Presidents of the United States should be allowed two terms, but the terms should not be consecutive

This is a nice sounding theory but it actually completely fails to remove the problem it hopes to solve. Change things so that a politicians re-election is not immediately after his first term is over but rather 4 years later, They will still have reason to worry about that election in the middle of there presidency. there presidency in the first term is still going to end up coming back to haunt them in there re-election run. So its established politics for re-election will affect there current job office and how they perform in it regardless of how immediate that re-election comes after there first term. Now since we understand the positives of this change do not actually exist, lets move on to the advantages it removes from a President. .. .. actually strike that, the advantages it removes from our COUNTRY to force the Presidents 2 terms to be non-consecutive. It is far better for a leader to be able to perform when his time at the wheel is consecutive with his second time at the wheel. after one term his experince and familarity with the present state of the country a most personal knowledge of the direction the last administration was taking the country allows him to most effectively continue it. It also allows the country some degree of stability for the coutry for 8 year periods, cause 4 kind of goes by really fast when you think about it. Even if a sitting president's successor is from his own part he can still screw up everything the last president in his administration was trying to build and accomplish. When Zachary Taylor died his Vice President Succesor Millard Filmore actively started making concessions to the pro-slave south in terms of westward expansion wich Taylor was adamantly opposed to. Teddy Roosevelt hand picked William Howard Taft to be his succesor but discovered later that Taft was nothing like the kind of Republican he had hoped he would be when he fired Teddies head guy over natural park conservation. Imagine for just a minute what it would have been like if Clinton had instead of running for his second term let Al Gore or Ted Kennedy or John Kerry run and get elected on his high popularity at the time? even if they are from the same party, they would have been very different leaders with very differnt prioities. Most think of Ronald Regan as the role model and definition of conservative leadership today, and for us today in our generation that statement is fairly accurate. But for those that paid attention to politics before he was president, he was shouting at the top of his lungs for leadership to push for the Soviot Union to tear down the Berlin Wall while every Republican leader before him was shunning the idea from Nixon to Ford. Different things have mattered to Reagan than what mattered to those of the same party that came before him, and those of the same party that came after have had different agenda's matter to them. A president who's second term in office is not consecutive will have to have part of its time consumed with reversing the damage done by the last administration. this is not good for the president's second term, and its not good for our country. In a way, the president will actually have to worry about his next election a whole lot more than he does when its consecutive if you factor in the fact that incumbant presidents tend to have an advantage, the people like a little change but not a whole lot. Lets say hypothetically the 2012 election was run on my opponents proposed new system. Obama would not be allowed to rerun just yet but he will in 2016. Who runs for his office seat instead of himself? Biden? Hillary? Whoever does they lose the incumbant advantage, George W Bush even though the media hammered him enough to sink his popularity into the ground and tarnish his image as much as possible still won his re-election, and even though the country has gotten more divided than ever and many focus group test showed Obama voters from the first election were disapointed in what there 'hope and change' failed to deliever, He still won his re-election. For sure it was close in both Bush Vs Kerry and Obama Vs Romney, I remember not being able to stay up long enough to find out the results on all the swing states in the 2012 race, but in the end the incumbant advantage tipped the scales. So had you removed that slight advantage, then in close races where being the incumbant tips the balance, odds are it could have swung the election the other way. Joe Biden would have lost to Mit Romney and sitting party in power would have just lost it, and in 2004 in a Mcain Vs Kerry election Kerry would have. .. .. well mabye that example would be too extream there is no universe were John Kerry would ever win a presidential race. .. .anyway no matter what party you swing for this will not work to your favor and it will almost ensure you rarely ever have a guy on your side hold the white house 2 terms in a row. moving back to the hypothitecal situation though, lets say 2016 approches, and now Obama after 4 years of a Romney or Santorum (who knows mabye even the GOP primaries were affected by this) presidency or mabye even a Biden presidency, he suddenly finds he has to rerun through his own Party Primary and he is challenged. I think the fact that your own guy is rerunning for the office he is sitting in is the only reason no one on your own team usally challenges you for your second term unless things are really really bad. But starting over in a non-consecute term the primary race is suddenly a lot more open and once again you have lost the incumbant advantage, its not going to help in the primary, and its not going to help in the general election. And honestly he may not have much of a fighting chance in most normal cases we can expect with a returning non-consecutive second term grab at the white house canidate, because the people just want a fresh face. Now I admit if we could pull Abraham Lincoln from the grave, bring him back to life and have him run for the white house he would get elected in a heart beat, but realitically for the still living men who have not had enough time pass since they last held office to get idolized yet, not one of them would get re-elected after someone else has taken the white house, even if they are from there own party. when it comes time the country has no choice but to change to a new leader they want to change foward to something and someone new, and if we suddenly had Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Geroge Bush on the Ballot to choose from in 2016 it feel a whole lot like moving backwards to choose any of them again. Had Reagan not died but was fit to run for election again I'm not sure I would even choose him over one of the newer fresher faces in the next generation of leadership in the Republican party like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Ken Cuccinelli, or Paul Ryan. I know some of those points sound like they contradict, people want the same so the incumbant has an advantage, people want different so the returning incumbant would lose. But weird as it is thats how the peoples brains work. We want the same when the terms are consecutive, we want different when they are not.