William Howard Taft

Donald Trump One Of The Lowest Popular Vote Percentage Winners In American History, And NOT Due To Strong Third Party Performances!

Ronald Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s percentage of the popular vote continues to decline, and now makes Trump one of the lowest popular vote percentage winners in American History, and NOT due to strong third party performances.

Right now, Trump has 46.28 percent of the vote and is 2.35 million popular votes behind Hillary Clinton, who has 48.2 percent of the vote.

The only 7 Presidents to have lower percentage are:

John Quincy Adams 1824—30.92

Abraham Lincoln–1860–39.65

Woodrow Wilson–1912–41.84

Bill Clinton–1992–43.01

Richard Nixon–1968–43.42

James Buchanan–1856–45.29

Grover Cleveland–1892–46.02

Before it is all over, Trump is likely to fall lower than Cleveland, and possibly Buchanan, in percentage of the popular vote, when all votes are accounted for.

In each of these seven cases, however, there were more than two strong Presidential candidates, and a third party and twice a fourth party gained electoral votes.

Adams had electoral vote competition from Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford in 1824.

Lincoln had electoral vote competition from John C. Breckinridge, John Bell, and Stephen Douglas in 1860

Wilson had electoral vote competition from Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft in 1912.

Clinton had electoral vote competition from George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot in 1992.

Nixon had electoral vote competition from Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace in 1968.

Buchanan had electoral vote competition from John C. Fremont and Millard Fillmore in 1856.

Cleveland had electoral vote competition from Benjamin Harrison and James Weaver in 1892.

However, Trump had no third party competitor who took electoral votes away from him or Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent.

And only Adams ended up second in popular votes with a percentage of the vote lower than Trump.

So Donald Trump cannot claim a popular mandate by any means.

Ten Most Divisive And Polarizing Elections In American History

Ronald Leave a comment

As we near the end of an extremely divisive and polarizing election, it is a good time to look back and judge what were the ten most divisive and polarizing elections in American history.

Chronologically, they would be the following:

The Election of 1800 between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

The Election of 1828 between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson

The Election of 1860 between Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, John C. Breckinridge, and John Bell

The Election of 1876 between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden

The Election of 1884 between Grover Cleveland and James G. Blaine

The Election of 1896 between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan

The Election of 1912 between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs

The Election of 1948 between Harry Truman, Thomas E. Dewey, Strom Thurmond, and Henry A. Wallace

The Election of 1968 between Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and George Wallace

The Election of 2000 between George W. Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Pat Buchanan

Trump’s Demeaning, Degrading Comments About Women Marks The End Of The Trump Campaign, And Possibly The Republican Party Itself!

Ronald 18 Comments

The release of the Access Hollywood tape, showing Donald Trump making demeaning, degrading comments about women, marks the end of the Trump campaign, even if he does not drop out, which in itself, would be unprecedented in American history.

The Richard Nixon resignation comes to mind as this crisis unfolds, and the Republican leadership has condemned what Trump said back in 2005, and many are abandoning him en masse this morning as I write.

Trump could be on the road to the worst defeat of any Presidential candidate of modern times, that being William Howard Taft in 1912, when he only won 23 percent of the popular vote.

On the other hand, the Trump supporters seem to be loyal, and to lack any principles, morals, and ethics, so who can say that the trash and scum of America will not back him with their votes, no matter what he says or does?

If there would ever be a reason to challenge the constitutionality of a potential dictator taking power, it would be this scenario.

The Republican Party must take action NOW for the nation, even if it means giving up the Presidency, but the future of the party is gloomy in any case, with its extremist right wing agenda, which all decent people reject!

Danger Of Civil Disorder If Donald Trump Refuses To Accept Defeat, Which All Previous Losers Have Accepted With Grace And Dignity!

Ronald 2 Comments

Throughout American history, there has been great emotions as battles for the Presidency go on, but at the end, when the election is over, the loser has always conceded with grace and dignity.

This includes the John Adams-Thomas Jefferson race in 1800, the first time an incumbent has lost to a challenger.

It includes the John Quincy Adams-Andrew Jackson Presidential races in 1824 and 1828.

It includes the Abraham Lincoln–Stephen Douglas–John C. Breckinridge–John Bell four way race on the eve of the Civil War in 1860.

It includes the hotly contested 1876 Presidential race between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, resolved by the political deal known as the Compromise of 1877.

It includes the four way contested race of 1912 between Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs.

It includes the upset election victory of Harry Truman against Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.

It includes the John F. Kennedy-Richard Nixon race in 1960, which Nixon thought might have been corrupt, but chose not to challenge.

It also includes the Presidential election of 2000, when Al Gore challenged the results in court, but then was graceful once the Supreme Court intervened in favor of George W. Bush.

And it includes the grace and dignity of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, when they lost to Barack Obama.

But now, we have had indications that Donald Trump will not concede, and will claim a “rigged” election if he loses, and this will only encourage civil disorder, and the potential for bloodshed and violence, and refusal to allow a peaceful transition to the inauguration and administration of Hillary Clinton.

This is not a laughing matter one iota, and a very worrisome matter!

Donald Trump, If President, Would Be Third Heaviest At Inauguration, After William Howard Taft And Grover Cleveland!

Ronald 6 Comments

We have now learned that Donald Trump, who would be our oldest President first term at inauguration, would also be the third heaviest President we have had.

William Howard Taft was about 330-350 pounds in office, and Grover Cleveland was about 250-260 pounds when President.

Donald Trump admits to 237 pounds, but some reports say he may be as much as 267.

His age is part of the issue, and he said his exercise is moving his hands a lot at rallies, a preposterous assertion.

Trump could have health issues developing, and he admits to loving junk food.

One must recall that Taft was 73 at death, and Cleveland was 71.

So being 70 and seven months at the time of taking the oath could be a problem, giving us a potential President Mike Pence.

The thought is horrifying!

Donald Trump Could Be On Way To Worst Major Party Candidate Popular Vote Percentage Since William Howard Taft In 1912 And John W. Davis In 1924!

Ronald Leave a comment

As Donald Trump moves forward, proving ever more his ability to alienate traditional Republicans and conservatives, and his racism, nativism, misogyny, and xenophobia leading to a likely low percentage among African Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, Jews, Social Justice Catholics, women, college educated, environmentalists, gays, disabled, and every other conceivable group, the likelihood that he might be on the way to the worst possible major party candidate popular vote percentage since 1912 and 1924 seems a strong possibility.

In 1912, President William Howard Taft, challenged by former President Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party, ended up third, the only time a major party nominee ended up other than first or second, and only received 23.2 percent of the vote, winning 2 states and 8 electoral votes, and Woodrow Wilson winning the election. TR as the third party nominee won six states and 27.4 percent of the total national vote that year.

Once we get past that unusual situation, the next worst performance by a losing major party candidate is John W. Davis , who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and won only 28.8 percent of the total popular vote, winning twelve states and 136 electoral votes. However, Progressive Party candidate Robert M. La Follette Sr won 16.6 percent of the vote in that election.

Next was James Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding in 1920, receiving only 34.2 percent of the vote, winning eleven states and 127 electoral votes.

Next was Alf Landon, who lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, winning only 36.5 percent of the vote, and two states and 8 electoral votes.

Next was George H. W. Bush who won only 37.4 percent of the vote in 1992 against Bill Clinton, but Ross Perot won 18.9 percent of the vote that year as an Independent nominee. Bush won 18 states and 168 electoral votes in that election.

Next on the list is George McGovern who won 37.5 percent of the vote in 1972 against Richard Nixon, winning only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia and 17 electoral votes.

Next is Alton B. Parker who won 37.6 percent of the vote in 1904 against Theodore Roosevelt in 1904, but also won 13 states and 140 electoral votes.

Barry Goldwater, losing to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, won only 38.5 percent of the vote, and had 6 states and 52 electoral votes.

Finally, President Herbert Hoover, losing to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, had only 39.7 percent of the vote, and won 6 states and 59 electoral votes.

So nine times, a major party nominee since the Civil War has won less than 40 percent of the total national popular vote, but with three times, 1912, 1924, and 1992, being complicated by a strong third party vote.

Five of these candidates who won less than 40 percent of the vote were Republicans—Presidents Taft, Hoover and the first Bush, and also Landon and Goldwater.

The other four were Democrats—Davis, Cox, McGovern, and Parker.

First Time In American History That An Outgoing President Really Promotes His Party Successor Nominee!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama event yesterday in Charlotte, North Carolina, was amazing to see–a sitting President putting his reputation on the line for his potential successor, unlike any in American history, and for someone who was his bitter rival eight years ago.

It is wonderful to see such warmth and camaraderie develop, and one can assume it is totally sincere on both sides.

And Vice President Joe Biden is also putting his reputation on the line on Friday in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and these two events are just the beginning of a “romance” between Hillary and her two rivals in 2008.

This is historic, as it has NEVER happened in American history, as far as can be ascertained.

It did not happen for William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 in a public display, although TR did endorse his successor quietly.

It did not happen with a very sick Woodrow Wilson and his potential successor, James Cox, in 1920, as Wilson was recovering from a paralytic stroke.

It did not happen with Herbert Hoover in 1928, as Calvin Coolidge was not thrilled by his successor, thinking he was too anxious to gain publicity over the more retiring Presidential personality.

It did not happen with Harry Truman toward Adlai Stevenson in 1952, with Truman staying out of the fray, although he had promoted Stevenson to run in the first place.

It did not happen with Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was very lax on supporting Richard Nixon in 1960, until the final week or so.

It did not happen with Lyndon B. Johnson who was alienated from Hubert Humphrey in 1968, because Humphrey was backing away from Johnson’s Vietnam War policy, and Johnson even hoped privately for Richard Nixon’s election.

It did not happen with Ronald Reagan who did very little openly for George H. W. Bush in 1988, although he endorsed him.

It did not happen with Bill Clinton who was avoided by Al Gore in 2000, which might have affected the results of the election in a detrimental manner for Gore

It did not happen when John McCain was the nominee to succeed George W. Bush in 2008, as McCain worked to avoid public contact with the unpopular President.

But now in 2016, having the backing of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden will help Hillary Clinton to gain unity and win the Presidency in November!

Hillary Clinton Could Be Fourth To Be Promoted Successfully As Successor Of President Of Same Party For White House!

Ronald 1 Comment

In all of American history, there have only been three times that a President could preside over the success of his chosen successor of his own party being inaugurated as the next President of the United States.

The first time was 1837, when Vice President Martin Van Buren was inaugurated as the 8th President, succeeding Andrew Jackson.

The second time was 72 years later in 1909, when Secretary of War William Howard Taft was inaugurated as the 27th President, succeeding Theodore Roosevelt.

The third time was 80 years later in 1989, when Vice President George H. W. Bush was inaugurated as the 41st President, succeeding Ronald Reagan.

Now, next year, 2017, it seems very likely, although not guaranteed at this point, that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be inaugurated as the 45th President, 28 years later after Bush, succeeding Barack Obama.

However, history was not kind on the successors to Jackson, TR, and Reagan, as all three–Van Buren, Taft, and the first Bush—failed to win reelection, and are all ranked lower in the estimate of historians than their predecessors.

So one has to wonder about the future fortunes of Hillary Clinton. However, on this July 4 week, President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are joining Clinton in North Carolina and Pennsylvania to begin the full scale campaign for the Presidency against Donald Trump!

Crazy Dream Of Many Republicans Who Initially Rejected Trump–That He Will Magically Transform From His Sins–He Won’t!

Ronald 1 Comment

It is amazing how many Republicans in office have caved in to Fascist Donald Trump’s candidacy, but it demonstrates their total delusional nature, that they think that he will magically transform from the sinner he is to a rational, mainstream human being.

By signing on with Trump, the Republicans in the US Senate will be massacred this fall, and we will see a massive repudation of Republican philosophy.

At the same time, intelligent conservatives at the National Review and The Weekly Standard are still holding back, as are the Bush Family and Mitt Romney and Christie Todd Whitman (former New Jersey Governor), and a small group of others who identify as Republicans.

But the Republican Party, which survived the disaster of 1912 with William Howard Taft challenged by Theodore Roosevelt; and 1964 with Barry Goldwater challenged by Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, George Romney and others; is no longer, as principle no longer matters for most Republicans and some conservatives.

So this is a transformative election that will go down in history!

Myth Destroyed About Third Term Of Same Party In White House Being Historically Unlikely! How About 7 Times And 120 Years Of Our History?

Ronald 3 Comments

This blogger keeps on hearing that it is highly unlikely for a political party to hold the White House for more than two terms. Most recently, Chris Matthews said this on MSNBC on HARDBALL!

This is totally untrue, as witness the facts, a total of 7 times:

1800-1824—Democratic Republicans Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe–Six terms, 24 years

1828-1840–Democrats Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren–Three terms, 12 years

1860-1884–Republicans Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester Alan Arthur (Andrew Johnson elected with Lincoln on “Union” ticket in 1864 was a Southern Democrat, but was never elected)–Six terms, 24 years

1896-1912–Republicans William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft–Four terms, 16 years

1920-1932–Republicans Warren G. Harding. Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover–Three terms, 12 years

1932-1952–Democrats Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman–Five terms, 20 years

1980-1992–Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush–Three terms, 12 years

This adds up to 30 terms and 120 years from 1789-2008. So that means 30 terms out of 55 terms, more than half the time and 120 years out of 220 years, more than half the time!

And now in 2016, an 8th time, this time the Democrats with Barack Obama and, likely, Hillary Clinton, will add to the record, making it 33 terms out of 58, and 132 years out of 232 years!