Talk:Lame duck (politics)

Origin

The origin listed in the current article is a bit vague.

From: Etymology Online "Lame"
"[M]odern sense of "public official serving out term after an election" first recorded 1863 in Amer.Eng., attributed to Vice President Andrew Johnson, in reference to Col. Forney."

From: "1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar" "To Waddle"
To go like a duck. To waddle out of Change alley as a lame duck; a term for one who has not been able to pay his gaming debts, called his differences, on the Stock Exchange, and therefore absents himself from it.

Based on those references, the 1811 book referenced slang current at the time in the "change alley" stock-exchange phrasing. By 1863 the political meaning of today was in print.

But that doesn't explain what "Lame Duck" means in its literal, non-metaphorical sense. I assume this refers to a duck whose foot is broken or injured. Doesn't lame always refer to ambulatory motive power? Would a hurt wing make a duck "lame?"

I ask because if the metaphor is a wounded duck this has two implications that have always troubled me when referring to the political usage of the word:
1) A duck with a maimed leg would probably swim in circles. I've always supposed this is what the metaphor was about, that the duck couldn't swim anywhere because it would just go in circles over and over again.
2) A duck with a maimed leg could conceivably still fly - which is not consistent with the metaphor.

But at the time the metaphor first started to be used, it seemed to be a common enough phrase. Did it make more sense to the 18th century British in that they were somehow more frequently exposed to wounded ducks?

If some evidence as to the origin of the aptness of the original metaphor could be dug up it might help. In short, if the reference is not to the fact that a lame duck would swim in circles - then why does it have to be a duck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Sinclair (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 November 2006

Your speculations are of course original research, so a source is what's needed, but in the same spirit it may be noted that for a long time – including the 18th century – ducks and geese were herded to the London markets: they had to walk, and as I recall, little shoes were made for them to enable them to make the journey. Aylesbury ducks had a long way to go.... see The Aylesbury Duck...dave souza, talk 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Useful clarification? http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1943063,00.html ;) ... dave souza, talk 09:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

United States example?

I just went through and expanded the Australian example a bit and cleaned up the links... hopefully it makes a bit more sense now.

Was just wondering if there are any Americans her (or those knowledgeable about US politics) who could expand the US section at all? It appears to me that the whole article really is strictly adhering to the precise definition of 'lame duck.' In theory, for example, George Bush has been a lame duck for the past two years and will continue to be for the enxt two. In practice, however, he hasn't really been a lame duck over the past two years at all - he has still been able to pass his legislation and such through Congress etc. Now that he has lost Congress and is nearing the end of his term, the 'lame duck' definition seems more appropriate. If that makes sense at all.

This is just a thought... maybe we could expand it so there is a "strict" definition and a more realsitic one...? GreenGopher 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, judging from the news reports of the past week, losing the congress has really increased Bush's lame duckness. Is this always the case? Would it have been different if the Republican's hadn't lost Congress? I don't know the answer, I haven't followed politics for long enough. amRadioHed 03:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The traditional meaning we give (and I am not overly keen on it...) (a) a term limit which keeps him from running for that office again, (b) losing an election, or (c) the elimination of the official's office, but who continues to hold office until the end of the official's term. Technically therefore, based on (a), he has been a lame duck since early November 2004. Is he considered a lame duck under section (b) now that he has lost the election though? Maybe the media is responsible for mutating the word somewhat over the years... I don't really know. But as his term draws to an end, he becomes more and more a 'lame duck' as other politicians don't feel the need to deal with him... It's difficult isn't it? Perhaps we should have a look around for a better definition? GreenGopher 12:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just updated the US example to show the Bush was technically a lame duck since his re-election but was only considered a lame duck after his party lost control of congress in 2006.Olliegrind 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What would happen if Bush never had the congress? Would he have been considered a lame duck from the start of his second term if that was the case instead of just from the midterms? That was the situation for Clinton but I have no idea when he really started being labeled a lame duck. (amRadioHed 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

I have seen the term used that way, but it seemed like a "lame" usage of the term when applied to a popular president who had been reelected and was still pretty firmly in control of the country. It really seemed to fit a President of the U.S. after he was defeated in his re-election campaign better than it fit a second term President in general. If a second term President had control of Congress and then lost it and his popularity dropped to the lowest of his Presidency, the term would seem ti fit. The best practice would be to search U.S. papers, say the New York Times, and tabulate instances of the usage with respect to past presidents. Eisenhower was the first President who was limited to 2 terms. Truman was low in popularity and did not run for reelection in 1952. Before that, it probably was used for a president who lost in his reelection bid. I will take a look at the history. Edison 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why I am not keen on our definition of 'lame duck.' I appreciate we can't simply make a definition up, or do original research etc, but the way it is currently set up makes it look like that every single re-elected president is a lame duck, when this really isn't the case. It seems to be a case of the media twisting the meaning to suit their own needs. GreenGopher 01:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, I wouldn't consider someone a "lame-duck" until their replacement has been elected/named. The President still wields considerable power even without a friendly congressional majority. If you are a lobbyist you certainly have to deal with Bush until his successor is elected. When someone is being replaced, and constituants and lobbyists can already start dealing with the replacement, is when I would call the current officeholder a "lame-duck." Sperril 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aussie terminology

The article says that in Australia "the House of Representatives (or Lower House, of which the party with the greater majority governs)" So what is a "greater majority? Are there also "lesser majorities?" Isn't a "majority" more than half? If there were two parties, there could be a majority and a minority, or a tie, or 3 or more parties with less than a majority, in which case one would would have a plurality, or again there could be a tie. The article wold be improved if someone familiar with the system clarified the language. I hesitate to make a change because I don't want to make an unwarranted assumption about what is meant. It seems like it should say "the party with the majority or plurality governs." Thanks. Edison

Yes I see what you mean - I think I added that last bit in brackets in. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'plurality' though - please excuse my ignorance, I've just never used that terminology.

I did a bit of hunting about for a better way of writing it, this is what the Australian House of Representatives article said about it:

In practice, by convention, the leader of the party (or coalition of parties) with a majority of members in the lower house is invited by the Governor-General to form the Government

As a general rule, the lower house only has Labor seats, and Liberal/National seats (they have been a Coalition for many years now) and a few independent seats, so there is almost never an issue of a party not having a majority. And if there is, then parties gain the support of the independents, until they have enough numbers (ie 75+1) to form government. It's a bit difficult to explain in a few words :D What I might do, is put a bit of the italicised text above into the article, and if you think it is still a bit dodgy then let me know and I'll try to expand it a bit more. GreenGopher 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I tried but I'm not really happy with the wording now, so if anybody has an idea of how to rephrase it, by all means go for it!GreenGopher 01:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Uses

It seems counterintuitive to have an "Other Uses" section at the bottom of the page, discussing a non-political usage on the page "Lame duck (politics)", when that is ostensibly what the disambguation page is for. Why don't we move this section to the disambiguation page and add an "other uses" tag at the top of the page? Any objections? Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for a Portuguese translation and found "mosca morta," or dead fly. The 1920s explanation of lame duck characteristics in US newspapers matches the current Brazilian term reasonably well, and better than anything else I've been able to find. It is also delightfully akin to current opinions of politicians of all 32 parties. translator (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pardons as an example?

Are presidential pardons an example of a lame duck action? -- Techtonic (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think one could argue yes and no Nuvigil (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Impeachment?

If a president is impeached, but still not transitioned out of office, is that session called lame duck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.229 (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No. After impeachment the president has no authority to act as the president. Nuvigil (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. Impeachment does not affect the authority of the president. Conviction after trial by the Senate would remove said President from office immediately. Remember, impeachment is the determination that a trial should be held not the determination of guilt itself. It is the equivalent of an indictment.--Khajidha (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lame duck (politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707080221/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting Information?

The following 2 lines are from the article:

The term "lame duck President" traditionally is reserved for a President who is serving out the remainder of their term after having been defeated for re-election...

The current lame duck President is Barack Hussein Obama.

Surely as Barack Obama was not up for re-election he would not be classed as a lame duck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.241 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Transition length??

"One example was the 146 day–long presidential transition period (November 8, 1932 to March 4, 1933)"

Really? 117 days seems more reasonable, according to my date difference calculator.

Or maybe 1933 had two Februarys... 70.50.38.26 (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving to Lame duck (term)

I think this page should move to Lame duck (term). Lame duck also describes lame duck businesses, lame duck sports leaders et al. Creating Lame duck (sports) is not allowed because it is a WP:Content fork. I will possibly just move this unless there is discussion offering a reason otherwise. Desertarun (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)