Presidential Election Of 1956

Multiple Losing Presidential Candidacies, And Those Who Lost, Then Won The Presidency

Ronald 2 Comments

The history of multiple candidacies for the Presidency is an interesting one, with five candidates being nominated more than once and losing each time, and five candidates being nominated more than once, and losing before winning the White House (with unusual circumstances for Grover Cleveland)

Those who ran multiple times and continued to lose are:

Charles Pinckney, Presidential Elections of 1804 and 1808
Henry Clay, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1832, and 1844
William Jennings Bryan, Presidential Elections Of 1896, 1900, and 1908
Thomas E. Dewey, Presidential Elections of 1944 and 1948
Adlai Stevenson, Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1956

Those who ran multiple times and first lost, and then won the Presidency are (with unusual case of Grover Cleveland described below):

Thomas Jefferson, Presidential Elections of 1796, 1800 and 1804
Andrew Jackson, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1828 and 1832
William Henry Harrison, Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840
Grover Cleveland, Presidential Elections of 1884, 1888, and 1892 (winning in 1884, losing in 1888, winning in 1892)
Richard Nixon, Presidential Elections of 1960, 1968 and 1972

Also, Jackson and Cleveland won the popular vote in the elections they lost in the Electoral College, so both actually won the popular vote three times, the only candidates to do that, other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the popular vote and electoral vote four times, in the Presidential Elections of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944!

Additionally, Martin Van Buren ran a third time in 1848 on the Free Soil Party line and lost; and Theodore Roosevelt ran a second time in 1912 on the Progressive Party line and lost.

The “What Ifs” Of The Vice Presidency And Succession To The Presidency!

Ronald Leave a comment

The “What If”s of history are a topic that continues to fascinate, such as Jeff Greenfield’s new book on a second term in the Presidency of John F. Kennedy, had he not been assassinated.

There are so many examples of situations where a Vice President could have become President, and the fortunes of history did not make that work out. And twice, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate could have become President, as next in line, and with no Vice President at the time of the situation!

A total of 15 circumstances could have occurred, as follows:

John Tyler came close to being killed on the USS Princeton on a Potomac River trip on February 28, 1844, when an explosion occurred, killing the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy, but Tyler was unhurt. Had he died, and with no Vice President, as Tyler had succeeded William Henry Harrison in 1841, the President of the United States Senate would have been President Pro Tempore Senator Willie P. Mangum of North Carolina, a Whig Party member..

James K. Polk had constant intestinal ailments during his one term in office from 1845-1849, and chose not to run again, and died 103 days after his Presidency. Had he died during the term, Vice President George M. Dallas would have been President.

If Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated in his first term, rather than his second, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin would have been President, and Andrew Johnson would not have been President.

If Andrew Johnson had been convicted on impeachment charges in 1868, President Pro Tempore Benjamin Wade, Senator from Ohio, would have been President.

If Grover Cleveland, who had surgery for jaw cancer in 1893, had died, Vice President Adlai Stevenson I, the grandfather of the two time Democratic nominee for President in 1952 and 1956, would have been President.

If William McKinley’s first term Vice President, Garret Hobart, had not died in 1899, he likely would have been Vice President in the second term, when McKinley was assassinated in 1901, and Hobart would have been President, and Theodore Roosevelt would not have been President.

If Woodrow Wilson, having suffered a paralytic stroke which limited his ability to do his job for the last 18 months of his Presidency, had either died or resigned, Vice President Thomas Marshall would have been President.

If Franklin D. Roosevelt had been killed in an assassination attempt 17 days before his Presidency began, John Nance Garner would have been President.

If Franklin D. Roosevelt had not “dumped” Vice President Henry A. Wallace for his fourth term, Wallace would have been President, and not Harry Truman.

If Harry Truman had been successfully assassinated in a 1950 attempt, Vice President Alben Barkley would have been President.

If Gerald Ford had been a victim in either assassination attempt against him in September 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller would have been President.

If Jimmy Carter had been the victim of John Hinckley, who stalked him at a campaign event in October 1980, the same person who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan less than six months later, Vice President Walter Mondale would have been President.

If George H. W. Bush had died of an atrial fibrillation during his term, Vice President Dan Quayle would have been President.

If Bill Clinton had been removed on impeachment charges or resigned during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Vice President Al Gore would have been President.

And if George W. Bush had been shot down by terrorists on September 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney would have been President

Try to imagine Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman NOT being Presidents!

And imagine Presidents Willie P. Mangum, George M. Dallas, Hannibal Hamlin, Benjamin Wade, Adlai Stevenson I, Garret Hobart, Thomas Marshall, John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace, Alben Barkley, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore and Dick Cheney as Presidents of the United States, which would have meant, instead of nine Vice Presidents succeeding to the Presidency during a term, it could have been 19 Vice Presidents out of 44, nearly half (leaving out Vice Presidents Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman from the list of 47 Vice Presidents)! Plus two Presidents Pro Tempore of the Senate would have been President!

Missouri Loses Its Bellwether Status In Presidential Elections

Ronald 2 Comments

The state of Missouri has long been seen as a bellwether state, as it had correctly voted for the winner of the Presidency in every election in the 20th century, except 1956, when it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by a small margin of a few thousand votes.

The Missouri tradition of voting for the winner continued in 2000 and 2004, but again, in 2008, by a few thousand votes, Missouri voted for John McCain over Barack Obama.

So only twice did the Presidential winner lose Missouri since 1900, but now it has happened a third time, and this time not only a few thousand votes separate Mitt Romney from Barack Obama.

So the margin is 260,000 votes, a massive lead for Romney, making Missouri clearly lose its status as a bellwether state, at least for the time being!

The Extraordinarily Close Relationship Between President Obama And Vice President Biden

Ronald Leave a comment

Now that the first term of Barack Obama and Joe Biden is ending, it is worth a few moments to recognize the extraordinarily close relationship that exists between the President and the Vice President.

When one looks back on such relationships in the past, it is clear that no other relationship has been quite as close, as warm, as personally friendly, since the time when Jimmy Carter utilized Walter Mondale as practically a “co President” from 1977-1981.

Vice Presidents never really mattered or were close to a President until the 1950s, when Richard Nixon made the office of Vice President a significant office. But President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not very happy, a lot of the time, with his Vice President, and there were hints that he would have preferred a different running mate in 1956,

The John F. Kennedy–Lyndon B. Johnson relationship was not close at all, and neither was the Johnson–Hubert Humphrey relationship.

The Richard Nixon–Spiro Agnew relationship was not much better, and Nixon with Gerald Ford was only a brief period where the two men avoided contact with the other during the Watergate crisis.

Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were closer, but Ford chose to drop Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole for the 1976 Presidential race to please the conservative wing led by Ronald Reagan, and years later, Ford expressed regret that he had allowed himself to dump Rockefeller.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were extraordinarily close, with Mondale being treated as an absolute equal, and the two men remain close friends now after nearly 32 years out of office, the longest lasting Presidential-Vice Presidential team, breaking all records for longevity every day.

Ronald Reagan was not very close to George H. W. Bush personally, and Bush did not take Dan Quayle very seriously at all as a Vice President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were friendly and close until the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment issues arose, and then Gore stayed away from Clinton during his own campaign for President in 2000, which very well may have harmed his ability to win, despite a popular vote majority of about a half million votes.

George W. Bush relied on Dick Cheney a great deal, but their closeness, if it ever existed, dissipated in the second term over various matters.

The Obama-Biden friendship and closeness seems not at all affected in any way by events, or Biden’s well known problem with gaffes, and he has played a major role as an adviser on so many issues, domestic and foreign. One can see in so many situations and photos that the two men are close, and have a very warm, personal relationship with each other.

This could create a problem for President Obama IF both Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decide to run for President, as the President owes a lot to both of them, as well as to former President Bill Clinton, for having worked so hard for his reelection, and giving what many consider the best speech for Obama at the Democratic National Convention as well.

The best situation for Obama then, would be to remain neutral, but with the hope that maybe one or both would decide ultimately, because of their ages and long careers, not to run for President in their 70s (Biden) or nearing 70s (Clinton).

The Shame And Embarrassment Of Missouri: What Has Happened To The “Show Me” State?

Ronald 3 Comments

Missouri is smack in the middle of the United States, and is the ultimate swing state, having successfully gone with the winner of the Presidency in every election since 1900, except for 1956 (picking Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower) and 2008 (picking John McCain over Barack Obama).

However, both times the final result was not known for days, and the victory was only by about 4,000 votes statewide.

Missouri is also the state historically of the following statesmen:

President Harry Truman (1945-1953), who had served in the Senate from 1935-1945 (Democrat)
Senator Thomas Hart Benton (1821-1851) (Democrat)
Senator Carl Schurz (1869-1875) (Republican)
Senator Stuart Symington (1953-1977) (Democrat)
Senator John Danforth (1977-1995) (Republican)
Senator Thomas Eagleton (1969-1987) (Democrat)

But now, Missouri is represented by Senator Roy Blunt, who used to be one of the top Republicans in the House of Representatives, and has become connected to the Blunt Amendment proposal, allowing any employer to prevent medical services based on religious grounds to any employee, a measure defeated by the Democratic majority in the US Senate. This is seen as anti women, interfering with their right to have birth control as part of medical plans.

And now, Congressman Todd Akin, controversial for his comment about “legitimate” rape, but refusing to withdraw as the GOP nominee for the Senate seat of Senator Claire McCaskill, is putting Missouri into the strange position of possibly having both Senators on record as against the rights of women to control their own reproductive lives, and trying to prevent abortion if a victim of rape or incest, or her life itself is threatened, an extremely right wing position.

The Republican Party and Mitt Romney had backed away from support of Akin, but now that he is remaining in the race for the Senate, the question is whether the Republican Party will change its mind and end up supporting Akin’s candidacy financially.

This McCaskill-Akin race could well be the decisive one that determines whether the Democrats keep control of the US Senate, or if the Republicans gain control.

It would seem that McCaskill should win, not only because of the controversy raised by Akin, but because she has done a good job in her one term in the Senate.

But Missouri is an odd state, with strong evangelical roots, and it would be a major shame and embarrassment for the state were they to end up having two right wing Senators at the same time.

The state would lose all respect of political observers who see moderation as the way to get things done in the Senate, and it would be a major step backwards for women’s rights!

So everyone should contribute to this pivotal race, as the key one which could determine the political future in so many ways!

And it is up to Missouri voters to show they are indeed the “Show Me” state, and will not tolerate having an extreme right winger in the Senate, joining Senator Roy Blunt!

Missouri Senate Race Could Lead To Obama Victory In “Bellwether” State

Ronald Leave a comment

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has been considered the most vulnerable incumbent in this year’s Senate races, but the flap and controversy over the remarks of Republican nominee Todd Akin six days ago has led to McCaskill, who was trailing Akin, to take a nine point lead in the latest polling.

IF McCaskill can continue to keep a lead over Akin, and nine points is a massive edge at this point, 73 days out, then President Obama has the prospect of carrying Missouri, which he lost to John McCain by about 4,000 votes in 2008.

Remember again that Missouri has been a “bellwether” state since the beginning of the 20th century, with only 1956 and 2008 having the Presidential winner lose Missouri, so it would be very welcome to Obama to win the 10 electoral votes of the “Show Me” state in November, and improve his chances of winning the Electoral College, which now are excellent, even without Missouri!

Missouri, Bellwether State, MAY Decide Senate Balance And Presidential Race In 2012

Ronald Leave a comment

Missouri, the “Show Me” state, is also the ultimate bellwether of all states in the past century.

Since 1904, the state has ALWAYS gone to the winner of the Presidency EXCEPT twice. In 1956, it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by about 4,000 votes, and the same vote margin occurred in 2008, with John McCain winning over Barack Obama.

Beyond the history of Missouri, the blunder of Todd Akin, the Tea Party and Republican nominee for the Senate talking about “legitimate rape”, has outraged not only his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill and women across America, but also the Republican Establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senator John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, as well as Karl Rove, head of the American Crossroads SuperPAC that is raising hundred of billions of dollars for the Republican Congressional and Presidential campaign.

However, Mitt Romney has not shown the same willingness to demand that Akin withdraw from the Senate race, and that may be because his running mate, Paul Ryan, cosponsored legislation to deny abortion to rape victims, by supporting “personhood” language that would make fetuses defined as “persons’ before birth.

Additionally, social conservatives are backing Akin, demonstrating the split in the GOP between them and the Establishment Republicans who see electoral disaster ahead.

As a result, the Akin controversy could do the following in November:

Throw the state and its ten electoral votes to Barack Obama, possibly replacing Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes, with the assumption that Paul Ryan might be able to carry his home state for the Republican ticket. It would make the path to victory for Barack Obama a lot easier.

Help Claire McCaskill to retain her Senate seat, and in so doing, improve the chances of the Senate staying in control of the Democrats.

Have an effect nationally on the percentage of the women’s vote that would go Democratic in Congressional districts, possibly affecting the balance of seats in the House of Representatives, and assisting the opportunity of the Democrats to regain control of the chamber.

So this mess could be the decisive turning point of the 2012 election cycle, even If Akin ultimately gets out of the Missouri Senate race. The damage may have been done already, and no chance to reverse the damage!

The Misleading Public Opinion Polls: The Electoral College Will Decide The Election, Not A Public Opinion Poll!

Ronald 5 Comments

The public opinion poll industry is, sadly, misinforming the American people, when they try to tell us that the Presidential Election of 2012 is going to be a tight race, some even say, similar to 2000!

The facts are that Barack Obama has to deal with certain factors, including:

Massive HATRED by many people who simply will not accept that we have an African American President and will do whatever is required to defeat him.

The fact that the Citizens United case allows corporations SuperPACS, and billionaires to spend inordinate amounts of money to attempt to poison the atmosphere, and defeat Obama simply by the power of money.

The fact that the Republican Party is trying to disenfranchise millions in 24 states, by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification, such as college student IDs, but, as in Texas, for example, accepting gun permits as an acceptable ID. So we are having poor people, college students, the elderly, and minorities being told they cannot vote, unless they spend large amounts of money, time and travel to acquire what is required under various discriminatory state laws, that violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and are veiled poll taxes, outlawed under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution in 1964!

But Attorney General Eric Holder, despite being cited for contempt of Congress for flimsy reasons, is determined to do what is necessary to stop these violations of the right to vote!

In any case, only by race hatred, corrupt fund raising, and violations of the Constitution, amendments and civil rights laws, can the Republicans win, and that is NOT going to happen!

Remember the following, which this author has emphasized again and again!

The election will be won in the “swing states”, the “battleground states”, but there are enough BLUE states already to give Barack Obama a total of 242 electoral votes, 28 short of what is needed, a total of 270 electoral votes, to win the Presidency on November 6!

As stated many times before, these states are: Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Washington State, Oregon, California, and Hawaii–18 states and Washington, DC.

The “Swing States” or “Battleground States” are as follows: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada–eleven states with a total of 129 electoral votes, and all of these states, except Missouri won by Barack Obama in 2008, with Missouri lost by just a few thousand votes to John McCain.

So IF Barack Obama wins Florida, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Virginia and North Carolina, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins North Carolina and Ohio, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Ohio and Missouri, he wins the Presidency!

If he wins Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia, he wins the Presidency!

Obama is likely to win Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada right now, while having more trouble in North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and New Hampshire.

But he COULD win them all, adding Missouri to the other states he won last time! And he has a shot at winning Arizona, Montana and Georgia, as well, with the growing Hispanic and Latino vote in those states! So he COULD win a total of 32 states and Washington DC in this upcoming election!

So Obama COULD win MORE electoral votes than last time, which has been the case for EVERY two term President since Woodrow Wilson failed to do that in 1916, after winning his first term a century ago in 1912.!

Just for the record, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush are the Presidents who won a bigger second term electoral vote than their first term!

So, readers, stop obsessing and worrying, if you are a supporter of Barack Obama, and to those who are Mitt Romney supporters, stop being delusional and believing that your candidate will be the 45th President, because the 44th President of the United States is coming back: FOUR MORE YEARS FOR 44!

Three “Red” States In Play For 2012 Presidential Election

Ronald Leave a comment

With one year to go to the Presidential Election Of 2012, discussion about the Electoral College has begun.

The question has been whether Barack Obama can hold on to most of the “swing states” which he won in 2008.

But at the same time, there are actually three “red’ states of 2008 that Obama has a possibility of winning–Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona–with a total of 37 electoral votes.

Missouri (10 electoral votes) was won by John McCain by less than 4,000 votes in 2008, and it took a few days to declare McCain the winner because of the very close vote. Missouri is also the ultimate “swing state”, as it ALWAYS has gone to the winner of the Presidency since 1900, except TWICE–going to Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 and to McCain over Obama in 2008.

Georgia (16 electoral votes) went to McCain in 2008 by 196,000 votes, a margin of a little over 5 percent of the vote, but now the growing Hispanic population could be enough to give the state to Obama.

Arizona (11 electoral votes), the home of McCain, went to the senator in 2008 also by a margin of 196,000 votes, a margin of about 8.5 percent, but with the rapidly growing Hispanic population there also, and McCain not on the ballot as a “favorite son”, the possibility exists that Obama could win that state.

So if Obama were to win one or more of the three states mentioned, he could afford to lose some of the “swing states” that he won in 2008.