Adlai Stevenson

Multiple Losing Presidential Candidacies, And Those Who Lost, Then Won The Presidency

The history of multiple candidacies for the Presidency is an interesting one, with five candidates being nominated more than once and losing each time, and five candidates being nominated more than once, and losing before winning the White House (with unusual circumstances for Grover Cleveland)

Those who ran multiple times and continued to lose are:

Charles Pinckney, Presidential Elections of 1804 and 1808
Henry Clay, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1832, and 1844
William Jennings Bryan, Presidential Elections Of 1896, 1900, and 1908
Thomas E. Dewey, Presidential Elections of 1944 and 1948
Adlai Stevenson, Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1956

Those who ran multiple times and first lost, and then won the Presidency are (with unusual case of Grover Cleveland described below):

Thomas Jefferson, Presidential Elections of 1796, 1800 and 1804
Andrew Jackson, Presidential Elections of 1824, 1828 and 1832
William Henry Harrison, Presidential Elections of 1836 and 1840
Grover Cleveland, Presidential Elections of 1884, 1888, and 1892 (winning in 1884, losing in 1888, winning in 1892)
Richard Nixon, Presidential Elections of 1960, 1968 and 1972

Also, Jackson and Cleveland won the popular vote in the elections they lost in the Electoral College, so both actually won the popular vote three times, the only candidates to do that, other than Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won the popular vote and electoral vote four times, in the Presidential Elections of 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944!

Additionally, Martin Van Buren ran a third time in 1848 on the Free Soil Party line and lost; and Theodore Roosevelt ran a second time in 1912 on the Progressive Party line and lost.

Can Hillary Clinton Be Crowned President For 2016? Not Realistically!

As Hillary Clinton gets ready to leave the State Department after four distinguished years, she is being flattered by kudos paid to her brilliance, and public opinion polls that make her, on paper, an easy nominee and winner of the Presidency in 2016!

But hold it, everyone! Our system of government and elections does not permit the nomination and election of anyone without real competition, hard work, and lots of grief and “blood, sweat and tears”!

We do not crown anyone to be President, and if you believe otherwise, ask such luminaries of the past as Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, Charles Evans Hughes, William Borah, Hiram Johnson, Robert La Follette Sr, Al Smith, Henry A. Wallace, Robert Taft, Arthur Vandenberg, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Bob Kerrey, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and even Hillary Clinton, about the conclusion that they would be President of the United States someday!

Fifty seven percent in a poll want Hillary to be President, but it is a long four years to 2016, and there will be many others who wish to be President, and the question is whether she wants to go through the same hell she went through in 2008!

Don’t be so sure that Hillary will run in 2016!

Missouri Loses Its Bellwether Status In Presidential Elections

The state of Missouri has long been seen as a bellwether state, as it had correctly voted for the winner of the Presidency in every election in the 20th century, except 1956, when it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by a small margin of a few thousand votes.

The Missouri tradition of voting for the winner continued in 2000 and 2004, but again, in 2008, by a few thousand votes, Missouri voted for John McCain over Barack Obama.

So only twice did the Presidential winner lose Missouri since 1900, but now it has happened a third time, and this time not only a few thousand votes separate Mitt Romney from Barack Obama.

So the margin is 260,000 votes, a massive lead for Romney, making Missouri clearly lose its status as a bellwether state, at least for the time being!

Mitt Romney Destined To Be Forgotten In History As Have Been Alton B. Parker, James Cox, John W. Davis, And Alf Landon

Only actual historians, who love to study trivia as part of their trade, have a real memory of numerous Presidential candidates who lost, including Alton B. Parker, who lost to Theodore Roosevelt in 1904; James Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding in 1920; John W. Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924; and Alf Landon, who lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

But it seems that Mitt Romney, who lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election, will be quickly forgotten, with his Republican Party quickly repudiating him, and him distancing himself from them, and seen as a bad nightmare, who should never have been nominated in the first place.

His impact on the party will be very little, and he will not be in public office again, similar to the four men mentioned earlier.

He is not going to be a public figure such as William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, Alfred E. Smith, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain proved to be.

So goodbye to Mitt Romney in public life!

The Shame And Embarrassment Of Missouri: What Has Happened To The “Show Me” State?

Missouri is smack in the middle of the United States, and is the ultimate swing state, having successfully gone with the winner of the Presidency in every election since 1900, except for 1956 (picking Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower) and 2008 (picking John McCain over Barack Obama).

However, both times the final result was not known for days, and the victory was only by about 4,000 votes statewide.

Missouri is also the state historically of the following statesmen:

President Harry Truman (1945-1953), who had served in the Senate from 1935-1945 (Democrat)
Senator Thomas Hart Benton (1821-1851) (Democrat)
Senator Carl Schurz (1869-1875) (Republican)
Senator Stuart Symington (1953-1977) (Democrat)
Senator John Danforth (1977-1995) (Republican)
Senator Thomas Eagleton (1969-1987) (Democrat)

But now, Missouri is represented by Senator Roy Blunt, who used to be one of the top Republicans in the House of Representatives, and has become connected to the Blunt Amendment proposal, allowing any employer to prevent medical services based on religious grounds to any employee, a measure defeated by the Democratic majority in the US Senate. This is seen as anti women, interfering with their right to have birth control as part of medical plans.

And now, Congressman Todd Akin, controversial for his comment about “legitimate” rape, but refusing to withdraw as the GOP nominee for the Senate seat of Senator Claire McCaskill, is putting Missouri into the strange position of possibly having both Senators on record as against the rights of women to control their own reproductive lives, and trying to prevent abortion if a victim of rape or incest, or her life itself is threatened, an extremely right wing position.

The Republican Party and Mitt Romney had backed away from support of Akin, but now that he is remaining in the race for the Senate, the question is whether the Republican Party will change its mind and end up supporting Akin’s candidacy financially.

This McCaskill-Akin race could well be the decisive one that determines whether the Democrats keep control of the US Senate, or if the Republicans gain control.

It would seem that McCaskill should win, not only because of the controversy raised by Akin, but because she has done a good job in her one term in the Senate.

But Missouri is an odd state, with strong evangelical roots, and it would be a major shame and embarrassment for the state were they to end up having two right wing Senators at the same time.

The state would lose all respect of political observers who see moderation as the way to get things done in the Senate, and it would be a major step backwards for women’s rights!

So everyone should contribute to this pivotal race, as the key one which could determine the political future in so many ways!

And it is up to Missouri voters to show they are indeed the “Show Me” state, and will not tolerate having an extreme right winger in the Senate, joining Senator Roy Blunt!

Missouri, Bellwether State, MAY Decide Senate Balance And Presidential Race In 2012

Missouri, the “Show Me” state, is also the ultimate bellwether of all states in the past century.

Since 1904, the state has ALWAYS gone to the winner of the Presidency EXCEPT twice. In 1956, it voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower by about 4,000 votes, and the same vote margin occurred in 2008, with John McCain winning over Barack Obama.

Beyond the history of Missouri, the blunder of Todd Akin, the Tea Party and Republican nominee for the Senate talking about “legitimate rape”, has outraged not only his opponent, Senator Claire McCaskill and women across America, but also the Republican Establishment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senator John Cornyn, head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, as well as Karl Rove, head of the American Crossroads SuperPAC that is raising hundred of billions of dollars for the Republican Congressional and Presidential campaign.

However, Mitt Romney has not shown the same willingness to demand that Akin withdraw from the Senate race, and that may be because his running mate, Paul Ryan, cosponsored legislation to deny abortion to rape victims, by supporting “personhood” language that would make fetuses defined as “persons’ before birth.

Additionally, social conservatives are backing Akin, demonstrating the split in the GOP between them and the Establishment Republicans who see electoral disaster ahead.

As a result, the Akin controversy could do the following in November:

Throw the state and its ten electoral votes to Barack Obama, possibly replacing Wisconsin’s ten electoral votes, with the assumption that Paul Ryan might be able to carry his home state for the Republican ticket. It would make the path to victory for Barack Obama a lot easier.

Help Claire McCaskill to retain her Senate seat, and in so doing, improve the chances of the Senate staying in control of the Democrats.

Have an effect nationally on the percentage of the women’s vote that would go Democratic in Congressional districts, possibly affecting the balance of seats in the House of Representatives, and assisting the opportunity of the Democrats to regain control of the chamber.

So this mess could be the decisive turning point of the 2012 election cycle, even If Akin ultimately gets out of the Missouri Senate race. The damage may have been done already, and no chance to reverse the damage!

“Cool” Vs. “Stiff” Presidential Candidates: The Vote Goes To The “Cool’ Candidate Eighty Percent Of Presidential Elections Since 1932!

One aspect of the battle for the Presidency over time, particularly in the age of modern media and national campaigning, is the personality of the candidates, and whether a person running for the Presidency is “cool” or “stiff” with people.

When one investigates this from the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 onward, in most cases, but not all, the “cool” , more personable, candidate wins.

This happened with FDR against Herbert Hoover in 1932, against Alf Landon in 1936, against Wendell Willkie in 1940, and against Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

It also occurred with Harry Truman against Dewey in 1948; Dwight D. Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, and John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon in 1960.

1964 was a rare year, where Barry Goldwater seemed more personable by far than Lyndon B . Johnson, but the Johnson campaign successfully depicted Goldwater as dangerous and extremist.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was certainly more gregarious and warm than Richard Nixon or George Wallace, but still lost, due to the Democratic split over the VIetnam War; and in 1972, George McGovern came across as more trustworthy and personable than Richard Nixon, but was depicted as extremist and radical in a way similar to Goldwater eight years earlier.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, a new face on the scene, came across as more personable than Gerald Ford, who seemed stiff and uncomfortable to many.

By 1980, Ronald Reagan easily came across to Americans in a more charming manner than Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale never could overcome the Reagan mystique in 1984.

In 1988, neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis came across as personable, the only time in modern history that such a situation existed.

In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton easily came across much better in personality than Bush or Bob Dole.

George W. Bush definitely had the edge in his personality in 2000 and 2004 against Al Gore and John Kerry.

And Barack Obama had a clear advantage over John McCain in 2008, and certainly has that edge as well against Mitt Romney in 2012.

In conclusion, only Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon were the less personable candidate when they ran in 1964, 1968, and 1972, and only in 1988 could it be said there was no difference between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in the level of their “coolness”.

The conclusion is that the more personable or “cool” candidate has a clear edge in the modern era in being elected to the Presidency!

The Issue Of Presidential Sexual Scandals And The Candidacy Of Newt Gingrich

The controversy surrounding former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s private life has multiplied, with the revelation by his second wife of Newt’s desire for an “open marriage”, so that he could carry on an affair with the woman who became his third wife, since his second wife disagreed with his desire for an open marriage. This issue arose when the second wife was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, just as the move by Newt to divorce his first wife came when she was diagnosed with cancer.

Have Presidential candidates and Presidents before now been involved in sex scandals? Of course, the answer is yes, but only becoming public knowledge and controversy in the past 25 years with the candidacies of Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, Rudy Guiliani, and Newt Gingrich, and the planned but aborted candidacies of Mark Sanford and John Ensign.

Have Presidents had affairs in the past, in or out of office? Of course yes is the answer, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Buchanan, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, that we are aware of. But ONLY Bill Clinton was revealed to be involved in such scandals before he was elected, and during his Presidency, as news and gossip on other Presidents was kept well hidden from the news media and the general public.

Have Presidents or Presidential candidates ever been divorced? The answer is yes, although only Ronald Reagan has been elected. But Adlai Stevenson, Bob Dole, John Kerry, and John McCain all were married for the second time when they ran for the White House.

Has any candidate ever been married THREE times, and openly cheated on his first two wives, other than Newt Gingrich? The answer is NO, and the hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich is that he pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998-1999 while pursuing his own affair outside of marriage.

No President or Presidential candidate has openly pursued the idea of a “open marriage”, although one could argue that Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton, at the least, seemed to accept such a concept in the sense that they knew their husbands were involved in cheating and did not choose to break up their marriages.

Other First Ladies and wives of Presidential candidates MAY have silently agreed to their husbands committing adultery and staying married, but that is all speculation at best.

The point is that the second wife of Newt Gingrich, in revealing the “open marriage” idea of her former husband, made it clear that Newt had said that Callista, the third wife, had no problem with “sharing” Newt.

So what this means is that IF Callista Gingrich becomes First Lady, we will have the first acknowledged believer in an open marriage, who has no concept of a problem with adultery. In the past, there were choice words for such a woman, which will not be used here. It indicates the likelihood of an “open marriage” between Callista and Newt from the beginning of their marriage, and the excellent possibility that there would be sex scandals in the White House, something we do not need to occur, or to learn about.

In a country in which many “religious” people claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, and the importance of “family values”, to have Newt and Callista Gingrich in the White House would be a mockery of the concept of marriage and loyalty, and a degradation of the Presidency as an institution.

And for conservatives, such as Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to ignore this, and to support Newt, indicates the total hypocrisy of the Right, which was only too eager to remove Bill Clinton from office on moral grounds.

Four “McCain” States Which Could Be Won By Barack Obama In 2012

A lot of attention is being given to the idea that President Barack Obama could lose some of the “swing states” that he won in the Presidential Election of 2008–including Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in the South; New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in the Northeast; Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota in the Midwest; and Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada in the Mountain West.

While it is true that he could lose some of these states, what is less recognized and talked about is the potential for Barack Obama to win FOUR states which went to John McCain–Georgia with 16 electoral votes, Missouri with 10 electoral votes, Arizona with 11 electoral votes, and Texas with 38 electoral votes–therefore a possible total of 75 electoral votes!

This is not saying Obama is certain to win any of the four states listed above, but it is POSSIBLE, primarily because of the growing Hispanic and Latino population in Georgia, Arizona and Texas, and because Missouri was lost by only about 4,000 votes! Missouri is the state which has always gone with the winner in Presidential elections since 1900, with only two exceptions–1956 when Adlai Stevenson defeated President Eisenhower by about 4,000 votes, and then in 2008 when Senator John McCain also won by about 4,000 votes over President Obama!

The odds would seem better in Missouri first and Georgia second, much less likely in Arizona, and a long shot in Texas. Certainly, in theory, these states are much more likely to go Democratic in future years, as the Republicans are losing the future with their anti immigrant philosophy and rhetoric.

So the Presidential Election of 2012 has not only FOURTEEN states as “swing states”, but also possibly another FOUR, making it a total of EIGHTEEN states which will be the focus of most of the political campaigning and advertising over the next eleven months!

Three “Red” States In Play For 2012 Presidential Election

With one year to go to the Presidential Election Of 2012, discussion about the Electoral College has begun.

The question has been whether Barack Obama can hold on to most of the “swing states” which he won in 2008.

But at the same time, there are actually three “red’ states of 2008 that Obama has a possibility of winning–Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona–with a total of 37 electoral votes.

Missouri (10 electoral votes) was won by John McCain by less than 4,000 votes in 2008, and it took a few days to declare McCain the winner because of the very close vote. Missouri is also the ultimate “swing state”, as it ALWAYS has gone to the winner of the Presidency since 1900, except TWICE–going to Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 and to McCain over Obama in 2008.

Georgia (16 electoral votes) went to McCain in 2008 by 196,000 votes, a margin of a little over 5 percent of the vote, but now the growing Hispanic population could be enough to give the state to Obama.

Arizona (11 electoral votes), the home of McCain, went to the senator in 2008 also by a margin of 196,000 votes, a margin of about 8.5 percent, but with the rapidly growing Hispanic population there also, and McCain not on the ballot as a “favorite son”, the possibility exists that Obama could win that state.

So if Obama were to win one or more of the three states mentioned, he could afford to lose some of the “swing states” that he won in 2008.