Presidential Election Of 1992

“It’s The Middle Class, Stupid!”: The Campaign Slogan For 2012, Thanks To James Carville And Stan Greenberg!

James Carville, who coined the campaign slogan “It’s The Economy, Stupid!” in the 1992 Bill Clinton Presidential campaign against President George H. W. Bush, has just published a new book with Stan Greeenberg, coining a new campaign slogan, this time for President Barack Obama against GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012, entitled “It’s The Middle Class, Stupid!”

Pointing out that there has been class warfare against the middle class for the past 32 years, since the victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the authors make it clear that Obama can win an election with his critics claiming he is declaring class warfare against the top two percent, who have become extremely wealthy due to GOP economic policies under Reagan and George W. Bush.

And Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate to use this slogan against, as he proposes to make the wealthy wealthier, and to cut programs that benefit the middle class, as well as the poor.

And if conservatives and Republicans try to use what Reagan used as a slogan against Jimmy Carter in 1980–“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”–the answer is YES, as what Obama has done has made life better, and he could have done a lot more without Republican obstructionism over the past 18 months when they have controlled the House of Representatives, and have made it their mission to do NOTHING to make life better for the middle class!

Libertarian Gary Johnson For President: What Effect Might His Candidacy Have In 2012?

Former New Mexico Republican Governor Gary Johnson is the candidate of the Libertarian Party for President in 2012.

Johnson has been pretty much ignored, and was only allowed in two GOP Presidential debates during the primary season.

Johnson, however, will be on the ballot in all 50 states, and the question is whether he could be an effective third party candidate, and be a threat to either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, and even reach the threshold of 15 percent required to be part of the three Presidential debates in September and October, as Ross Perot was able to accomplish in the 1992 Presidential campaign.

Right now, that possibility seems highly unlikely, but who knows what might transpire over the next three months, as disillusioned Americans might start to look at Gary Johnson’s candidacy!

Johnson’s views are a mix which COULD draw support from voters who are unhappy with Obama and Romney.

Among his views are:

Creating a balanced budget by cutting 43 percent of the Medicare and Medicaid budget in one year.
Abolishing the federal income and corporate taxes, and instituting a national sales tax based on consumption, instead.
Opposition to the ObamaCare legislation and the Prescription Drug Plan under George W. Bush.
Desire to withdraw from overseas engagements in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and was opposed to our involvement in Iraq and Libya from the beginning.
Opposition to the Patriot Act, and belief in civil liberties without interference by the American government.
Belief in states rights to deal with issues in their borders.
Opposition to abortion and the death penalty.
Belief in legalizing marijuana use, and the lowering of the drinking age, and believes the war on drugs has failed, and should be abandoned.
Opposition to measures for gun control legislation.
Belief that the Arizona law on illegal immigration was wrong, and would have vetoed it had it passed the legislature in New Mexico.
Support of same sex marriage and gay rights, including in the military.
Opposition to public funding of stem cell research.

This is a mix of issues that has the capacity to draw support , particularly among young people, and disillusioned voters with the major political parties.

So the question remains: Will Gary Johnson have an impact on the election, and if so, in what way?

The guess of the author is that Johnson could actually harm Mitt Romney in certain states, and possibly throw the election in those states to Barack Obama, including the states of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and Alaska, all states believed to be RED or Republican!

So Gary Johnson COULD effectively become the Ross Perot of 2012, even without gaining 19 percent of the total national vote, a feat only a wealthy person such as Ross Perot could manage. However, Gary Johnson is said to be worth about $40 million, not a measly amount, to say the least!

Why Barack Obama In 2012 Is NOT George H. W. Bush In 1992, NOR Jimmy Carter In 1980!

With exactly four months to go until the Presidential Election of 2012, the job figures this month, showing a slowing of the economy, very little job growth, and a steady 8.2 percent unemployment rate, makes it clear that Barack Obama will not be able to bring the numbers under 8 percent before the election, and will have the highest unemployment rate of a President seeking re-election since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

So there are the hysterical political followers who fear that Obama is about to lose the election to Mitt Romney, but that is not going to happen!

Obama is compared to George H. W. Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, with both of them losing, but the situations are VERY different!

Bush lacked any charisma, was running against a charismatic opponent, Bill Clinton, and had a serious, strong third party candidate in Ross Perot, which helped to cause his loss in the election. He also had accomplished very little beyond the Gulf War victory, and the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Jimmy Carter in 1980 was also lacking in charisma, was running against a very charismatic candidate, Ronald Reagan, who was able to unify people with his speaking skills, and faced the Iranian hostage crisis, and super high inflation due to the second Arab Oil Embargo, and also faced a third candidate in the Presidential race, Independent John Anderson.

Obama has tons of charisma; while Mitt Romney has absolutely NONE, not even being well liked as a personality as Clinton and Reagan were; and Obama faces no third party or independent challenger.

Obama is personally popular, which Bush and Carter were not, based on public opinion polls.

But having said that, it is clear that what Obama must do is take parts of three former Democratic Presidents, and make it part of his campaign.

Obama must give the GOP “hell” as Harry Truman did in 1948, and must push job plans and education and infrastructure spending by calling Congress into special session in September after the ocnventions, as Truman did, even though Truman knew and we know no such legislation will pass, but still put the Republicans on the defensive!

Obama must act like Franklin D. Roosevelt by saying he welcomes the hate of the GOP, since they refuse to work with him, and drop the “nice guy” image!

And Obama must take on a Lyndon B. Johnson image, that he will push and prod Congress by constant news conferences and speeches on the essential need for massive changes in America!

In taking on ideas of Truman, FDR, and LBJ, Obama would stir the enthusiasm of progressives and liberals, and the groups that might be lazy about voting, and would also draw many of the independents who would realize we have a President who really CARES about average Americans, as Truman, FDR and LBj demonstrated, and contrast it with Mitt Romney, who has made it clear he has no care or concern for more than the one percent at the top of our society!

The Democratic Party Edge In The Electoral College Is Reality!

In the midst of all of the public opinion polls about popularity of the Presidential candidates, one is tempted to forget that the Electoral College will decide who the next President will be, and the Democrats have a vast advantage since they have a clear edge in most of the larger states with many more electoral votes.

If one candidate wins the top ELEVEN electoral vote states, he wins the election, even if he were to face a massive defeat in popular votes in the other 39 states!

Of course, no one is likely to win all of the top eleven states, but the point is that the Electoral College gives great power to the larger populated states, and all that is required is to win one more popular vote in a state than your opponent to win all of the electoral votes of that state.

So if one looks at the top eleven states, we discover that the Democrats and President Barack Obama have a guaranteed win in California (55), New York (29), Illinois (20), and New Jersey (14) for a total of 118 electoral votes.

Obama also has an edge to win in Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), and North Carolina (15) for a total of 69 electoral votes.

If Obama wins these eight states, he has 187 electoral votes already, not counting other Northeastern, New England, and Pacific Coast states that he is widely expected to win.

The three states that might go Republican are Texas (38), Florida (29), and Georgia (16), but Florida could go Democratic, and even Georgia is considered a long shot for the Democrats.. These three states together have 83 electoral votes. If Obama won Florida, as he did in 2008, and the eight states he is expected to win, which he also won in 2008, he would have 216 electoral votes from just those nine states!

So together, the top eleven states have 270 electoral votes, EXACTLY what is needed to win the White House!

So forget popular vote public opinion polls, as the odds of Mitt Romney winning the election in the Electoral College, let alone the popular vote totals, is not worth betting on, once one realizes the reality of the Electoral College.

Further proof of the difficulty for Republicans to win a vast majority of the Electoral College is the fact of the massive Electoral College wins by Bill Clinton twice (370 and 379) and Barack Obama once (365), while George W. Bush could not hit over 271 and 286 in electoral votes in 2000 and 2004!

The odds are much greater that Barack Obama will surpass his 365 electoral votes of 2008 in 2012, just as Bill Clinton improved his second time around!

2012 Presidential Election: Possibly Another Bush, And Even A Clinton?

Speculation is rampant that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush might indeed agree to run for Vice President with Mitt Romney.

After denying it for so long, Jeb now has left the door open, but makes clear he would rather not be on the ticket.

It is interesting how Florida Senator Marco Rubio promotes Jeb, and Jeb keeps on promoting Rubio for Vice President.

Would Jeb Bush help Romney in the Fall campaign? Both yes and no!

Obviously, Jeb is very intelligent, a good speaker, and a mainline conservative, who is not reckless, and does not make loony statements about issues. He is married to an Hispanic (Mexican) woman, is seen by many as a successful Governor of Florida, and in theory, could help to deliver that state to Romney in the fall. He is seen as a potential candidate for President in 2016, and even being on a losing ticket, he probably would gain stature for such a race by coming to the aid of Romney and the party now.

On the other hand, the question is whether there is a desire for a third Bush on a national ticket, particularly with the controversies over his brother, George W. Bush, and his eight years in office. There is believed to be an exhaustion with things Bush at this point of time. And imagine the idea of having a Bush on the national ticket every election since 1980 except 1996 and 2008, six of the last eight Presidential elections! Those who dislike the Bushes, particularly, George W. Bush, might not be willing to vote for Mitt Romney with Jeb Bush on the ticket.

And then, there are still the rumors flying that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might agree to run for Vice President, in place of Joe Biden, in order to add strength to Barack Obama’s campaign. She laughs it off, and says it will not happen, but if Obama were to ask her, could she really say no?

So imagine an election with a Bush AND a Clinton on the national tickets, which would mark one or both names on the national scene every election since 1980, except 2008, and only not in 2008 because Hillary Clinton lost the nomination to Barack Obama.

There could very well be exhaustion and disgust at the thought of what might be seen as two “royal” dynasties in America, the Bushes and the Clintons!

Barack Obama Advice From Yogi Berra: “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”!

There will be the tendency for Barack Obama supporters to feel good after Super Tuesday, and feel that Barack Obama has a second term in the White House in the bag.

That would be the worst assumption possible!

On paper, yes, things are looking good as the GOP race for the Presidential nomination continues, and Mitt Romney looks in trouble, and Rick Santorum, who most logical people cannot see having any chance to win the nomination or election, continues to do well, particularly in the heartland of the nation.

Eight months to go until the election, and the world can turn upside down and inside out, in less than that amount of time.

We could have a major war in the Middle East against Iran, or another economic downturn, which could be triggered by that war with Iran.

Unforeseen circumstances we cannot imagine could occur, and the tides could turn.

Remember that Thomas E. Dewey was ahead of Harry Truman in 1948; Richard Nixon ahead of John F. Kennedy in 1960; Jimmy Carter ahead of Ronald Reagan in 1980; Michael Dukakis ahead of George H. W. Bush in 1988; George H. W. Bush ahead of Bill Clinton in 1992; and Al Gore ahead of George W. Bush in 2000 to the end, but not considering the electoral vote issue that would help Bush in the end.

There is plenty of work ahead for the Obama team, and they cannot afford to be cocky.

They need to remember the admonition of Yankee great, catcher Yogi Berra, who is famous for his line about baseball games: “It ain’t over till it’s over”!

No more true statement can be expressed regarding politics, as well as sports!

Rick Santorum The Promoter of Class Warfare, Not Barack Obama!

Republicans have, on a regular basis, accused President Barack Obama of promoting “class warfare”, because he promotes the concept that the wealthy have been very fortunate, with the biggest tax cuts in history during the Bush and early Obama years, and must start to pay their fair share of taxes to help support the national commitments and responsibilities.

But actually, it is Rick Santorum, above all, who is promoting class warfare, by advocating an anti elitist view about the news media, colleges and universities, and liberals, blaming them for reporting what is going on, and promoting investigation of the mess created by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party during the years they controlled the national government, and advocating open inquiry and analysis and thinking, rather than accepting what we are told is the ultimate truth from a man who advocates religion in government, rather than separation of church and state.

Santorum is trying to organize blue collar whites who are not educated beyond high school and have a much higher unemployment rate against white collar workers and college educated people who have a much lower unemployment rate.

Instead of seeing that education is the road to success and the stable middle class, and despite the fact that Santorum himself has three college and university degrees and will certainly hope his own children will get a college education to advance themselves economically over a lifetime, Santorum calls educated people snobs, and Obama is blamed for promoting a better life for the future generation!

This campaign pitch of Santorum is promotion of resentment, anger, and against the role of education in attainment of life’s goals. It is sick, insane, destructive of social mobility for the future of the nation, and Santorum needs to be repudiated in a massive way by his party, but they seem unwilling to take him on, and they are therefore promoting further degradation of the middle and working classes by NOT advocating what Obama says is necessary for success–as much education as any young person can handle, rather than a drive to the bottom!

If the blue collar whites of the Midwest back Rick Santorum, they are guaranteeing their continued decline into poverty and degradation!

Santorum’s pitch is the closest to that of Pat Buchanan in 1992 and George Wallace in 1968, but he is more of a threat to be the standard bearer of a major political party, and this could, therefore, be a calamity in the making!

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!