I dunno. I cant argue with that logic. But my point is that its been too...much. Like I said, its been a 20-year span where two different families have controlled the Presidency. To me, thats a bit too much.

[Jahled]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidential team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

 

This sounds quite undemocratic to me. Family member of a former president is a citizen as anyone else and thus should treated as such. By disallowing him candidacy, you're basically limiting his rights and treating him differently based on his family background (which is one of the few things in life he couldn't choose).

 

Although I agree that having two dynasties for such a long time at least stinks, 'blaming' the candidates seems like a wrong fix (and for the wrong problem).

 

I don't see a problem with Hilary following her husband's two terms, and creating her own legacy in her own right as a separate human individual. Good luck to the woman, I might in fact lay my voice on the poll above, given it is of opinion she doesn't represent as principals religious stuff I find morally repugnant like what is encapsulated with the republican candidates, besides McCain. If the Republican party is seriously questioning his credentials as their potential candidate because he is opposed to this religious anti-abortion crap, same sex civil-ceremony thing, then may it fail like it should do. Times have moved on, their nasty Bible-belt world is not one I want to live in, the more so it apparently now involves the bullshit of creationism. But I guess I don't have to given I live in the UK, and if anyone spouts crap like that in public, they are sincerely frowned upon.

 

A shame the bloke seems to be otherwise a complete nutter.

 

Obama's apparent charm and charisma resonates with to much polished perfection for my liking for his age, though I do respect him for his initial stance on campaign funding. I simply feel he needs a another decade yet.

[Darth_Rob]

My problem with Hillary is that, if she wins, it will be like theres been two "dynasty's" holding the Presidental place since...1988. Thats gonna be almost 20 years of the President being in the same family, either Bush or Clinton. I dont think that is healthy for a republic. To have a father/son and husband/wife Presidential team is just not cool. I think there should be some law installed to stop that, so that the same family cannot have more than one member be a President. Thats my two cents.

 

This sounds quite undemocratic to me. Family member of a former president is a citizen as anyone else and thus should treated as such. By disallowing him candidacy, you're basically limiting his rights and treating him differently based on his family background (which is one of the few things in life he couldn't choose).

 

Although I agree that having two dynasties for such a long time at least stinks, 'blaming' the candidates seems like a wrong fix (and for the wrong problem).

 

I don't see a problem with Hilary following her husband's two terms, and creating her own legacy in her own right as a separate human individual.

 

 

Well in their case in particular, Bill Clinton would be residing in the White House also, and would have significant influence and such. I just really feel that, in respect to the United States which limits a person to serving only two terms as President, a person should not be able to be both President AND First Lady/Man at some point in their life.

[Moribundus]

Well in their case in particular, Bill Clinton would be residing in the White House also, and would have significant influence and such. I just really feel that, in respect to the United States which limits a person to serving only two terms as President, a person should not be able to be both President AND First Lady/Man at some point in their life.

 

Why don't you exile him to make sure he has as little influence as possible? That's what ancient greeks did after all

 

If that makes you feel better, our first president (of our 'current' republic) was in the office for three consecutive terms (max is two). The point was that after his first term, he resigned, the country was broken up and he was elected again as a president of a brand new country. And he's still a national hero (uh).

[Eagle]

Good old Wazlav Havel.

[SOCL]

Well in their case in particular, Bill Clinton would be residing in the White House also, and would have significant influence and such. I just really feel that, in respect to the United States which limits a person to serving only two terms as President, a person should not be able to be both President AND First Lady/Man at some point in their life.

Rob, there is, of course, no law that permits what your suggesting. In fact, I'm pretty sure what you're suggesting borders on illegal. No offense, Rob, but I think you're just using the reasoning your giving because you have a clear and obvious dislike of Hillary, and no other real reason. Besides, it could be worse. President Clinton could have taken a page from Vladmir Putin's book and run for the House of Representatives and be the Speaker of the House right now, or he could be the nominee for Vice President. The Presidential term limit is set at 10 years, not two terms, so he could potentially be Vice President and come to office for two more years. So being First Spouse is hardly that much of a deal. Besides, don't you think Hillary was the true power during his administration? It's a dual presidency by way of their personal dealings, but nothing is actually illegal about it. Besides, all First Ladies have had some influence on their husband's policies, some more than others. Take Woodrow Wilson's wife--she all but run the country after he had a stroke in 1919. Or Nancy Reagan. Or FDR's wife. Or Martha Adams, wife of the second president. Or Kennedy's wife.

 

I could go on.

Edited February 14, 2008 by SOCL
email notifications

[Eagle]

Wow! I´ve never heard before that it´s more than just two terms where somebody can stay president. Allways thought it´s just eight years.

 

To add another positive factor. In case Hillary would win. Though knowing lots about being president and about lots of state affairs, she would need just a very short time untill she can fully agitate as president, while a new candidate, like fe. McCain (has he anything to do with the Crisps or Chips of the same name?) or Obama would possibly need much more time to get firm with everything.

[DarthTofu]

One term is four years. By Constitutional amendment the max is two terms. The longest a person can be president is ten years- two years where they were the Vice President and the President passed on, followed by two terms as an elected president. The longest-serving President in US history was Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. My two bits of history.

[Darth_Rob]

No offense, Rob, but I think you're just using the reasoning your giving because you have a clear and obvious dislike of Hillary, and no other real reason.

 

Well I can tell you that I would be saying the same if, say, Laura Bush ran for the Presidency. Before FDRs Presidency, there was no Constitutional law for the number of terms a President could hold. The great George Washington set that by making it an honored tradition. Then WWII came, and FDR did what he had to do to see it ended. When that was all said and done, the country said, "wow, someone was elected for more than two terms," and that was fixed by law.

 

What Im saying is that some things have to be amended as time goes on, and we see new situations develop. We all know full well that the founding fathers never had the intention of a non-white or non-man running for the Presidency in the late 1700s, but times have changed in over 200 years, and that is now possible and acceptable in todays society. But now that it is possible for a woman to run for office (Im talking socially of course, because there was never a law against it), this is a new development that has to be taken into consideration, where a person should not be able to serve as both a President and First Lady/Man.

[SOCL]

I still don't see why not, especially since the First Spouse is not an official institution mandated by the Constitution. It would quite literally require two Constitutional Amendments: first to acknowledge the status of the First Spouse, and second to do as you say, Rob.

 

I think your saying that FDR "did what he had to do" for the Second World War is a bit of a stretch. He was a politician and was quite keen on getting elected for four terms; this isn't a matter of some holier-than-thou policy to see a war to its conclusion. The country, much the same way it did in 2004, went with the old policy of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", which was, of course, what the GOP essentially said in that campaign over and over again. It's apparent that didn't go over so well since everyone this time around is in favor of "change". In any event, saying FDR "did what he had to do" implies he had some control over the elections; "the people did what they had to do" would be a much more accurate statement.

 

One term is four years. By Constitutional amendment the max is two terms. The longest a person can be president is ten years- two years where they were the Vice President and the President passed on, followed by two terms as an elected president. The longest-serving President in US history was Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. My two bits of history.

Right. I never said anything about a third term. A third term would require an election to the Presidency for a third time, which is unconstitutional. That being said, in the same way a Vice President can assume the Presidency for the remainder of the last President's term (at two years max, of course, given the rest of my statement) and then serve two terms, there is nothing to say a former two-term President becomes Vice President and then in the event the President can no longer serve, is made President. If the remainder of that particular term is more than two years, then it'll likely require either an election to be held out of order (which there is absolutely no law against) or the resignation of the VP-turned-President at the end of the two years with the Speaker of the House assuming the Presidency for the remainder of the term. That, Rob, is a scenario I think you should be weary of.

[Darth_Rob]

FDR did do what he had to do. WWII was insane, and Im more than the majority of the people living in the U.S. during that time were more than willing to let FDR finish out the war. It would have been ridiculous to pull out that President and replace him in the time of a war of that caliber. Its like an MLB coach being pulled out and replaced in the middle to the World Series. So yeah, it was an extraordinary time, and FDR did what he had to do by breaking tradition and running for additional terms. Now the current war/conflict/cluster#$@* in Iraq is different. That is not a world-encompassing war, or anything like that, and there would be no need for a President to attempt to a third term during a conflict like that. But a world war is a different story.

 

I still stand by what I believe. I feel that giving a husband and wife the ability to both become President is insane, and borders on a monarchy, with a royal family running the country. I know full-well that it is legal and possible, but I also believe that it should be unconstitutional. I dont care if it takes one, two, or five amendments to fix it, but its something that should be done. Like I said, the only reason it is not in the Constitution is because the founding fathers had no idea that there would ever be a female President. But times change, and the Constitution has to be amended in order to meet the requirements of the time. Slavery was originally legal in the eyes of the U.S. Government, but as times changed and people realized how bad it was, the Constitution was amended to free African Americans, and later guaranteed them equal rights and such. Now the new issue being faced is the inevitability that there could likely be a female President, and as such, the Constitution has to be amended in order to take that fact into account. The founding fathers would have never approved of the idea of a husband and wife both presiding over the Presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, and lets say she gets re-elected in 2012, then the United States would have an insane shared dynasty of the Bush and Clinton families since 1988. That is not a good thing at all. Its undemocratic, and thats the bottom line.

[Jahled]

FDR did do what he had to do. WWII was insane, and Im more than the majority of the people living in the U.S. during that time were more than willing to let FDR finish out the war. It would have been ridiculous to pull out that President and replace him in the time of a war of that caliber. Its like an MLB coach being pulled out and replaced in the middle to the World Series. So yeah, it was an extraordinary time, and FDR did what he had to do by breaking tradition and running for additional terms. Now the current war/conflict/cluster#$@* in Iraq is different. That is not a world-encompassing war, or anything like that, and there would be no need for a President to attempt to a third term during a conflict like that. But a world war is a different story.

 

Elections were suspended this side of the pond as well during WW2, and thank god they were. Unlike any conflict since WW2, except perhaps the Cuban missile crisis, this was a national emergency for both of our countries (and I appreciate everybody else as well!) You can't have national elections in a situation where your nation's very survival is being played out. Also figure this, in our case Chamberlain went to Germany and returned waving a piece of paper from an plane promising 'peace for our time,' having dealt with the devil. He was humiliated when Nazi-Germany invaded Poland, and a certain Churchill replaced him and won us that long war. Things may have been other than they were if Chamberlain remained as Prime Minister.

 

Churchill ran for the office again after the war, and lost. Perhaps better as a bastion of British defiance than a peace-time Prime Minister. Who knows.

 

I still stand by what I believe. I feel that giving a husband and wife the ability to both become President is insane, and borders on a monarchy, with a royal family running the country. I know full-well that it is legal and possible, but I also believe that it should be unconstitutional. I don't care if it takes one, two, or five amendments to fix it, but its something that should be done. Like I said, the only reason it is not in the Constitution is because the founding fathers had no idea that there would ever be a female President. But times change, and the Constitution has to be amended in order to meet the requirements of the time. Slavery was originally legal in the eyes of the U.S. Government, but as times changed and people realized how bad it was, the Constitution was amended to free African Americans, and later guaranteed them equal rights and such. Now the new issue being faced is the inevitability that there could likely be a female President, and as such, the Constitution has to be amended in order to take that fact into account. The founding fathers would have never approved of the idea of a husband and wife both presiding over the Presidency. If Hillary Clinton wins in 2008, and lets say she gets re-elected in 2012, then the United States would have an insane shared dynasty of the Bush and Clinton families since 1988. That is not a good thing at all. Its undemocratic, and that's the bottom line.

 

I must say this as an 'outsider,' and to be honest I couldn't really care that much who gets the democratic nomination, given the Republican Party seems to have red-shifted so far to the right, it's utterly cringe worthy to view as a spectator, and I might even take up a religion in my desperation not to have a repeat of the likes of another Bush in the White house again, or any of these evangelical Christians anywhere near it; but how 'democratic' is your country's method of selecting a President or potential-President in the first place? The rest of the world gasps and reels when we grasp how much money is spent on your electoral campaigns, much of which is spent on manipulative media campaigns influencing the minds of the electorate. Sure we have the same here and everywhere where there is democracy, but your levels of expenditure put the rest of us into shadow, even considering your population.

[Darth_Rob]

The rest of the world gasps and reels when we grasp how much money is spent on your electoral campaigns, much of which is spent on manipulative media campaigns influencing the minds of the electorate. Sure we have the same here and everywhere where there is democracy, but your levels of expenditure put the rest of us into shadow, even considering your population.

 

I couldn't agree more. It is rather disgusting.

[Eagle]

I also totally agree!

 

But no matter for which guy you will vote this november, you have to keep this in mind:

[SOCL]

The founding fathers would have never approved of the idea of a husband and wife both presiding over the Presidency.

I can follow everything else your saying, even if I disagree, but I really, really, really dislike the fact people claim to be able to know what the Founding Fathers believed. You can't be sure, Rob, and nobody else can. These sort of claims, which I have heard before, really get under my skin.

 

Its undemocratic, and thats the bottom line.

I still think this is a personal, bias opinion. Nothing presents it to be undemocratic, no more so than the Presidency of John Quincy Adams, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush, much less second-term presidencies.

 

Elections were suspended this side of the pond as well during WW2

Actually, no elections in the United States can be suspended. They are scheduled to be held at a certain moment, no matter what. The United States, as Rob states it, was lucky that the people in general reelected Roosevelt time and again. In the case of the Second World War and FDR, I believe that it was a good move by the American people, but I do not buy into the notion that a change of president would have been an inherently bad situation.