I do think that whomever gets elected in this election is likely a one term president. Mostly because I expect a fairly significant economic dislocation to happen within the next 4 years and the government/fed unable to respond to it in an effective manner. Economic concerns are behind the Sanders and Trump movement. A more likable outsider that focused on economic issues would crush this field.[/quote]
Dislocation how? Can it get worse than the bottom in 2012 when Obama got reelected?
The American economy is running rather well and could be doing better with infrastructure spending. In a global economy, the risks we face are external such as Brexit. If Europe, Japan, China, ASEAN, Brazil, Argentina… could boost growth, we would all benefit. Now could be a low for the world and we are about to boom again.[/quote]
I agree that I’m not sure that there is “an economic dislocation” in the near future, though there could always be a black swan event to trigger it, or even a slower progression towards recession which I also don’t see building anywhere. But if it does happen, and the government can’t act (which is purely a function of political will, not a function of limited availability of options), the Clinton (2) presidency is likely to be a 1 term affair.
Obama had the benefit of taking office just as the recession was hitting the trough, and the bottom was actually closer to 12 months after inauguration. By his 15th month in office, job growth had begun, and while the recovery has never boomed, the US was already at 30 months of job growth by the time of his 2nd term election. Barring something significant in the next 7 months, Clinton won’t have the benefit of time that Obama had for the economy to stabilize.
