Presidential Election Of 1976

A “Brokered” Republican Convention Possible? YES!

With the struggle going on for the Republican Presidential nomination, a scenario of a “brokered” convention looms.

IF Mitt Romney does not win Michigan and Arizona next Tuesday, and/or loses Ohio and other states on March 6, the “Establishment” Republicans, terrified at the thought of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich as the party nominee, COULD work together to prevent a majority for either of them, and create a “brokered” convention.

If that were to occur, the first contested convention since 1976, when Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan by fewer than 100 delegate votes (a losing campaign, by the way), then former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, or Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan COULD emerge as the nominee.

It is clear at this time that trying to predict what will happen politically this year is still very much up in the air, as foreign policy or economic crisis could transform the race not just for the GOP, but also for President Barack Obama!

President Vs. President In Presidential Elections: 14 Times and 20 Presidents

On George Washington’s actual birthday, 280 years ago (1732), it is appropriate to ask how many times has there been a Presidential election in which two Presidents opposed each other?

The answer is 14 times, and a total of 20 Presidents have competed against a fellow Oval Office occupant, present or future!

Here are the details:

Presidential Elections of 1796 and 1800–John Adams vs Thomas Jefferson, with Adams first winning, and then Jefferson.

Presidential Elections Of 1824 and 1828–John Quincy Adams vs Andrew Jackson, with Adams first winning (even though behind Jackson in popular votes), and then Jackson.

Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840–Martin Van Buren vs William Henry Harrison, with Van Buren first winning, and then Harrison.

Presidential Elections of 1888 and 1892–Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland, with Harrison first winning (even though behind Cleveland in popular votes), and then Cleveland.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the only time three Presidents, past, present and future, ran against each other, with Woodrow Wilson defeating President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt (running on a third party line, the Progressive Party).

Presidential Election of 1932–Herbert Hoover vs Franklin D. Roosevelt, with FDR winning.

Presidential Election of 1960–John F. Kennedy vs Richard Nixon, with JFK winning, but Nixon later winning the Presidency in 1968.

Presidential Election of 1976–Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford, with Carter defeating President Ford.

Presidential Election of 1980–President Jimmy Carter vs Ronald Reagan, with Reagan defeating President Carter.

Presidential Election Of 1992–President George H. W. Bush vs Bill Clinton, with Clinton defeating President Bush.

Of these 20 Presidents, only Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton–a total of five–never lost to their Presidential competitor, although it could be pointed out that FDR lost the Vice Presidency in 1920, a race that Warren G. Harding won for the White House, and that Ronald Reagan lost the Republican nomination for President to Gerald Ford in 1976!

So another trivia contest for those who are interested!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

The Republican Tradition Of “Next In Line” For The Presidential Nomination

The Republican Party has developed a tradition of choosing the “next in line” for their Presidential nomination in the past half century, with the one exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, which became a total disaster.

Witness:

1960–Richard Nixon was “next in line” as Vice President to succeed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
1968–Richard Nixon was “next in line” after the Goldwater debacle, as a “second chance” for the “workhorse” of the Republican Party.
1976–Gerald Ford had succeeded Richard Nixon, and was therefore “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
1980–Ronald Reagan had fought the “good fight” against Gerald Ford and carried the conservative tradition of Barry Goldwater, so was “next in line”.
1988–George H. W. Bush had finished behind Reagan in 1980, and served as his Vice President loyally for eight years, so was “next in line”.
1996–Bob Dole had competed and lost to Bush in 1988, had also competed for the nomination in 1980, and run with Gerald Ford for Vice President in 1976, so was “entitled” to the nomination.
2000-George W. Bush wished to carry on the tradition and heritage of his father, who had been defeated by Bill Clinton, with the assistance of third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992, so was seen as “next in line”.
2008–John McCain, who had been the leading opponent of George W. Bush in 2000, was seen as “next in line”, “entitled” to the nomination of the party.
2012–Mitt Romney ended up second, losing to John McCain in 2008, so is seen by many as “next in line” for the nomination.

Of course, in none of these elections did the “next in line” gain the nomination just for the asking, and that will not happen in 2012 either, but it is, in historical terms, an interesting state of affairs!

Today Is A Shared Death Date Of Two Courageous Presidents, Often Criticized In Office Endlessly!

Today, December 26, is a shared death date of two courageous Presidents, often criticized in office endlessly.

These two Presidents were Harry Truman who died in 1972, and Gerald Ford, who died in 2006.

Harry Truman was incessantly attacked on all sides, by Republicans who thought he would be easy to defeat in 1948, and were surprised by his upset victory over Thomas E. Dewey; and who later bitterly attacked his strategy on the Korean War. But also, liberal Democrats were disappointed in him, seeing him as a poor replacement for Franklin D. Roosevelt, who he succeeded in 1945. So he faced the opposition of former Vice President Henry A. Wallace and the Progressive Party of 1948. But he also faced the opposition of Southern Democrats, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who ran for President in 1948 as a “Dixiecrat” on the States Rights Party line, because of Truman’s brave stand ending segregation in Washington, DC, and in the armed forces, by executive order.

Truman had twenty years in retirement, and grew in stature as the years went by.

Gerald Ford, not even elected Vice President, ended up succeeding Richard Nixon, when he resigned due to the Watergate scandal in 1974.

Ford gained criticism because of the pardon of Nixon one month later, and because of the economic recession that had already begun, and was the worst economic downturn since 1939.

Ford also had to battle for the GOP nomination against conservatives who backed former Governor Ronald Reagan, who nearly defeated Ford in the Republican National Convention of 1976, and this forced Ford to drop Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, and replace him with Kansas Senator Bob Dole. He came close to the defeat of Democratic nominee Governor Jimmy Carter, losing in Ohio and Hawaii by very small margins, enough to have defeated Carter if only he had gained a few thousand votes.

Ford came to be regarded with respect and admiration, even by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who in 1999 said he had been wrong to attack Ford for the Nixon pardon 25 years earlier.

Ford lived on for 29 years after the Presidency, and is looked at kindly now, much like Truman.

These were two men who had in common that they came across to average Americans as being “one of us”! May they rest in peace!

Why Barack Obama Will Be A Repeat Of Bill Clinton Electorally, Rather Than Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, And George H.W. Bush!

A lot of political observers seem to think that Barack Obama is doomed to lose re-election, just as Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush did in 1976, 1980, and 1992.

The author will contend that rather than that unfortunate history, Barack Obama will repeat the electoral experience of Bill Clinton in 1996!

The question, of course, is what is the rationale behind this thought of the author?

Gerald Ford–was an unelected President, coming after Watergate, challenged in the primaries by Ronald Reagan, an extremely charismatic individual, who almost took the nomination from him. Ford was unable to unite the party around him after the Reagan battle, despite dumping Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole for Vice President. Ford had little opportunity to convince the country that he was deserving of election, and yet ALMOST defeated Jimmy Carter, which he would have done if he had won a few more thousand votes in Ohio and Hawaii! Ford was not seen as all that capable to be President by many people, with the poor economy of the time.

Jimmy Carter–had a difficult last year in office, with the Afghanistan invasion by the Soviet Union, the Iranian hostage crisis, and the challenge in the primaries by Senator Ted Kennedy and Governor Jerry Brown. He faced a charismatic opponent in Ronald Reagan, and a third party opponent in John Anderson. He was not a warm personality, and came across as weak and ineffective.

George H. W. Bush–faced a primary opponent in Pat Buchanan, and a strong third party challenger in Ross Perot. His Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, had a lot of charisma, and was helped by the strong showing of Perot. And Bush did not have a particularly likeable personality, more respected for his ability than his understanding of average Americans and their lives.

Bill Clinton–engendered strong feelings for and against during his first term, and had charisma dripping off him, as compared to Bush and Bob Dole, his 1996 re-election opponent. Times were good, and he looked strong in his battles against the GOP Congress run by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. He had no opposition for the second term nomination, and his opponent, Dole, being 73 years old, did not help his challenge to Clinton. Also, Wall Street gave more financial support to Clinton to hedge their bets, frustrating Bob Dole!

Barack Obama–well liked, even by those who do not like what he has done, but he has accomplished a lot in office, particularly in foreign affairs and national security. He has brought about substantial domestic reform despite strong opposition from the Republican party, and has loads of charisma, and tons of funding, including as with Clinton, from Wall Street, which, even if opposed as they were to Clinton and now Obama, hedge their bets and support him more than the Republican nominee, just as with Bob Dole in 1996. Also, there is a good chance of a Tea Party right wing party rebellion if Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, is the choice of the Republican party. The opposition does not have a candidate to excite the nation, so although the economy is horrible, the likelihood is that more Americans will recognize the reality that one does not overcome a near depression overnight, and will decide to stick with Obama, just as they did in the height of the Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt!

George Will’s Criticism Of The Republican Party: Too Southernized!

George Will, the respectable conservative voice on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour, was sharply critical of the Republican Party this past weekend, in a way the author can totally agree with.

He pointed out that the Republican Party, the party that the South hated for a century because of the Civil War, has become overwhelmingly Southern in the past five election cycles.

Imagine this: 79 percent of the electoral votes the GOP has gained from 1992 to 2008 were in the South! Between that and the Northwest (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah) , the Republican Party has managed to make itself a sectional party, which Will is concerned dooms it in the 2012 Presidential Election!

Will pointed out that Ohio has been the crux of whether the GOP wins or loses, and probably will be the same in 2012.

The author wishes to remind the reader that EVERY Republican Presidential winner since the inception of the party in the 1850s has won Ohio, so when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama won that state in 1976, 1992, and 2008, it guaranteed a Democratic victory.

This statement of Will should be recalled when one feels gloomy about the electoral prospects of Barack Obama, and remember that the Democrats are strong in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the Pacific Coast, and it is still their election to lose in 2012!

Death Of One Of Last “Liberal” Republican Senators: Charles Percy Of Illinois

The era of “liberal” Republican senators, who were loyal to the party but crossed the aisle to work with Democrats, and had moderate views on most issues, is just about over, as the death of Charles Percy, who served three terms in the Senate from 1967-1985, was announced over the weekend.

Percy died at age 91 of Alzheimers Disease, which he had suffered for the past two years, according to family sources.

Percy, often seen as a possible Presidential candidate, might have run for the nomination in 1976, if President Gerald Ford had decided not to seek election, after replacing President Richard Nixon as a result of the Watergate scandal.

Percy served alongside other Liberal Republicans, including Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, Charles Mathias, and Mark Hatfield, all of whom passed away before him.

Percy served as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under President Ronald Reagan, and spoke openly against President Richard Nixon in the time of Watergate.

He was not afraid to fight for his principles, and was highly respected by his colleagues.

His death reminds us of just how extreme his party has become, and one can only wish for a return to moderation some day by his party, when they regain their senses!

Does Osama Bin Laden Success Guarantee Second Presidential Term For Barack Obama?

As a result of the successful raid into the Osama Bin Laden compound in Pakistan, the first thought would be that it gives President Obama a tremendous edge in the contest for re-election as President in 2012.

But before we conclude that, we need to look at history, whether military success insures a political victory.

In at least three cases, two American and one British, exactly the opposite occurred.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was the great hero of World War II and the struggle against Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. And yet, when the British people voted months after the end of the European war, they chose to vote out the Conservative Party of Churchill and put in as Prime Minister the Labour Party leader, Clement Attlee, who served from 1945-1951.

In 1975, President Gerald Ford mounted a successful rescue mission of 39 US Navy personnel from the ship Mayaguez, which had been seized by the radical Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia. While 41 military personnel died in the successful rescue mission, two more than the number saved, it was still seen as a victory to be able to release the hostages unharmed. But in 1976, President Ford lost to Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia for a full term in the White House!

And in 1991, President George H W Bush was able to mount a UN offensive which defeated Saddam Hussein in six weeks, the very brief Gulf War! Bush’s ratings hit an all time high for any President, 91 percent, but a year and a half later, only 37 percent voted for Bush against Bill Clinton, the second worst defeated President in American history, despite the great and quick victory over Iraq!

So while it would seem likely that Obama gains a great edge for next year’s election by the death of Osama Bin Laden, there is no certainty in any sense of what the future holds!