Presidential Election Of 1992

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill Endorses Hillary Clinton For President, Even Though Hillary Has Not Announced!

Ronald 9 Comments

Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill has startled many observers by coming out today for Hillary Clinton for President, the earliest endorsement of a Presidential candidate, long before she even announces her intentions for the White House!

Interestingly, six years ago, McCaskill was one of the first public figures to come out for Barack Obama for President, angering Bill and Hillary Clinton.

McCaskill, herself fortunate to have retained her seat, due to a moronic Republican opponent, Todd Akin, is a moderate Democrat, and despite the fact that her state did not back Barack Obama in either 2008 (although close) and 2012 (by a big margin), Missouri did back Bill Clinton twice, and this could be a step toward insuring that Hillary Clinton, if she runs, could count on Missouri, further insuring a massive victory in the Electoral College over any Republican Presidential nominee in 2016!

Last Four Originally Elected Democratic Presidents Were Underdogs: Will That Happen Again In 2016?

Ronald 3 Comments

In the past half century, four Democratic nominees for President, all considered “underdogs”, were elected President.

John F. Kennedy was an underdog in 1960, being a Roman Catholic nominee, thought unlikely to be nominated or elected, but defeating Vice President Richard Nixon, who was far better known.

Jimmy Carter was an underdog in 1976, the first Southern nominee for President since Zachary Taylor in 1848, and really considered the longest of long shots to be the Democratic nominee, and yet won the Presidency over President Gerald Ford.

Bill Clinton was an underdog in 1992, considered part of the “second tier” of possible Democratic nominees for President, and thought to be “dead in the water”, due to the Gennifer Flowers sex scandal, but managing to be the “Comeback Kid”, and win the nomination and the election against President George H. W. Bush.

And Barack Obama was certainly considered an underdog to Hillary Clinton in 2008, and being African American, seemed a particularly “long shot” to go all the way to the Presidency, defeating Senator John McCain of Arizona.

All four Democratic winners all had youth–Kennedy at 43, Carter at 52, Clinton at 46, and Obama at 47 years of age. And get this–these four men were elected exactly SIXTEEN years apart–1960, 1976, 1992, and 2008!

Could this happen again?

Hillary Clinton is seen as the clear front runner, and Joe Biden is the second established “veteran” in the potential race for President in 2016.

But could it be that Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland, or Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, or Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, or Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, or a future Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts would end up as a sudden surprise during the primaries and caucuses in 2016, and emerge the nominee and the winner of the Presidency?

Who can say, but the past COULD be an indicator of the future!

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!

Loss Of Two Progressives In 2014–Senators Tom Harkin And Jay Rockefeller

Ronald Leave a comment

It is sad news that two leading Democratic progressives in the US Senate—Tom Harkin of Iowa and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia—have decided to retire in 2014, leaving a major gap that could affect the Senate balance, although both would have come under fire from Tea Party Republicans for sure if they had run, each for a sixth term.

Both have served since election in 1984, and Harkin had been in the US House of Representatives for ten years previously, and Rockefeller had been Governor of his state for eight years previously.

So both have served their state and nation for approximately 40 years, and are leaving in their mid 70s, a good time to leave, and an opportunity for fresh blood to come into the Senate.

Both were great public servants, and Harkin was this blogger’s personal favorite for President when he ran in 1992 in a field including Bill Clinton.

Both will be missed, and it will be hard to replace them with men or women with their commitment to principle, decency, and humanity!

Obama Reelection Victory Surpasses Bush Reelection Victory In 2004!

Ronald 1 Comment

As the vote count continues, Barack Obama’s reelection victory becomes ever more impressive, as now he has a 4.5 million vote lead, and 50.9 percent of the vote, as compared to Mitt Romney’s 47.4 percent–3.5 percent more.

Obama has passed the George W. Bush totals against John Kerry in 2004–when Bush received 50.7 percent of the vote, and Kerry had 48.3 percent–Bush having 2.4 percent more. And Bush’s popular vote lead was only about 3 million over Kerry.

So Democrats and Barack Obama have a lot to be proud of, with Obama’s two victories having the highest popular vote percentage of the last six Presidential elections, remembering that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote in 1992 or 1996, and that Bush did not even win the popular vote against Al Gore in 2000.

Barack Obama And Hurricane Sandy: He Cannot Afford The Poor Response Of Both Presidents Bush To Hurricanes Andrew And Katrina!

Ronald Leave a comment

President George H. W. Bush was greatly harmed by his government’s poor response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and it certainly contributed to his defeat in the Presidential Election Of 1992.

George W. Bush’s lowest moment in his Presidency was his poor response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and had the second term election been in 2005, instead of 2004, he would have lost reelection.

This has to be in the mind of President Barack Obama, as a poor response to Hurricane Sandy could guarantee, in a close race, that his opponent, Mitt Romney, defeats him in the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012!

Paul Ryan: Does He Have A Future In Presidential Politics?

Ronald 3 Comments

Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, received the most exposure he has ever had in the Vice Presidential debate last night.

Sadly, he told 24 myths in 40 minutes, and seemed uncomfortable at times, but considering his challenging one of the most experienced and qualified Vice Presidents in history, Joe Biden, he certainly came across as competent and able to hold his own in debate. Compared to other Republican Vice Presidential nominees, including Sarah Palin 2008 and Dan Quayle in 1988 and 1992, he came across well enough.

Does Ryan have a future in Presidential politics? The answer is most assuredly yes, as even if he loses with Mitt Romney 25 days from now, he has comported himself well enough, for his base in the Republican Party, to be a likely front runner for the GOP nomination for President in 2016.

Whether with his ideas and ideology he could actually win the Presidency is much in doubt, but at least he did not make a fool of himself, so likely will be heard from again, assuming he does not lose his Wisconsin Congressional seat next month.

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!

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!

Bill Clinton And Mitt Romney: Two “Draft Dodgers”, But With A Difference!

Ronald Leave a comment

In 1992, Presidential nominee Bill Clinton was constantly attacked for having avoided the draft during the Vietnam War, using his talents to evade service. Clinton, however, demonstrated against the war, so was principled about his opposition to the conflict that he avoid serving in.

But then there is the case of Mitt Romney, who also evaded the war, got draft deferments, and instead, used the excuse of being a Mormon missionary in France in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

But the difference is that Mitt Romney publicly expressed support of the war, held signs supporting the war, and advocated others joining the war!

Which is more to be condemned? The man who evades service on principle, or the man who evades service while supporting the war and the draft of OTHERS, but not his privileged self?

The author thinks you know the answer!