Presidential Election Of 1992

Donald Trump One Of The Lowest Popular Vote Percentage Winners In American History, And NOT Due To Strong Third Party Performances!

Donald Trump’s percentage of the popular vote continues to decline, and now makes Trump one of the lowest popular vote percentage winners in American History, and NOT due to strong third party performances.

Right now, Trump has 46.28 percent of the vote and is 2.35 million popular votes behind Hillary Clinton, who has 48.2 percent of the vote.

The only 7 Presidents to have lower percentage are:

John Quincy Adams 1824—30.92

Abraham Lincoln–1860–39.65

Woodrow Wilson–1912–41.84

Bill Clinton–1992–43.01

Richard Nixon–1968–43.42

James Buchanan–1856–45.29

Grover Cleveland–1892–46.02

Before it is all over, Trump is likely to fall lower than Cleveland, and possibly Buchanan, in percentage of the popular vote, when all votes are accounted for.

In each of these seven cases, however, there were more than two strong Presidential candidates, and a third party and twice a fourth party gained electoral votes.

Adams had electoral vote competition from Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford in 1824.

Lincoln had electoral vote competition from John C. Breckinridge, John Bell, and Stephen Douglas in 1860

Wilson had electoral vote competition from Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in 1912.

Clinton had electoral vote competition from George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot in 1992.

Nixon had electoral vote competition from Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in 1968.

Buchanan had electoral vote competition from John C. Fremont and Millard Fillmore in 1856.

Cleveland had electoral vote competition from Benjamin Harrison and James Weaver in 1892.

However, Trump had no third party competitor who took electoral votes away from him or Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

And only Adams ended up second in popular votes with a percentage of the vote lower than Trump.

So Donald Trump cannot claim a popular mandate by any means.

Donald Trump: A “Third Party” President Masquerading As A Republican? Is He A Distorted Version Of Ross Perot?

A new way of looking at Donald Trump is that he is really a “third party” outsider who is masquerading as a Republican, and is trying to make the party he has taken captive over in his own image.

The question is whether this will work, or will the Republican Party divide into factions?

So far, it seems as if many recalcitrant Republicans are trying to make peace with Trump, but once the administration begins on January 20, the odds are good that Trump will alienate many, once he abandons ideas that many think he will pursue, and starts to sound something like a Democrat in some fashion.

Remember that Trump has a longer association with Democratic ideas than Republican, and used to support and endorse Bill and Hillary Clinton, and financially support many Democrats in their Congressional races.

Trump is so mercurial and unpredictable that trying to imagine good results and stability in his Presidency is extremely hard to imagine.

In a way, Trump is like Ross Perot, almost the extension of what Perot attempted in 1992 and 1996, but without the stability and strong convictions that at least Perot had.

Who would ever have thought that Perot magnified and made into a monster would emerge a quarter century after Perot entered politics?

Jimmy Carter Turns 92, Time To Reconsider His Legacy, And That Of George H. W. Bush

Happy Birthday, President Carter, who reached his 92nd birthday today, October 1!

Despite his cancer diagnosis in the summer of 2015, Jimmy Carter has reached the pinnacle of being 92 years of age, although thought to be likely to die within months of the bad news last year.

He becomes the second living President to reach 92, with George H. W. Bush achieving that on June 12 of this year.

Within the next 18 months, both Bush and Carter could surpass Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan as the two longest living Presidents, and we wish them both well on that potential achievement.

Both of these one term Presidents have been too long overlooked for their achievements, and their longevity insures that over time they will be seen as far better in office than they were seen after their defeats for reelection in 1980 and 1992.

The Bush-Clinton Connection Has A New Twist

It is hard to believe, but the Bush Family and the Clinton Family have dominated American Presidential politics for more than a generation, exactly 28 years in 2016.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, it will mean that we will have had 12 years of Bush, father and son, and at least 12 years of Clinton, husband and wife–24 years out of 32, and possibly, if Hillary Clinton were to win a second term, 16 years of the Clintons and a total of 28 of the 36 years from 1988-2024!

Students would learn that the order was Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Clinton, and it would be confusing to explain in future generations.

Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992, and there was bad blood, but the two men got closer at the time of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 brought George W. Bush closer to Bill Clinton, even when Jeb Bush was trying for the GOP nomination this year against Donald Trump. In many ways, as George W. has said, Bill Clinton is like a “brother from a different mother”, and is like another son to father Bush, and even mother Barbara.

And now Father Bush is going to be voting for Hillary Clinton, since son Jeb is out of the race, even though Jeb does not plan to vote for her, and the intention of George W is unknown.

Both First Ladies Barbara and Laura seem likely to vote for First Lady Hillary.

So the Bush-Clinton connection has a new twist!

Donald Trump Could Be On Way To Worst Major Party Candidate Popular Vote Percentage Since William Howard Taft In 1912 And John W. Davis In 1924!

As Donald Trump moves forward, proving ever more his ability to alienate traditional Republicans and conservatives, and his racism, nativism, misogyny, and xenophobia leading to a likely low percentage among African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, Jews, Social Justice Catholics, women, college educated, environmentalists, gays, disabled, and every other conceivable group, the likelihood that he might be on the way to the worst possible major party candidate popular vote percentage since 1912 and 1924 seems a strong possibility.

In 1912, President William Howard Taft, challenged by former President Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party, ended up third, the only time a major party nominee ended up other than first or second, and only received 23.2 percent of the vote, winning 2 states and 8 electoral votes, and Woodrow Wilson winning the election. TR as the third party nominee won six states and 27.4 percent of the total national vote that year.

Once we get past that unusual situation, the next worst performance by a losing major party candidate is John W. Davis , who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and won only 28.8 percent of the total popular vote, winning twelve states and 136 electoral votes. However, Progressive Party candidate Robert M. La Follette Sr won 16.6 percent of the vote in that election.

Next was James Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding in 1920, receiving only 34.2 percent of the vote, winning eleven states and 127 electoral votes.

Next was Alf Landon, who lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, winning only 36.5 percent of the vote, and two states and 8 electoral votes.

Next was George H. W. Bush who won only 37.4 percent of the vote in 1992 against Bill Clinton, but Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the vote that year as an Independent nominee. Bush won 18 states and 168 electoral votes in that election.

Next on the list is George McGovern who won 37.5 percent of the vote in 1972 against Richard Nixon, winning only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia and 17 electoral votes.

Next is Alton B. Parker who won 37.6 percent of the vote in 1904 against Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, but also won 13 states and 140 electoral votes.

Barry Goldwater, losing to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, won only 38.5 percent of the vote, and had 6 states and 52 electoral votes.

Finally, President Herbert Hoover, losing to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, had only 39.7 percent of the vote, and won 6 states and 59 electoral votes.

So nine times, a major party nominee since the Civil War has won less than 40 percent of the total national popular vote, but with three times, 1912, 1924, and 1992, being complicated by a strong third party vote.

Five of these candidates who won less than 40 percent of the vote were Republicans—Presidents Taft, Hoover and the first Bush, and also Landon and Goldwater.

The other four were Democrats—Davis, Cox, McGovern, and Parker.

The Libertarian Presidential Ticket: Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson And Former Massachusetts Governor William Weld!

In a year when there is great disillusionment with the Establishment and the Democratic and Republican Parties, the Libertarian Party, a small third party, suddenly is gaining notice, as it has two substantial former Governors as its Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election:

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (R—1995-2003) and former Massachusetts Governor William Weld (R—1991-1997).

One public opinion poll shows the potential for the Libertarian Party to gain 10 percent of the vote, because of discontent with the two major party nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But neither Gary Johnson nor William Weld are household names, and both are from the past, with Johnson out of the Governorship of New Mexico for 13 years, and Weld out of the Governorship of Massachusetts for 19 years.

So while the fact that they were officeholders of some note in the past, the odds of that party, with its libertarian platform, being able to gain a chance to be in Presidential debates, with a minimum 15 percent average in polls needed by September to accomplish that goal, as occurred with Ross Perot in 1992 and John Anderson in 1980, seems a real long shot!

America First From Charles Lindbergh To Pat Buchanan To Donald Trump–1941-2016

In 1941, famed aviator Charles Lindbergh was one of the leading speakers for the America First Committee, arguing against US entrance into World War II. Despite his fame, he was an open antisemite, racist, and nativist who had openly spoken approvingly of Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany!

In 1992, Pat Buchanan, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, ran for the Republican Presidential nomination against sitting Republican President George H. W. Bush, promoting antisemitism, racism, and nativism, and denying the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. He promoted an overly nationalistic America First foreign policy, similar to Lindbergh a half century earlier.

Now in 2016, Donald Trump is running for President, and likely Republican nominee, and is a racist, nativist, misogynist, and Islamophobe, who is now promoting an America First foreign policy, similar to Lindbergh and Buchanan.

The concept of shutting out the world, ignoring alliances, and alienating other nations, including those who are natural friends, was damaging in 1941 and 1992, and is still so in 2016!

New CNN Presidential Election Series: “Race For The White House”

CNN has begun a new six part series called “Race For The White House”, which will cover six Presidential elections over the next six weeks, each episode an hour in length, and narrated by actor Kevin Spacey.

On Sunday, the 1960 battle for the White House between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was covered.

Future episodes in some order not known yet include chronologically:

1828–Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams

1860–Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas

1948–Harry Truman and Thomas E. Dewey

1988–George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis

1992–Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush

It is not clear why these particular elections were chosen, as there are many others, many more interesting and significant, that were not selected, including:

1896–William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan

1912—Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft

1928–Herbert Hoover and Alfred E. Smith

1932–Franklin D. Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover

1940–Franklin D. Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie

1968–Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George C. Wallace

1980–Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, John Anderson

2000–George W. Bush and Al Gore

2008–Barack Obama and John McCain

This series is well worth watching, after having seen the first episode last night!

 

First Time Since 1928 That There Has Been No Nixon Or Bush As Part Of A Winning Presidential Race For The Republican Party!

In 1928, Herbert Hoover won the Presidency, the third Republican President in a row in the 1920s.

Ever since, there have been NINE elections for President in which the Republican nominee has won, for a total of 36 years, while the Democrats have won 12 elections for a total 48 years.

In each election in which the Republicans won, there has been a Richard Nixon (4 times) and a Bush (five times) on the ballot, for President or Vice President, and the GOP has never won an election without one or the other name on the ballot!

Nixon was on the ballot for Vice President in 1952 and 1956, and for the Presidency in 1968 and 1972, while George H. W. Bush was on the ballot for Vice President in 1980 and 1984, and for President in 1988, while his son George W. Bush was on the ballot for President in 2000 and 2004.

Of course, Nixon was on the losing side in 1960 and Bush Sr. in 1992.  So since 1952, there have only been five times that a Nixon or a Bush was not on the ballot, all losing years as well, including Barry Goldwater in 1964, Gerald Ford 1976, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

But now they will have to overcome that reality, as Jeb Bush is out of the race, and there will be no Nixon or Bush on the ballot.  Can a Non Nixon or Non Bush actually win the Presidency without a running mate named Nixon or Bush?

This will be a challenge for the Republicans, and it will be interesting to see if there is a hex on the Republicans, which will undermine them in the Presidential race!

1992–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Democrats); 2016–Young, Southern, Appealing Ticket (Republicans)?

In 1992, the Democrats offered a young, Southern, appealing ticket—Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas (age 46) and Senator Al Gore of Tennessee (44).  They were both photogenic and represented a new generation of leadership after Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.  The fact that both were from the South did not undermine their candidacies.

Now in 2016, we have a potential similarity offered by the Republicans—Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (age 45) and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina (45 on Inauguration Day in 2017).  They are young, Southern, appealing, photogenic, and represent a new generation of leadership.  And they are ethnic minorities, with parents from Cuba and India.

Could the Republicans revive their party and save it from Donald Trump, age 70, and an outsider who is destroying the Republican Party?

We shall see in the coming days, weeks, and months!