Presidential Election Of 2000

Republicans On The Short End Of Public Opinion Polls And Declining Rapidly

Ronald 8 Comments

In the latest USA Today-Pew Research Center Poll, President Barack Obama scores 51 percent, Democrats in Congress 37 percent, and Republicans in Congress 25 percent.

This happens at a time when public opinion backs Obama on the budget, gun laws, and immigration reform.

And the Tea Party Republicans only add to the problems of the GOP, as well as the National Rifle Association targeting Republicans in primaries for 2014, including the one Senator still regarded as a “moderate” by most political observers to her detriment, Maine Senator Susan Collins.

So, after having lost five of the last six Presidential elections in popular votes, and only winning 2000 with the intervention of the Supreme Court, the Republicans looks more than ever self destructive and on the road to oblivion!

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!

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.

The Extraordinarily Close Relationship Between President Obama And Vice President Biden

Ronald Leave a comment

Now that the first term of Barack Obama and Joe Biden is ending, it is worth a few moments to recognize the extraordinarily close relationship that exists between the President and the Vice President.

When one looks back on such relationships in the past, it is clear that no other relationship has been quite as close, as warm, as personally friendly, since the time when Jimmy Carter utilized Walter Mondale as practically a “co President” from 1977-1981.

Vice Presidents never really mattered or were close to a President until the 1950s, when Richard Nixon made the office of Vice President a significant office. But President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not very happy, a lot of the time, with his Vice President, and there were hints that he would have preferred a different running mate in 1956,

The John F. Kennedy–Lyndon B. Johnson relationship was not close at all, and neither was the Johnson–Hubert Humphrey relationship.

The Richard Nixon–Spiro Agnew relationship was not much better, and Nixon with Gerald Ford was only a brief period where the two men avoided contact with the other during the Watergate crisis.

Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller were closer, but Ford chose to drop Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole for the 1976 Presidential race to please the conservative wing led by Ronald Reagan, and years later, Ford expressed regret that he had allowed himself to dump Rockefeller.

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale were extraordinarily close, with Mondale being treated as an absolute equal, and the two men remain close friends now after nearly 32 years out of office, the longest lasting Presidential-Vice Presidential team, breaking all records for longevity every day.

Ronald Reagan was not very close to George H. W. Bush personally, and Bush did not take Dan Quayle very seriously at all as a Vice President.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were friendly and close until the Monica Lewinsky and impeachment issues arose, and then Gore stayed away from Clinton during his own campaign for President in 2000, which very well may have harmed his ability to win, despite a popular vote majority of about a half million votes.

George W. Bush relied on Dick Cheney a great deal, but their closeness, if it ever existed, dissipated in the second term over various matters.

The Obama-Biden friendship and closeness seems not at all affected in any way by events, or Biden’s well known problem with gaffes, and he has played a major role as an adviser on so many issues, domestic and foreign. One can see in so many situations and photos that the two men are close, and have a very warm, personal relationship with each other.

This could create a problem for President Obama IF both Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decide to run for President, as the President owes a lot to both of them, as well as to former President Bill Clinton, for having worked so hard for his reelection, and giving what many consider the best speech for Obama at the Democratic National Convention as well.

The best situation for Obama then, would be to remain neutral, but with the hope that maybe one or both would decide ultimately, because of their ages and long careers, not to run for President in their 70s (Biden) or nearing 70s (Clinton).

Will 2012 Presidential Election Mirror 2000 Presidential Election?

Ronald 1 Comment

There is a growing possibility that the Presidential Election of 2012 will become a reprise of the Presidential Election Of 2000, where the winner of the popular vote does not win the Electoral College, and therefore does not become President of the United States.

This time, the Democratic incumbent, Barack Obama, would be the lucky recipient, while last time the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, was to become the fourth Presidential nominee to fail to win the popular vote but become President, after John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, and Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Some would say that such a result, with Obama being reelected, although losing the popular vote to Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, would be “justice” for what happened to Al Gore, the Democratic nominee in 2000.

But there is a major difference, in that Obama is already President, while Bush was competing for the position, but was not yet our President.

It would be the first time that a sitting President was reelected without the popular vote of the American people, and would make Republicans say he was “illegitimate” to be our President, something already said, but still would be a great tragedy,and probably guarantee another four years of stalemate and gridlock.

It would make, more likely, a move by the Republicans, if they controlled the House of Representatives, which seems likely at this point, to move to impeach the President, as they succeeded in doing to Bill Clinton in 1998.

It would be a political circus, which would paralyze the nation, and the Republican Party would do everything it could to undermine Obama, and to attempt to make it seem as if he was a failed President, to stain his name in history, even if they had been unable to dislodge him from the White House.

It is hoped that this whole scenario will not happen, and that Barack Obama will end up winning the popular vote, but with the impending Hurricane Sandy, likely to cut down voting totals in the Northeast and Midwest, considered strongly Democratic at least in the Northeast, it could assist Romney in winning the national popular vote, and even the Electoral College win is certainly possible for Romney, although still considered unlikely.

With the impending storm, there is a lot to pray for, regarding safety of the population in the Northeast and Midwest, as well as the future of the nation after the Presidential Election Of 2012. We are living in very difficult times, and have to hope for reason and tolerance, without any certainty of either occurring!

Major Florida Factor Often Not Considered: The Puerto Rican, And Other Non Cuban Hispanic Vote

Ronald Leave a comment

As the battle for Florida’s electoral votes goes on, many observers are failing to realize the possible influence of the massively increased Puerto Rican population, particularly in the major area of significance, Central Florida.

Often, many people assume that the Hispanic vote is mostly Cuban, and that they, of course, traditionally vote Republican because of the failure of John F. Kennedy to eliminate Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.

But in recent years, the Puerto Rican population in the state of Florida, and particularly, in Central Florida, has ballooned to nearly match or surpass the Cuban population found mostly in South Florida.

There are nearly a million Puerto Ricans in Florida, a state that is always rapidly changing, and becoming more non Cuban Hispanic by the month.

The Puerto Ricans of Florida, with smaller numbers in the past, supported the election and reelection of Governor Jeb Bush, but they went to Barack Obama for President in 2008, and are seen as likely, by large percentages, to vote for him again. The key, as always, will be voter turnout.

Additionally, there are a growing number of Hispanics from other nations in the Western Hemisphere, and the tendency of many would be to support Obama, although the very religious element, against abortion and gay marriage, might not, but the point being made here is that to assume, because of some polls at the moment, that Mitt Romney has Florida locked up, with its 29 electoral votes, is a massive mistake, as Florida will be in play, and may well decide who is the next President. And realize that younger Cuban Americans, in many cases, are abandoning the Republican beliefs of their parents and grandparents, and some will vote for Barack Obama!

And remember, with the biggest prize of the “swing” states, 29 electoral votes, Florida may select Barack Obama for a second term, and without the intervention of the Supreme Court for George W. Bush, as in the Presidential Election of 2000!

The Ultimate “Firewall” For Barack Obama: The Midwest

Ronald Leave a comment

This author has commented before about the fact that the Midwest, an area of declining electoral votes and representation in Congress, because of the rapid migration from the “Frost Belt” to the “Sun Belt”, remains an area that has had a dramatic effect on American politics and Presidential elections.

Ohio and Missouri have been the ultimately accurate states to predict elections, with Missouri only voting with the loser twice—1956 and 2008—and Ohio, also only twice with the loser—1944 and 1960—since 1900.

And now, with Obama clearly winning Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois, and seemingly ahead in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, the President could afford to lose the three Southern states he won in 2008—Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina—and still win the Electoral College.

With 237 electoral votes in Obama’s camp, and only needing 33 more, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin would give him 34, raising his total to 271, exactly what George W. Bush won in 2008, against Al Gore, who won the national popular vote by more than 500,000 votes.

With some observers seeing a popular vote surge to Mitt Romney, we could be witnessing a scenario of the same situation as in 2000- –the winner of the electoral vote NOT winning the popular vote, which would make it the fifth time in history, and the second time in 12 years, that such a situation occurred.

The difference is that this time the Democrat will have benefited, while the last time, the Republican benefited.

In a way, if that happened, it would be “justice” for Al Gore supporters and Democrats!

However, it would also lead to growing demands to change the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College, with the reality being that the likelihood of such a change is near zero!

Gary Johnson And Virgil Goode Could Siphon Support For Mitt Romney In Several “Swing” States

Ronald Leave a comment

Gary Johnson is the former Republican New Mexico Governor, and Libertarian Party candidate for President. He is also on the ballot in 47 states.

Virgil Goode is a former Republican Congressman from a district in Virginia, and Constitution Party candidate for President. He is also on the ballot in two dozen states.

Johnson is believed to have support in New Mexico, Montana, Nevada and Colorado, while Goode is thought to have support in Virginia.

Notice that these are all considered “swing” states, although New Mexico has been seen as less so than it once was, and is generally not included in recent months as being in that category. And Montana is one of those few states thought to be Republican, but with some possibility of switching to the Democrats.

But also notice that all of these states are now considered to be in favor of Barack Obama, except Montana.

So the question arises, will these former Republicans hurt Romney enough that he loses these “swing” states and even Montana, or will Obama win even with some support for Johnson and Goode in these states?

In other words, can Johnson and Goode end up for Romney as Ralph Nader was for Al Gore in 2000, the difference in votes that caused Gore’s defeat for President?

It will be interesting to see if either or both third party candidates have a significant impact on the results of the election!

The Environmentally Oriented Presidents: A Poll, And Commentary On The Poll

Ronald Leave a comment

Last week, CorporateKnights.com, which advertises itself as “The Company For Clean Capitalism”, and publishes a magazine, asked twelve environmental oriented organizations to rank our 43 Presidents on the issue of their “greenness”, a fascinating ranking!

They also held a press conference, which was shown on C Span, and Ralph Nader, the well known environmentalist and leader of Public Citizen, was on the panel discussing the results.

The conclusion was that eight Presidents deserved recognition, with three being way ahead of the other five on the issue of the environment.

The easy winner was Republican Theodore Roosevelt, followed by Republican Richard Nixon, and Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The other five in order were Democrat Barack Obama , Democratic -Republican Thomas Jefferson, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt and Republican Gerald Ford tied for sixth, and Democrat Bill Clinton in last place among the eight.

While some might be surprised at Richard Nixon being second, actually the author of this blog well recognizes his leadership on the environment, and has pointed it out when teaching students about recent American history.

This author also fully agrees on TR as first, and Jimmy Carter as certainly the best one term President on the environment, and when one realizes that he was succeeded by a President, Republican Ronald Reagan, often judged the absolute worst on the environment,, it makes him feel very depressed!

Also, since Republican George W. Bush is rated the second worst to Reagan, and worst by some observers, it makes one wish that Ralph Nader had not run as a Green Party candidate in 2000, and taking almost 100,000 votes away from Al Gore, who would certainly have been a great environmental President, and had a major role in making Bill Clinton, who had a terrible record on the environment in Arkansas, able to make the present list as one of the better environmental Presidents.

It is pleasing to see Barack Obama as high as fourth on this list, with the potential to be more accomplished in a second term, and the record of Mitt Romney in action and words makes one concerned that he might be President, as every indication is that he would not put the environment high on his list of priorities, were he to win the White House.

Also, however, it must be said that it seems to this author that other Presidents should be commended for their environmental interests, including:

John Quincy Adams, who first promoted the idea of a cabinet office, the Department of the Interior, in the 1820s, but created a year after his death, in 1849.

Rutherford B. Hayes, who appointed one of the best Interior Secretaries in history, Carl Schurz, who did what he could on the environment, in the late 1870s.

Woodrow Wilson, who made major advances on the subject, in the second decade of the 20th century.

Harry Truman, who promoted environmental advancements in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, who in the 1960s, promoted environmental concerns, with their Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, appointed by Kennedy but kept on and given support by Johnson.

Also, the record clearly shows that It was Republican Presidents such as William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and George H. W. Bush, who took steps to harm the environment, on a lesser scale than Reagan and the second Bush, but still damaging.

So, not suprisingly, Democrata have been better than Republicans on the environment, but with the major exceptions of Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

Eleven Years Since September 11: What It Has Done To America

Ronald Leave a comment

Eleven years ago, on a bright, sunny New York morning, just as today it is in New York, and on the same day of the week, Tuesday, America was struck by Al Qaeda and forces backed by Osama Bin Laden, causing the deaths of about 3,000 people at the World Trade Center, along with those slaughtered at the Pentagon in suburban Virginia, and those on the plane bound for the US Capitol or the White House, and forced into a crash by its courageous passengers in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

This is a day of commemoration and mourning for the loss of life, plus the deaths of over 6,000 Americans in unsuccessful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since then, and the nearly 50,000 young men and women wounded, many of them severely, as a result of those wars.

We also mourn the loss of innocence that we had, that somehow, as the super power of the world, we were immune from such a shocking attack, and the sense of insecurity that it brought upon all of us.

Our lives have been transformed in so many ways that we can never reverse, and we can say that we have become ever more divided in the years since, politically, economically, and socially, and that we have a divided America more so now than ever since the Civil War and Reconstruction period in the middle to late 19th century.

We are a more stratified society economically, and we have become, more than ever, a nation of the coastlines versus the massive interior, a nation of blue versus red in political terms, and our country is rapidly changing in a way that worries us about the future, as to whether there is the potential for internal violence in the future, that might make the terrorism of September 11 seem like something minor, as compared to what could happen between the sections of the nation, the religious groups, the racial groups, the age groups, the gender groups, and the cultural groups that make America a complex nation in the 21st century.

Imagine going back to the year 2000, before the divisive Presidential Election of 2000, at a time when most Americans had never heard of Osama Bin Laden; when the World Trade Center dominated the Manhattan skyline; when there was no Facebook, Twitter, or Steve Jobs technology; when unemployment was only 3.9 percent; when the national debt was only $5.7 trillion; when gasoline was only $1.79 a gallon; and when the previous year, the biggest controversy was Bill Clinton’s sex life and his impeachment trial.

As America was entering the new century, we were extremely naive, worrying more about the effects of “Y2K” on computers, than the reality of what we were going to face in the first decade of the 21st century, which has worsened the outlook for America’s future in a dramatic way.

Oh, for the “good old days!”