Grover Cleveland is the only president to be elected to two non-consecutive terms, and that was exceptional because he actually won the popular vote three times: he won in 1884, got screwed by the electoral college in 1888, then won again in 1892. Conversely, his successor/predecessor Benjamin Harrison was NOT popular, and only coasted into the office because his grandfather William Henry Harrison had briefly served in 1841 (shortest presidency in history, only 31 days).
For those of you wondering if the Gonad Lump is gonna try and run for another term in 2024, I don’t see him being more popular this time around. He lost the popular vote twice; George W. Bush is the only president to lose the popular vote and go on to be re-elected, in no small part because his approval rating skyrocketed to 90% after 9/11 and everyone thought the new Iraq war was justified at the time. History remembers him as the warmonger he was (though slightly more favorable in comparison to the Gonad Lump himself). If the Lump runs in 2024, he absolutely will not win the popular vote, though given how Republicans are trying to restrict voting rights, he very well could win the electoral college; he’d be the anti-Cleveland, losing the vote three times in a row.
His ego is torn; on the one hand he doesn’t want to run again because he doesn’t want to lose again, but on the other hand he can’t drop out of the race or else he’ll look like an even bigger loser for giving up. If he doesn’t run, he’ll have to pass the mantle of party leader to someone else, though let’s be honest, whatever stooge runs in his place will basically be running for him anyway. They’ll be running as his successor, framing themselves as a continuation of Trump’s term rather than a term of their own; he’d be president vicariously through them, they’d keep him on as an advisor or Secretary of State. But what Republicans are only just now starting to realize is that he’s a ball and chain weighing the party down; sure his base thinks he’s the most popular human being to ever live (ahead of Jesus and behind Ronald Reagan), but they only represent 30% of he country. He is SUPER unpopular overall, having lost them the House and the presidency and the Senate in quick succession; instead of cutting their losses and running someone new, they’re in denial and insist he actually won and the other side cheated, so they’re changing the rules going forward to give themselves an advantage (“the other side cheated, so we also have to cheat to beat them at their own game”)
It’s pathetic, but it works. What they’re doing is not technically illegal, because the constitution doesn’t actually say elections have to be free and fair. Elections don’t even have to exist; from the Revolution to the Civil War a handful of states never held presidential elections, instead leaving it up to the state legislatures to pick a winner and award electors themselves. Nowadays all 50 states hold elections and award electors based on the popular vote, but Oklahoma recently proposed going back to the old system; they’re very likely going to get rid of elections going forward because they can. That’s inexcusably anti-democratic, it’s morally reprehensible and wrong, but it’s not illegal, so there’s nothing we can do about it because the Supreme Court doesn’t care about morals. Just because something should be a law doesn’t make it a law; the system is FUCKED that way. The constitution technically says that the states may appoint electors however they see fit, so while getting rid of elections would be unpopular and despotic, the only way to stop them from doing so would be to pass a new amendment requiring all states to hold elections. That would require supermajorities in both houses of congress and then majority votes in three-fourths of all the state legislatures. We’re so politically polarized that I don’t think we’ll pass another amendment ever again.
The last real amendment was passed in 1971 (pre-Watergate), the 26th amendment, giving 18 year olds the right to vote; the 27th amendment was technically passed later in 1992, but it was written in 1789, intended to be the 11th amendment, but stuck in limbo because it was originally voted down. It wasn’t until 200 years later that a college student realized it was still a live amendment and could be passed if enough new states joined on (most amendments have clauses saying that if they’re voted down, then they fail, but this one was still technically in play); he wrote and encouraged state politicians to pass it just to see if it could be done. It isn’t even a controversial amendment, it says Congress can’t change their salaries in the middle of the term, they can only go into effect after the next elections.
So yeah. Electoral reform is probably doomed to fail because the Supreme Court will decide that the states can do whatever they want. It’s like how the electoral college is pointless and keeps letting losers win, but just because it’s bad doesn’t mean it’s “illegal.” It should be illegal, but barring an amendment we’re stuck with it. If the For The People Act passes and the 6-3 consecutive SCOTUS let’s it stand, states will one by one stop holding elections to get around it. You can’t reform an election is there’s no election to reform! Republicans will be taking a huge bet though, hoping that their constituents care more about winning than playing fair; it would be wildly unpopular to stop holding elections, but Republican voters would see nothing but the benefits, so they might accept it as a necessary evil, “for the greater good.” They don’t need to vote if their guy is guaranteed to win.
We need to overhaul the country, and if that means pissing off conservatives who are IN THE MINORITY then so be it (more Americans identify as democrats or left-leaning independents than Republicans or right-leaning ones). If that leads to a civil war, then so be it too! We can’t hold ourselves responsible for he behaviors of evil people; we can’t keep appeasing them, we can’t keep letting them threaten to tear the country apart if they don’t get what they want. Democrats don’t get what they want on a regular basis, and they have yet to tear the country apart (if you mention the George Floyd Protests, I need to remind you that the country is still in once piece), so Republicans need to learn to live with being powerless. If they throw a tantrum, it’s not our job to make them feel better. If an abuser threatens to do something drastic if you leave them, it’s not your job to stay. If someone is blackmailing you, you shouldn’t have to comply; they’re gonna be evil either way, you can’t control them, they’re trying to make you think it’s your fault when they do something wrong.
