Presidential Election Of 1980

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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!

The Ten Most Important Presidential Elections In American History

Ronald 6 Comments

With Presidents Day coming on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on the 56 Presidential elections that this country has had, and to judge which ten are the most significant, path breaking elections.

Of course, there can be debate and disputes as to the judgment of this author and blogger, but here goes, in chronological order.

Presidential Election of 1789–the selection by the Electoral College of our first President, George Washington, the absolutely right choice for the beginning of our nation under the Constitution, as Washington set important precedents for the future, and had no ambition to grab power long term.

Presidential Election Of 1800–the first time we had an opposition party come to power with grace, and without violence, setting a standard for the future, as Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and the dispute between him and Vice President Aaron Burr, who claimed a tie in the Electoral College, was settled peacefully as well, and caused a modifying of the Electoral College process.

The Presidential Election of 1828–the first one decided by popular vote synchronizing with the electoral vote, and giving the country a so called “Common Man” in the Presidency, Andrew Jackson, representing city workers and frontiersmen alike.

Presidential Election of 1860–leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln, who set out to preserve the Union at all costs, and wielded power in a controversial, but thoughtfully considered way, through four years of the Civil War.

Presidential Election Of 1912–the triumph of progressivism, the recognition that government’s role had been changed irrevocably in a country that had been transformed from an agricultural to an industrial nation, had tripled in population since the Civil War, had become a multi ethnic nation, and had recognized the need for the regulation of capitalism in the public good, as well as political reforms and social justice. And it was the most exciting election, as three Presidents, past (Teddy Roosevelt), present (William Howard Taft), and future (Woodrow Wilson) competed against each other.

Presidential Election Of 1932–the triumph of Franklin D. Roosevelt at the worst moments of the Great Depression, offering hope and action (the New Deal) to revive the spirits of the nation, and have the American people believe in the future. Without his victory, there might have been social revolution and bloodshed on a large scale.

Presidential Election of 1960–witnessing the first Catholic President elected (John F. Kennedy) and the promotion of idealism and a new beginning in the advancement of social justice and political reform.

Presidential Election Of 1964–the victory of liberalism with the election of Lyndon B. Johnson, and the defeat of Barry Goldwater and conservatism, therefore insuring the continuation of the New Deal, and the evolution of the Great Society.

Presidential Election Of 1980–seeing the triumph of conservatism under Ronald Reagan, with some modifications of the New Deal and Great Society, and great speeches, but not the conservative “heaven” that many imagine it was, but making Reagan a national icon like Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Presidential Election Of 2008–witnessing the first African American President (Barack Obama), and his work to provide health care reform, preserve the New Deal and Great Society, and overcome the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

The author welcomes discussion and debate on this post!

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

Ronald 1 Comment

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!

The Persistent Hillary Clinton For Vice President Chatter: Does It Make Sense? YES!

Ronald 2 Comments

Chatter is arising again, as it has on and off for a year, that President Barack Obama might ask Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to become his Vice Presidential running mate for the Presidential Election of 2012, with Vice President Joe Biden dutifully steeping aside and becoming Secretary of State in a second Obama term.

This is something that has been dismissed in the past as not going to happen, and not advisable to happen. The author himself is a great Joe Biden fan, and the general feeling is that Joe Biden has done a great job as Vice President, adding distinction to the office.

However, the arguments for Hillary Clinton as Vice President are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton has improved her credentials as Secretary of State, but is tiring of the constant travel and wants to leave the State Department.

2. While Hillary claims she wishes to retire, and proceed to write, speak and travel, it is hard to believe that the highly competitive Mrs. Clinton really wants to do what she says!

3. With the possibility of a close election due to the slowly recovering economy, Hillary would certainly be a plus for Barack Obama, more so than Joe Biden, as she has great public support, with a present public opinion rating of 64 percent, higher than anyone.

4. Hillary Clinton running for Vice President would be likely to bring more Democratic victories in Congress, which is essential to accomplish the goals of a second Obama term.

5. Hillary would bring more support for the President among women, Hispanics and Latinos, African Americans and young people, the core of the Obama victory in 2008, but flagging somewhat in all areas after the realities of three years in power.

6. Hillary running would bring about the first woman Vice President in reality, an exciting proposition after the disastrous candidacies of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008.

7. The Democratic Party would have a front runner for President in 2016, although others would challenge Hillary, but it would increase the chances of a third Democratic term, and even possibly a fourth Democratic term, in the White House, and extra strength for the Democrats in Congress for the future beyond Barack Obama.

8. So called “shotgun marriages” in politics have occurred before with success, such as John F. Kennedy with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960 and Ronald Reagan with George H. W. Bush in 1980.

9. Having Bill Clinton, supremely popular almost on the level of his wife, fully working for Obama and his own wife, would make for an exciting, dynamic campaign, creating a “marriage” between two powerful families, and would work well electorally.

10. Hillary could help President Obama in the crucial Midwest, with white working class men and women, her strong point in 2008, and his weak point.

11. Joe Biden would be a “good soldier”, who would willingly agree to step aside, but would get his ideal job, based on his career in the Senate, as having been former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and loving that area of policy, he would have great impact as Secretary of State in a second Obama term, and being 74 by the end of the second Obama term, would not be likely to seek the Presidency or be a real challenge to Hillary or other Democrats at that stage of his life. But since he has good relations with Hillary, he could have a future in the position of Secretary of State or some other important position in 2016.

12. Finally, some might say that the Bill and Hillary Clinton shortcomings might be revived in a race in 2012 and beyond, but that is all old news, not new, and would have little impact, as their reputations have soared, rather than declined!

So therefore, it makes sense at this point for Barack Obama to ask Hillary Clinton to be his running mate, and for Joe Biden to replace her in 2013 as Secretary of State in a second Obama administration, good for all of them, for the Democratic Party, and for the future of America!

Are Progressives Going To, For A Fourth Time, Harm The Democratic Party Out Of Dissatisfaction With Imperfections Of Their Leadership?

Ronald 4 Comments

Progressives and liberals have often, by their expectations of perfection from Democratic Party leadership, brought about a result far worse–a conservative Republican takeover!

This occurred in 1968, when discontent over the war in Vietnam convinced many on the Left to bad mouth and abandon Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and the result was President Richard Nixon!

In 1980, discontent with President Jimmy Carter led to abandonment by many progressives, and the result was President Ronald Reagan!

In 2000, dissatisfaction with the imperfections of Vice President Al Gore led to the election of President George W. Bush!

Of course, Barack Obama has not followed through on all his promises and pledges in 2008. He has disillusioned many progressives and liberals who believed he would accomplish everything he spoke about in the campaign.

But that is totally unrealistic, and the fear is that if there is an abandonment of the President, we could end up with President Mitt Romney or President Newt Gingrich, the two most likely choices at this point, at least, in the Republican nomination race. Of course, anyone else except Jon Huntsman would be even worse!

When, oh when, are those on the Left going to understand, finally, that there is no perfection, but that Barack Obama is far preferable to anyone the Republican Party might run!

it is time for the discontented to get on the ship, and be thankful for what Barack Obama has managed to achieve, the most since the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s!

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

Ronald Leave a comment

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!

Let’s Give Rush Limbaugh What He Wants: A Lunatic Right Wing Tea Party Presidential Nominee!

Ronald 2 Comments

Now Rush Limbaugh has started to attack Chris Christie, the newest suitor for the GOP Presidential nomination, even though Christie has said he will not run!

Limbaugh criticizes the lack of social conservatism of Christie, his outspoken criticism on some hot button issues of the Tea Party Movement!

So now Limbaugh and others are faulting Christie, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Jon Huntsman, and ridiculing Ron Paul'[s libertarian stands, and have problems with Newt Gingrich’s past as well.

As a result, Limbaugh recommends the likes of Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum instead!

It is time to do what Limbaugh and other whackos want! NOMINATE Cain, Bachmann or Santorum! Give the extreme Right what they want, and it will kill them off for a generation, much like the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 delayed their cause for a generation, and softened the stands on issues by the time Ronald Reagan won the Presidency in 1980!

Nominate one of these three, and it will be a massive victory for Barack Obama, and a repudiation of these loud mouths who care not a whit about doing harm to the nation and its future!

The Congress And Job Creation Failure: How The Republicans Will Suffer More Than President Obama!

Ronald 1 Comment

Right now, there is panic in the Democratic Party over the job statistics, with 9.1 percent unemployment, with many thinking President Obama cannot be reelected in 2012.

The fact is, that despite this hysteria, it is in the hands of the Republicans in Congress as to whether Obama will be reelected, due to the fact that they control the majority in the House of Representatives, and with their 47 Senators, are able to filibuster any action desired by the Democrats in the Senate!

If no jobs program is enacted to help bring about the creation of employment, it will reflect on them more than President Obama, who will be able to use the same “do nothing Congress” argument on them that Harry Truman utilized in 1948, leading to his upset victory and the return of the Democrats to control in both houses of Congress.

The Democrats tend to panic whenever times are tough, so President Truman had much liberal opposition in 1947-1948, but he came through, with foreign policy helping him to look like the strong, stable leader that he was!

President Jimmy Carter had much liberal opposition in 1979-1980, including challenges within the party from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, weakening him, and foreign policy crises of Afghanistan and Iran undermined his ability to recover from economic difficulties that arose at the same time.

President Bill Clinton had liberal opposition in 1995-1996, but won a battle over the budget with the Republican majority in Congress, faced no opponent in the primaries, and while unable to throw the GOP out of control of the Congress, won reelection handily and weakened the Republican majority.

With Obama having no opposition within the party for the nomination, demonstrating a strong successful policy against terrorism, and having an extreme right wing GOP in the House of Representatives determined to do nothing to create jobs, the need for panic and hysteria is overdrawn!

As long as Obama fights the good fight for his program, even if nothing is done over the next 14 months, the Republicans will hand the election to him, particularly if Rick Perry is their nominee!

The ability of the Republicans to self destruct is immeasurable, and with a public opinion rating of 12 percent for Congress (under the control effectively of the GOP), and with Obama’s personal popularity being a plus and his overall rating being 43 percent, the future is not as gloomy as many might think!

The Targeting Of Bin Laden: The Most Important Accomplishment Of Barack Obama And Will Guarantee A Second Term In The White House!

Ronald Leave a comment

Here we are 14 months away from Election Day 2012, and many observers project that Barack Obama is in deep trouble, and will lose reelection.

Certainly, with the horrible economy and the highest number of unemployed citizens in history, and the lack of any cooperation by the Republican opposition, Barack Obama has many problems and issues that could affect how people vote in 2012.

Despite these realities, the President remains personally popular, which is a major positive in his favor.

And after having watched the HISTORY CHANNEL two hour special tonight, entitled TARGETING BIN LADEN, revealing all of the details of the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, it became clear to the author that this accomplishment will always be remembered as the most significant single action of Barack Obama, just as the Cuban Missile Crisis will be always seen as the major accomplishment of John F. Kennedy in office!

The courage, the decisiveness, the handling of the Bin Laden matter will be enough to give Barack Obama a second term as President!

Imagine if this action had failed! Barack Obama would be seen as Jimmy Carter after the failed mission to release the hostages in Iran in April 1980, the major reason for Carter’s loss to Ronald Reagan in the Election of 1980.

For the same reason, Obama will be able to use this great deed to insure that he will be reelected in 2012!

Could Jon Huntsman Be The John Anderson Of 2012? What Effect Could It Have On The Presidential Election?

Ronald Leave a comment

Some speculation and rumors are beginning that Jon Huntsman, the moderate centrist candidate in the Republican race for the Presidential nomination, might abandon the party and run as a third party candidate, appealing to the center of the population. Right now, in reality, he scores exactly one percent in eighth and last place of the Gallup poll, on the Republican race for President, so he might not have any sustaining influence, but who can know this far ahead?:

Huntsman has been depicting Barack Obama as too far to the Left, and all of his GOP opponents as too far to the RIght, and his argument is that the Center, where most people are, needs to have representation in the election.

Huntsman is an appealing candidate in his appearance and speaking manner, and comes across as rational and reasonable to people who are disgusted at the growing right wing extremism of the Republican Party. He has personal wealth, and is courted by the news media, so in theory, he could run a substantial third party of independent bid.

In many respects, he appears to be similar to former Illinois Congressman John Anderson, once one of the top leaders of the Republican minority, who left the party and ran as an Independent in 1980, claiming that President Jimmy Carter had been disappointing and that Ronald Reagan was too far to the Right. After winning a lot of media support and 15 percent in polls, he was able to gain the opportunity to meet Reagan in one debate, with Carter refusing to confront him. Anderson made Reagan look weak in their debate, but then Reagan performed well against Carter and won a landslide victory, with Anderson only winning 7 percent of the vote. Many who flirted with Anderson, including this author, ended up not voting for him, with the recognition that third party or independent candidates only hurt one of the candidates, and cannot win with the Electoral College reality which favors the major party candidates.

If Huntsman were to run, the question is would he hurt Obama or the Republican nominee more? There is no easy answer to this question, but it would certainly “muddy up the waters” of the campaign were he to do that.

Sadly, even if one hoped that such a so called Centrist candidate were to run, at the end we are going to have either Obama or the Republican nominee as our President for the next term, and easily the preference would be for Obama, who the author regards as the best Democratic President since Lyndon B. Johnson!

The author was not thrilled at the time with Jimmy Carter, and often even with Bill Clinton later, but right now, he would be opposed to a Jon Huntsman, or any other, third party candidate, who might just harm Obama and elect the horrors of a Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Ron Paul!