Presidential Election Of 1980

“What Ifs” Of Presidents Defeated For Reelection

Ronald 2 Comments

The game of “What If” is a fun game, trying to imagine what would have changed history!

An example is to wonder what changed circumstances would have caused Presidents defeated for reelection to have won reelection.

Since World War II, three Presidents have been defeated when running for another term—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush.

What are the common bonds among these three Presidents that caused them to lose?

Presidential Primary Opposition—Gerald Ford from Ronald Reagan in 1976; Jimmy Carter from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in 1980; George H. W. Bush from Pat Buchanan in 1992.

Bad Economy and Recession—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush

Third Party Candidate Opposition In Election Campaign—Jimmy Carter from John Anderson in 1980; George H. W. Bush from Ross Perot in 1992.

Communication Problems With the American People—Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush.

Additionally, Gerald Ford had the problem of the Richard Nixon Pardon, which hurt him; and Jimmy Carter had the problem of the Iran Hostage Crisis, which dogged him through Election Day and beyond.

Finally, all three Presidents had the problem of an opponent who became very appealing as an alternative—Gerald Ford with Jimmy Carter; Carter with Ronald Reagan; and George H. W. Bush with Bill Clinton. Carter and Clinton represented a generational change–eleven years between Ford and Carter, and 22 years between Bush and Clinton, while Reagan represented a charismatic actor who had a loyal following able to overcome doubts by the perceived weaknesses of Carter.

One has to wonder what might have been had Ford been elected in 1976, preventing a President Carter; what might have been had Carter been reelected, preventing a President Reagan; and what might have been had Bush been reelected, preventing a President Clinton.

Reagan might still have succeeded President Ford, but after what would have been 12 years of Nixon and Ford, one wonders?

Would Ted Kennedy have had an open season to win in 1980, or Jerry Brown, or who else, as a result? If Reagan had not been President, would Bush have been so, and if not, would his son, George W. Bush have been President? Unlikely, but also if father Bush had defeated Clinton, who would have been the likely front runner for the Democrats in 1996, after what would have been 8-16 years of GOP control?

And would we be speaking about Hillary Clinton as a likely Presidential candidate, and even winner, now in 2013?

This is all food for thought, and a fun game, and a great novel, in the lines of Jeff Greenfield”s book on a “Second Kennedy Term”, due out on the book market very soon!

The Kennedy Half Century Began 53 Years Ago Today!

Ronald 2 Comments

On this day in 1960, John F. Kennedy was nominated for President by the Democratic Party at their national convention in Los Angeles. He went on to a very tight and much debated close victory over Richard Nixon, including widely accepted accusations that his election was fixed in Chicago by Mayor Richard J. Daley!

Kennedy’s impact on the nation was massive, and made greater by the fact that he was assassinated, and even though we learned about his controversial sex life in the White House, and he has faced growing criticism on his policies and actions in office as the years have gone by, it is still a reality that he is adored by vast numbers of the American people, and made out to be an icon!

His brother, Robert Kennedy, was also martyred after a controversial career as Attorney General under his brother, a short Senate career, and his assassination while seeking the Presidency in 1968 to finish the work of his brother.

And then, there was Ted Kennedy, the youngest brother, who was first seen as a lightweight in the Senate, had the scandalous Chappaquiddick incident in which a woman died in his car as it was being driven by a drunk Kennedy, and was totally defeated in his later attempt to take the 1980 Presidential nomination of his party away from President Jimmy Carter.

But Kennedy went on to a distinguished, record setting career of 47 and a half years in the Senate, honored as the “Lion” of the Senate, and regarded as one of the greatest Senate giants in its more than two century history as an institution.

And then there was Joseph Kennedy II, son of Robert Kennedy, who served in the US House of Representatives from Massachusetts for 12 years; Patrick Kennedy, son of Ted, who served in the House from Rhode Island for 16 years; and now Joseph Kennedy III, grandson of Robert Kennedy and son of former Congressman Joe, who serves in the House of Representatives from Massachusetts since the beginning of this year.

And there have been other Kennedys or Kennedy relatives who have been in public office, including Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of Robert Kennedy, who served as Lieutenant Governor of Maryland; and JFK brother in law Sargant Shriver, who headed the Peace Corps, the War On Poverty, and was Ambassador to France.

So the Kennedy half century of influence is marked today by the JFK nomination for President in 1960, and it continues in politics and in history!

The Attack On Hillary Clinton As “Too Old”: Sexism Rears Its Ugly Head For The Republican Party Once Again!

Ronald 2 Comments

The Republican Party, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is 71 years old and looks older, is on the attack against Hillary Clinton, trying to destroy her likely candidacy for President, and likely election as our 45th President, by asserting she will be too old to be President in 2017 and beyond!

This assertion is absolutely laughable, and is purely another example of Republican sexism, as this argument would NOT be used against men!

The Republican Party seems to have forgotten that it had the three oldest nominees for President in American history, and one of them was elected in 1980, and served until nearly age 78, but not at his mental peak in his second term, Ronald Reagan!

Ronald Reagan never had the intellectual brilliance of Hillary Clinton, who would be eight months younger at inauguration for the first term in the Presidency!

And Bob Dole in 1996 was 73, and John McCain in 2008 was 72, when they were Presidential nominees!

The GOP has no strong arguments, and they are afraid of Hillary Clinton, so they come up with this despicable excuse of an argument, about her age of 69 upon election!

The tactic will NOT work, as if Hillary wants the nomination, she will win it, and take the oath of office as President on January 20, 2017!

Age Vs Youth: Will The Republicans And Democrats Be Switching On Their Presidential Nominees In 2016?

Ronald 2 Comments

When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.

Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.

This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.

Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.

The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.

So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.

A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!

If Only: Jimmy Carter Had Been President For Second Term! How Would America Be Different?

Ronald 3 Comments

As we celebrate Barack Obama’s second term victory, and as we thank Bill Clinton for his super efforts for Obama, crucial to Obama’s victory, we can have a wistful moment and wonder:

How would America be different if Jimmy Carter had won a second term as President in 1980?

Ronald Reagan would never have been President, just be seen as a mediocre, second rate actor on Death Valley Days and the General Electric Theater on television, and a few good movies in Hollywood, and a mixed record as two term Governor of California. We would not have him being seen as an icon, a god like figure, totally misrepresented by those who adore him!

We would not have George H. W. Bush as Vice President for eight years, and then be the successor in office after Reagan left.

We would not have had George W. Bush as President, and we would not be speculating about Jeb Bush as possibly a candidate for the 2016 Presidential Election.

We would have had a much more responsive, sympathetic reaction to the rise of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s, and would have saved many lives in the process.

We would not have had a tripling of the national debt, as Carter was very tight fiscally, and added very little to the national debt.

We would have had a President who would have continued his great environmental work into a second term.

We would not have allowed the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer, and the maldistribution of wealth to accelerate, and then again occur again under George W. Bush.

We would not have seen the decline of labor unions, caused by Ronald Reagan being our President.

We would have had Vice President Walter Mondale having a much better opportunity to be our President in 1984, a continuation of the tradition and principles of Hubert Humphrey and Minnesota progressivism.

The Iran hostage seizure crisis would have been resolved sooner with Carter having defeated Reagan in November 1980.

The early 1980s would have seen further promotion of human rights, a policy backtracked by Ronald Reagan.

There would have been no friendship with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and no backing of the South African Apartheid regime.

These are just 12 ways life would have been different if Jimmy Carter had been reelected in 1980. And Carter would not have been constantly attacked and ridiculed as a failed President if he had served a second term.

Oh well……

Could Joe Biden-Paul Ryan Vice Presidential Debate Be A Forerunner Of 2016?

Ronald 8 Comments

The Joe Biden-Paul Ryan Vice Presidential Debate this Thursday could be a forerunner of 2016!

If Joe Biden performs well, and seals a Barack Obama victory in November, he will be the frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2016.

If Paul Ryan does a reputable performance, and is not harmed by Biden, even if Biden is declared the winner on points, he becomes the front runner for 2016 as the Republican Presidential nominee, presuming a Mitt Romney defeat in 2012.

In theory, both Biden and Ryan could be running against each other–74 year old Biden with 44 years of government experience, the most of any Presidential nominee or winner of the White House in history—and 46 year old Paul Ryan, who will have had 18 years in the House of Representatives by then, assuming he wins his House seat while being on the losing Presidential team!

Certainly, one or the other could very well be on the Presidential ballot in 2016, as Walter Mondale was in 1984, after the Mondale-Bush debate of 1980; as George H. W. Bush was after the debate with Geraldine Ferraro in 1984; and as Al Gore was after the debate with Jack Kemp in 1996.

CORRECTION: I discovered after writing the above that there was no VP debate between Bush and Mondale in 1980, so I stand corrected, and that means twice in VP debate history, one of the candidates was on the Presidential ballot in the following election, not three times!

Past Presidential Debates With An Incumbent President: Naturally On The Defensive!

Ronald Leave a comment

When one gets away from the momentary panic that many Obama supporters had after last night’s debate against Mitt Romney, and thinks rationally, and analyzes Presidential debate history, it is not all that surprising that a challenger will go on the attack and be aggressive with a sitting President, and set him back in the first debate they have in a campaign year.

Remember that a sitting President is busy every day, and is not as up to date in debating as a challenger, who has had to survive many debates and questions in order to reach the point of a Presidential nomination.

So when we look at the past, we realize the following:

Gerald Ford was on the defensive against Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Jimmy Carter was on the defensive against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Ronald Reagan was on the defensive against Walter Mondale in 1984.

George H. W. Bush was on the defensive against both Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in 1992.

George W. Bush was on the defensive against John Kerry in 2004.

Despite this reality, Reagan and the second Bush recovered to win, while Ford, Carter, and the first Bush lost the election that ensued.

But also realize that Ford had inherited a mess from Richard Nixon, and had never seen himself in the Presidency before being selected by Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew as Vice President, and he was strongly challenged by Ronald Reagan in the primaries in 1976.

Also realize that Jimmy Carter was challenged by both Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown in the primaries in 1980, and faced a charismatic former actor in Reagan, and a tumultuous crisis with Iran in 1980.

And realize that the first Bush faced a challenge from Pat Buchanan in the primaries in 1992, and a double challenge from Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, which undermined his ability to win votes that Perot took away from him in the fall campaign.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush faced no such challenges, and were able to overcome their weaknesses in the first debate of 1984 and 2004.

Additionally, Bill Clinton, facing no challenge in 1996, simply overwhelmed Bob Dole in the first and all debates of that year, with his charisma a major plus!

If one remains calm, one realizes that Barack Obama will recover from this disappointing debate, has charisma, had no challenger in the primaries, and therefore, will do like Reagan, Clinton, and the second Bush did–win reelection—-rather than lose election as Ford did, and reelection as Carter and the first Bush did!

Jimmy Carter Grandson Gets Revenge On Mitt Romney: Uncovering Romney’s “47 Percent” Speech!

Ronald Leave a comment

It is ironic that the grandson of former President Jimmy Carter, James Carter IV, was the person who uncovered the private comments of Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the infamous “47 Percent” speech, which he gave at a donor’s home in Boca Raton, Florida, not knowing that probably it was a servant at the gathering who taped it on his cell phone.

Mitt Romney has been merciless in his constant ridicule and attacks on former President Carter, adding to the mythology that because Carter lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980, therefore he was a terrible President, overlooking his many contributions and accomplishments in the White House.

One would think with Carter about to reach the age of 88 on October 1, that the Republican Party would stop attacking him, as he has been out of office now longer than any President in American history, surpassing Herbert Hoover in longevity earlier this month, and therefore, deserving of some respect, and the end of using him as an attack on Barack Obama.

So one cannot help but smile that Carter’s grandson has helped to undermine Romney by his revelation of the informal comments at the gathering in Boca Raton, found on YouTube through hard work and investigation by the namesake of the former President!

Bill Clinton Hits A Grand Slam At The Democratic National Convention!

Ronald Leave a comment

Coming off two nights where the Washington Nationals managed to hit six home runs for two games in a row, something that has only been done twice before in major league baseball history, another “former” resident of Washington, DC, former President Bill Clinton, looked as if he was part of the Washington Nationals lineup last night at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina!

In baseball lingo, we could say that Bill Clinton hit a grand slam home run, as he defended the Barack Obama performance in office; linked his own time in office with that of his Democratic successor; showed the hypocrisy of Paul Ryan on policy and was laudatory toward Vice President Joe Biden’s contribution to the Obama Presidency; and destroyed the idea of Mitt Romney that the answer is to go back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration which got this nation in the economic mess it is in, which Clinton said no President in the past could have rectified completely in just four years!

Clinton, a masterful and charismatic orator, excited the convention, adding to the drama of this gathering, in a way that was very special and unique. The dynamism and electricity of the thousands of delegates and guests could be felt in every home that tuned in to the dramatic 45 minute address, much of it ad lib, by a man who has had his ups and downs historically, but is now riding a wave of popularity in the mid 60s in public opinion polls.

If Bill Clinton could convince white working class males to think of their future, instead of the appeal to their prejudices by the Republican Party, then he will have vindicated his goal of moving his party and the nation toward a continuation of the Obama Administration, which has much to be proud of, and has, indeed, made America a better nation than it was four years ago.

So Bill Clinton reminded us, that despite much work left to do, we are “better off” than we were four years ago, an old refrain used by Ronald Reagan, who attacked Jimmy Carter in 1980, on the basis that we were NOT better off, and managed to convince the country to elect him, not realizing that Reagan would pursue economic policies that would start the decline of the American economy and help to cause the massive government debt, mostly occurring under Republican Presidents Reagan and the two Bushes.

Only Clinton was able to balance the budget several times, slowing up the debt’s growth, and actually leaving a surplus for George W. Bush, which was then squandered by two wars in Iraq and Afghaniatan, a Medicare prescription drug plan unpaid for by taxes, and a policy of deregulation of Wall Street which led to the Great Recession of 2008, all thrown into the lap of Barack Obama in 2009, creating the worst economic times since Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Great Depression in the 1930s!

Republicans Claim Obama-Biden Are More Nasty And Divisive Than In Any Presidential Campaign In History: Really?

Ronald 13 Comments

The Republican Party is complaining, from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on down, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are more nasty and divisive than in any Presidential campaign in history! Really?

Obviously, the Republicans have no knowledge or sense of history!

The Election of 1800 was NOT nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1828 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1860 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1896 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1912 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1932 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1948 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1968 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1980 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 1992 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2000 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2004 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

The Election of 2008 was not nasty and divisive, heh?

In fact, beyond these MORE divisive elections, EVERY Presidential election is nasty and divisive!

What IS different is that this round, the Democrats are striking back aggressively, which often in the past did not happen, to the same level as the Republicans, who are always nasty and divisive, whether favored to win the election or not!

But both Barack Obama and Joe Biden have stuck to attacks on the issues, not personalities, as both have always said that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are good family men, decent people, but are wrong on the issues.

On the other hand, the Republicans have launched personal attacks on both Obama and Biden, making insulting comments about them, particularly Obama, questioning whether he is an American, wondering about his birthplace, playing the race card, and showing him disrespect. And now, Biden is being attacked that he may have “lost it”, ridiculing mistakes he makes, which are few and far between as compared to Mitt Romney throughout his Presidential campaign!

So what it comes down to is that GOP does not like an aggressive opposition on the issues and contradictions they have as their record. The answer is tough on them, as this is the “big time”, and no longer will the Democrats allow themselves to be disrespected and ridiculed without a strong, aggressive response!