Mitt Romney

Republican Presidential Nominees And Presidents, And Their Running Mates: No Love Lost, Historically!

It is clear from the study of history and news coverage over the past half century that Republican Presidential candidate and even Republican Presidents have NOT been enamored with their Vice Presidential running mates or Vice Presidents.

We go back to Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew as the first example, with Nixon using Agnew to attack the news media and Democrats in the midterm 1970 Congressional elections, but having little personal regard for him, and unwilling to come to his support when Agnew was revealed to be engaged in corruption, which would force his resignation in October 1973.

Then, Nixon selected Gerald Ford as his Vice Presidential replacement more on the idea that he felt that Ford, while well liked in Congress, would not be seen by opposition Democrats as all that competent to replace Nixon during the impeachment crisis of 1973-1974.

Gerald Ford seems to have really admired and felt comfortable with Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President under the 25th Amendment, but agreed to drop him from the ticket in 1976 to please conservatives, led by Ronald Reagan, and to select Senator Bob Dole of Kansas as his replacement.

Ronald Reagan may have utilized George H. W. Bush’s expertise, but had little personal regard for Bush, and the Bushes were never invited to dinner at the White House during the eight years of their association.

Bush certainly had little faith and trust in Dan Quayle during his Presidency, and the nation knew it, and worried about the incompetence of Quayle.

Bob Dole’s selection of Jack Kemp in 1996 to be his running mate as Vice President certainly was not as a result of friendship or warmth, and they seemed an ill fit, often disagreeing during the campaign.

George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney in 2000 due to his vast experience, and allowed himself to be dominated in the first term, but their association soured dramatically in the second term.

John McCain seems to have been forced to select Sarah Palin in 2008, and Palin helped to undermine McCain, but McCain continues to defend Palin even today, although it seems clear how uncomfortable he is when answering questions about Palin.

The Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan connection in 2012 seems also not to have been one of great warmth and friendship.

And Mike Pence is squirming a lot as Vice Presidential running mate for Donald Trump, seeing Trump contradict him openly and making clear his lack of regard for Pence, including being upset that Pence performed better in his debate with Tim Kaine, than Trump did with Hillary Clinton in their three Presidential debates.

Could The Lone Star State Really Go “Blue”? If So, The Republican Party Future Is Over!

Latest polls indicate that the Lone Star State, Texas, with the second highest number of electoral votes, 38, could go for Hillary Clinton this year, tipping that state “Blue” four to eight years before it was expected to tilt, based on growth of Hispanic and Latino voting population.

Donald Trump is ahead only by three points, while Mitt Romney won Texas in 2012 by 16 points, so this is certainly a possibility that Hillary Clinton will win Texas this year.

IF she does, she will have a total electoral landslide, with over 400 electoral votes.

North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Utah, all “Red” states, are seen as likely to go to the Democrats, but Texas? Unbelievable!

If this happens, then it is possible that the House of Representatives majority will be in play, and the Senate looks much more likely to go to the Democrats, as we near Election Day in 20 days, but with many voters already having participated by mail or in early in person voting.

When and if Texas goes Democratic, the Republican Party is doomed for the long term, and will never win the White House again, until and unless they reorganize and change their attitudes and policies, including on immigration matters!

Trump Support Hemorraghing Rapidly In “Red” States!

Three weeks to go until the Presidential Election of 2016, and it seems clear, by public opinion polls,that Donald Trump’s support in “Red” states is hemorrhaging rapidly.

His mishandling of the sexual assault allegations has turned many Republicans against him, and his condemnation of Republican leadership, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, is damaging his ability even to hold on to the loyal Republican states.

So we have evidence that the following states are possible pick ups by Hillary Clinton:

North Carolina
South Carolina
Nebraska (or at least the Omaha area)

One can be quite certain that many of these states will, in the end, still back Donald Trump, but by a much smaller margin than for Mitt Romney in 2012 or John McCain in 2008.

But the first four on the above list look ripe for being picked up by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

I will post an entry close to the election on my final projections, and I remind my readers that, independent of Nate Silver in 2012, I projected, as he did, the precise electoral vote distribution-332-206.

I also will publish my projection on History News Network, and will be on radio with Jon Grayson of CBS St Louis, KMOX 1120 AM, Overnight with Jon Grayson, one of the radio shows I have been on, and posted on the right side of the blog, on Election Night at 1 AM ET on November 9, a few hours after the polls have closed, to comment on the results.

Utah, The Mormon State, Could Vote Democratic For First Time Since 1964, When They Voted Against Barry Goldwater

Utah, the Mormon state, has had an interesting history in their voting patterns on the Presidential elections.

Coming into the Union in 1896, Utah voted for Democrat William Jennings Bryan that year; for Woodrow Wilson in his second term bid in 1916; for Franklin D. Roosevelt four times in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944; for Harry Truman in 1948; and for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 (over Barry Goldwater).

So if Utah goes for Hillary Clinton, which now seems likely, it will be the first time in 52 years.

With Utah politicians, including Senator Mike Lee, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, and former Governor Jon Huntsman condemning Donald Trump, and with Mitt Romney, the most famous Mormon and 2012 Republican Presidential nominee, being vehemently anti Trump from the beginning of the 2016 Presidential race, it is seen as a blow to Trump having any chance to keep that state loyal to the Republican Party, which is natural in the past half century. Realize that Romney won 3-1 over Barack Obama four years ago!

Danger Of Civil Disorder If Donald Trump Refuses To Accept Defeat, Which All Previous Losers Have Accepted With Grace And Dignity!

Throughout American history, there has been great emotions as battles for the Presidency go on, but at the end, when the election is over, the loser has always conceded with grace and dignity.

This includes the John Adams-Thomas Jefferson race in 1800, the first time an incumbent has lost to a challenger.

It includes the John Quincy Adams-Andrew Jackson Presidential races in 1824 and 1828.

It includes the Abraham Lincoln–Stephen Douglas–John C. Breckinridge–John Bell four way race on the eve of the Civil War in 1860.

It includes the hotly contested 1876 Presidential race between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, resolved by the political deal known as the Compromise of 1877.

It includes the four way contested race of 1912 between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs.

It includes the upset election victory of Harry Truman against Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.

It includes the John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon race in 1960, which Nixon thought might have been corrupt, but chose not to challenge.

It also includes the Presidential election of 2000, when Al Gore challenged the results in court, but then was graceful once the Supreme Court intervened in favor of George W. Bush.

And it includes the grace and dignity of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, when they lost to Barack Obama.

But now, we have had indications that Donald Trump will not concede, and will claim a “rigged” election if he loses, and this will only encourage civil disorder, and the potential for bloodshed and violence, and refusal to allow a peaceful transition to the inauguration and administration of Hillary Clinton.

This is not a laughing matter one iota, and a very worrisome matter!

A Grand Slam Home Run For Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump In First Presidential Debate!

Last night’s Presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was a grand slam home run for Hillary Clinton.

She demonstrated knowledge, expertise, coolness under fire, a sense of humor, and had an aura of being Presidential.

She proved that a woman could best a man, even one as vain, egotistical, and narcissistic as Donald Trump.

Trump was poorly prepared, and clearly, has no knowledge or expertise that he could demonstrate, and this experience of having a non government person running for President, should guarantee that never again do we even imagine a person only in the business world as a potential President.

As with any profession, one needs education, experience, and vision to be a President, and therefore, it should be automatic that only those who have served in public office in some fashion, and have a record of performance, should be considered for President.

Let a businessman decide to prove himself or herself in public office, as Mitt Romney did, for instance, before he or she dares to consider having the qualifications to be President.

Let such a person go through public scrutiny, and the trials and tribulations of political discourse before such person has the thought of running for the leadership of the free world.

Hillary Clinton’s Strong Advocates: Bill Clinton, Tim Kaine, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren!

Hillary Clinton has a tremendous edge that Donald Trump does not–support of Democratic party faithful.

Hillary has strong advocates who know how to arouse a crowd and motivate people, including her husband, Bill Clinton; Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine; President Barack Obama; First Lady Michelle Obama; Vice President Joe Biden; Second Lady Jill Biden; and Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Donald Trump cannot brag about such support, as key Republicans, including former Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush; 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney; 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain; Speaker of the House Paul Ryan; former Florida Governor Jeb Bush; Ohio Governor John Kasich; and innumerable others, are not willing to campaign for him, and in many cases, have not endorsed him, and are critical of his campaign.

Hillary Clinton has a record of accomplishment and commitment, while Donald Trump has a record of failing at business and in marriage; being totally untrustworthy and unstable; and having large numbers of conservatives, intelligence and military officials, diplomatic leaders, and economists condemning his rhetoric and attitudes on a multitude of issues.

Trump is the most divisive figure in American politics since Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona 52 years ago, in the Presidential Election of 1964, but in many ways, Trump is more divisive and dangerous than even Goldwater was.

Prediction That Four States Will Decide Presidential Election—Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida–Is That Legitimate?

Many political observers are saying that four states are the true battleground that will decide who is inaugurated President on January 20, 2017.

Those states are Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida.

The question is whether that belief is legitimate.

This blogger thinks it is much more complicated than those four states, and that two of them–Pennsylvania and Florida—are assured for the Democrats as it is.

Yes, it is true that Pennsylvania west of Philadelphia and east of Pittsburgh is often called “Alabama”, but Pennsylvania has been reliably “Blue” or Democratic for six straight elections from 1992 onward, and that is not likely to change. If “Alabama” really mattered as much as some think, then how did our African American President win the state both in 2008 and 2012? If anything, with the economy far better now than it was in 2008 and 2012, and with Barack Obama’s public opinion rating now at 58 percent, the highest since his first year in office (2009), Pennsylvania is assured to go “Blue” again. Remember, all that is needed is to win the most popular votes to win the electoral votes, not necessary to win a majority, but just a plurality.

Florida, despite being Republican in state elections, went for Barack Obama twice, and now there are many more Puerto Rican citizens who have moved from the island to central Florida in particular, due to the tough economic times in Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans are citizens who just need to re-register at their new address, and the vast majority of them are Democrats, and therefore now lessen the Cuban influence on the state vote. And many younger Cubans are not automatically conservative or Republican as their elders are. With the I-4 corridor (Central Florida) becoming more likely Democratic, add much of South Florida to the equation (Broward and Palm Beach Counties), and the influence of North Florida and Miami-Dade County (where many immigrants turned citizens from Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and other nations in Latin America have migrated and not generally Republicans) are therefore outweighed, and with the better public opinion ratings of Obama added to the mix, the odds are that Florida will go “Blue” again.

Ohio is more difficult, and history tells us that every elected Republican President has won Ohio, so this is truly the crucial state but with Hillary Clinton having the edge in most polls. And one must remember Hillary has a built in edge in “Blue” States, and does not have to win Ohio, while Donald Trump must win it or have no chance to win the White House.

North Carolina went for Obama in 2008 but went “Red” for Mitt Romney in 2012, but polls now indicate that Hillary is favored, but again is not essential for Hillary to win the Presidency.

I would say beyond these four states, there are the states of Georgia and Arizona and Utah, all “Red” states, that indicate close races, with the possibility that they could go “Blue” for this election, and possibly beyond, particularly true for Georgia and Arizona, due to the increase in Hispanic and Latino population and voters.

So Hillary Clinton still has an overwhelming advantage, with eight weeks out from Election Day, to win the Presidency.

Reality Of American Politics: Win Majority Of Hispanic And Latino Vote Or Lose Presidency In The Future!

Statistics now show that any Presidential nominee from now on MUST win the majority of the Hispanic-Latino vote or lose the Presidency, which insures that Democrats will continue to win the Presidency until and when the Republican Party and its candidates stop attacking the issue of immigration, and accept that the white vote is simply not enough to win the White House. In 2016, it is estimated that to win the Presidency, Donald Trump would have to win 47 percent of the Hispanic-Latino vote, which means by 2020, it will be necessary to win the majority forever after.

George W. Bush won the Presidency with 35 and 40 percent of the vote, while John McCain won 31 percent and Mitt Romney won 27 percent and lost the Presidency.

The latest estimate is that Donald Trump is winning 19 percent of the vote, and that is before his vicious, nasty, hard line speech in Phoenix, which certainly lost him many more Hispanic and Latino votes.

The Hispanic and Latino vote, particularly the Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, are growing rapidly, and already in population, all Hispanics and Latinos are about one out of every six people in America.

And when you add in the Asian American vote and the African American vote, it is clear the Republican Party is doomed long term, as 73 percent of the former and 90 percent of the latter group voted Democratic for President in 2012, and that both numbers will probably go up for Hillary Clinton.

So allowing white nationalists and hate mongers like KKK former leader Davide Duke to be connected to Donald Trump only insures disastrous defeat for Donald Trump and any future GOP nominee who continued to promote nativism and racism.

Large Crowds For Speeches Not Indication Of Voting Results, Just An Entertainment Event!

Many Donald Trump supporters love to point out that he has tremendously large crowds which come out for all of his political rallies.

They say that is an indication of the enthusiasm that exists for the Trump Presidential candidacy.

And yet, all of the public opinion polls indicate a massive edge for Hillary Clinton.

So what gives here?

The answer is that large crowds have never been an indicator of voting results, and should be seen as an entertainment event that costs nothing, and therefore will draw large crowds.

Remember Donald Trump is primarily an entertainer, a reality TV star, a man of charisma, known for more than 30 years as a public figure.

And in other elections, the candidate who lost had very large crowds come to his event–as with George McGovern in 1972 and Mitt Romney in 2012, as two examples.

Where else can you get close to a well known person, who can be funny and as interesting, with his rants and ravings, as Donald Trump is, and pay nothing, and find people who feel the same as you?

So Trump crowds are NO indication of the total disaster about to take over the Trump Presidential bid.