Calvin Coolidge

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!

A Businessman Knows How To Run A Government Successfully? The Case Of Herbert Hoover As A Rejoinder To Donald Trump!

Ronald 66 Comments

Donald Trump loves to say that his business experience qualifies him to be President. But his business experience has mostly been failures and bankruptcies, and he inherited money from his father, which gave him an unfair advantage, compared to 99 percent of Americans, and he set out to take advantage of every legal trick and method of manipulation to enrich himself at the expense of others, including often not paying his bills.

We have had only one businessman, Herbert Hoover, as President, and he became a total disaster after he was elected in 1928. But he was not born to wealth, was orphaned before age 10,and accomplished his great business career with his own efforts and intellect, and became a multimillionaire in the mining industry by age 40, and then devoted himself to public service.

But the difference between Trump and Hoover is that Hoover served many years in government, working for Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and Republicans Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover, before he ran for President.

He had never been elected to anything, but he had been an extremely successful and outstanding figure in the First World War effort, and served eight significant years as Secretary of Commerce. Hoover stands out as one of the small group of really exceptional cabinet officers, which usually includes other agencies, such as the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, and the Defense Department as the major areas where notable cabinet members serve a President.

Unfortunately, he had no ability to overcome the Great Depression that began in October 1929, as he was tied to a laissez faire political philosophy, and did not know how to gain backing in Congress. He was also a poor communicator, who was unable to inspire the American people with his public speeches and radio addresses. Hoover’s personality was very introverted, and he did not inspire confidence. So his business background failed him when it mattered, as President of the United States.

One can be sure that if Hoover was alive today, he would be shocked and stunned at a con artist, Donald Trump, who has had four bankruptcies, and has no understanding of government or world affairs, would have the gall to think he was qualified to lead America in the 21st century.

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!

Gregarious And “Loner” Presidents Since 1900; And Remaining Presidential Candidates’ Personalities Assessed!

Ronald 4 Comments

Presidents have different personalities, with some being very gregarious and outgoing, clearly extroverts: and others being more described as “loners”, who could be cordial in public, but did not like being around government leaders very much, and are clearly introverts.

In the first category, we would include

Theodore Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry Truman

John F. Kennedy

Lyndon B. Johnson

Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan

Bill Clinton

George W. Bush

In the second category, we would include

William Howard Taft

Woodrow Wilson

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter

George H. W. Bush

Barack Obama is a unique case, not really fitting into either category clearly, as he can tend to be very gregarious, but also has difficulty dealing with Congress, with one speculating that he has been scarred by the total obstructionism of the opposition.  He tends to avoid “schmoozing”, although the feeling is that he is basically quite gregarious.

So putting Obama in a separate category, notice that 9 Presidents (5 Democrats, 4 Republicans) are considered gregarious, while 9 Presidents (7 Republicans,  2 Democrats) are considered more “loners”.

63 years we have had gregarious Presidents; 45 years we have had “loner” Presidents, and then we have the 8 years of Obama.

Notice that the gregarious Presidents have, as a group, a more positive image in history, than the “loner” Presidents, and they have more often been reelected!

Among remaining Presidential Candidates as of this date, the “gregarious” candidates would include Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, while the more “loner” types would be Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Dr. Benjamin Carson.

Activist Vs. Passive Presidents, 1901 To The Present

Ronald 2 Comments

There have been 19 Presidents since the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the Presidency in 1901, upon the assassination of William McKinley.

Some have been activists, hard workers, dynamos, who saw the Presidency as a position that required constant attention, and avoided much vacation time, but even when on vacation, these activist Presidents were always working and alert to changing events.

Among the 19 modern Presidents, the following 11 Presidents would qualify as part of the activist category:

Theodore Roosevelt

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Harry Truman

John F. Kennedy

Lyndon B. Johnson

Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter

George H. W. Bush

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

The other 8 Presidents since 1901 were much more passive, avoided work, were quite frankly lazy, and took lots of vacation time, often were not alert to changing events, and delegated authority to others:

William Howard Taft

Warren G. Harding

Calvin Coolidge

Herbert Hoover

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Gerald Ford

Ronald Reagan

George W. Bush

Note that all eight passive Presidents were Republicans, while only Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush were activist Republicans, joining the 8 Democratic Presidents in that category!

Also, note that the eleven activist Presidents all were highly intelligent and curious about the world around them, while the eight passive Presidents were generally less naturally intelligent, with the exceptions of William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover, both highly intellectual and accomplished, although both were seen as unsuccessful in office, and defeated for reelection!

Modern Presidents Who Were Peace Oriented Or Anti Military Engagement In Their Time In Office

Ronald Leave a comment

Modern American Presidents who have taken us to war or promoted American intervention or expansion gain a lot more attention, and are more looked upon as role models, than those who attempt to avoid war, oppose expansion and promote peace where possible.

As one examines our 19  Presidents since 1901, the following six stand out as either peace oriented or anti military engagement as a major motivation:

Warren G. Harding—promoted the Washington Naval Agreement of 1921-1922.

Calvin Coolidge—promoted the Kellogg Briand Pact of 1928

Herbert Hoover—promoted the Stimson Doctrine of 1932

Jimmy Carter—promoted diplomacy over war, and refused to use force, except an attempt to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980

Bill Clinton—promoted diplomacy over war, and avoided commitment of troops in the Balkans in 1995 and 1998

Barack Obama—ended war in Iraq and dramatically cut military forces in Afghanistan, and avoided commitment of troops to fight terrorism in the Middle East.

For these standards and principles, the three Republican Presidents of the 1920s have been portrayed as weak and ineffective, but not only for foreign and military policy, but also domestic policy.

Many critics have portrayed Carter and Obama as weak and ineffective in foreign and military policy, as much as Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, but Bill Clinton has managed to survive some criticisms of his foreign and military policies, although now his wife Hillary Clinton is being bitterly attacked in that regard in the present competition for the Presidential Election of 2016, and some of those criticisms have started to cause a reassessment of Bill Clinton’s Presidency.

However, in the long run, the image of  the three Democratic Presidents—Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama— as Commanders In Chief, will be likely to rise as time goes by and passions cool!

 

 

Anti Immigrant (Nativist) Sentiments And The Republican Party, 1920s And 2010s: Will History Repeat Itself?

Ronald 2 Comments

In the 1920s, the Republican Party was dominant and worked to undermine immigration to the United States, which had reached record levels from 1880-1920, bringing into America millions of immigrants of Catholic and Jewish origin, as well as smaller numbers from Asia, particularly Japan.

In the early 1920s, under Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, stringent immigration laws were put into place, cutting down the so called “new” immigration of these groups, who mostly had settled in the major urban centers, and become Democratic strongholds.

The growth of these Democratic strongholds in the cities helped to bring about a Democratic majority during the Great Depression, and led to the rise of the Democratic Party as the majority party, with the Republicans seen as the party of white Anglo Saxon Protestants.

While in future generations, the Republicans would gain a percentage of about one third to 40 percent of the Jewish and Catholic vote, they never were able to appeal to these groups and gain a majority, due to their clear cut nativism.  This was a major blunder on their part, which undermined their ability to become the majority party that they had once been from the Civil War to the Great Depression.

Now in recent years, the new nativism has occurred, as the Republicans promote and advocate anti Hispanic and anti Asian propaganda, and therefore, those groups overwhelmingly support the Democrats, along with African Americans, who realize that while some Republicans supported the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s, no longer do Republicans concern themselves with the plight of African Americans.

So the new nativism is in play, and the Republicans cannot win the White House, and will have trouble retaining control of the US Senate, as long as they spew forth nativist propaganda.

The Republican Party knows they are in a bind, but with Donald Trump using anti Hispanic propaganda, and other candidates showing insensitivity toward legal immigrants and undocumented immigrants, they are definitely doomed to fail, and lose the White House for the long term, with the growing number of people of Hispanic and Asian ancestry, who are not about to vote for the party that trashes them.

Once Texas turns “Blue”, and Georgia and North Carolina eventually, and with Virginia and Florida becoming more reliably “Blue” in Presidential elections, the Electoral College will favor the Democrats.  The Republican Party, if it survives in is present form, will be doomed for many decades to be unable to win the Presidency!

Authenticity, Compassion, Experience, Great Debater And Orator: Vice President Joe Biden!

Ronald 80 Comments

The saga around Vice President Joe Biden continues, as he wrestles with the issue of whether he should run for President in 2016.

Joe Biden has tried to deal with and cope with the death of his beloved son, Beau Biden on May 30, and he has said he cannot, at this point, commit himself to the energy and the “fire in the belly” needed to run for President.

But history tells us that Abraham Lincoln and Calvin Coolidge went on with their responsibilities after losing their sons in their time in office.

Also, Joe Biden is still Vice President, and has duties and responsibilities he meets, despite his mourning of his son.

And, were anything to happen to Barack Obama, Joe Biden is a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and would have to meet his responsibilities despite his son’s death.

What if Joe Biden had decided to enter the race six months ago?  Would he have withdrawn from the race after his son’s passing?  That is hard to imagine.

Particularly now, at a time when Hillary Clinton is losing public support in polls, is the time for Joe Biden to come to the rescue of the Democratic party brand, as his chances of becoming President are far better than Bernie Sanders, who would have great trouble overcoming his “socialist” connection, even though it is no threat in reality.  But ignorant voters might think that Bernie was a “Communist”, sad to say.  So Joe Biden is the best alternative at a time when Hillary seems to be in decline!  So, “run, Joe, run”!

Joe Biden has authenticity, something voters are looking for.  He has compassion, a crucial matter at any time.  He has 44 years experience by 2016, more than ANY political leader or President or candidate in all of American history.  He is a great debater and orator, and proved his debating abilities against Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, and even was said to have done better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in 2008, although he had no way to overcome their “star” image.

And now, he is not just a young senator as in 1988, or having to compete against a former First Lady and a new Senator who had great public appeal, as in 2008. Instead, he is VICE PRESIDENT Joe Biden, considered the most active and intimately involved in decision making, and yet ready and willing to disagree with the President and keep Barack Obama’s respect and admiration!  He is beloved by millions of Americans who think he can best perpetuate the Obama legacy, while having his own independent mind and goals!

Calvin Coolidge Becomes President Upon The Death Of President Warren G. Harding In 1923

Ronald Leave a comment

Calvin Coolidge had been Vice President of the United States under Warren G. Harding for two years and five months, when, suddenly, he became the 30th President of the United States upon Harding’s death.

Coolidge also became the sixth President to succeed to the office due to the death of the incumbent President. Also, he became the second President to be elected to the office after succeeding his President in the White House.

Coolidge would serve five years and seven months in office, choosing not to run in 1928, with some thinking he sensed the Great Depression was coming, and wished to leave the Presidency at that time, to avoid having to deal with what became the worst economic collapse in the nation’s history.

Instead, his successor, Herbert Hoover, would gain the ire and hatred of millions of Americans, who would give Hoover a resounding defeat for reelection, and leading to a political transformation, with the Democratic Party, after decades of being in the “wilderness” benefiting from the Great Depression, and becoming the majority party in voter registration and loyalties.

It is now believed by many scholars that Coolidge chose to leave because of the clear cut effect of his son, Calvin, Jr’s, death in 1924, which seemed to have transformed his personality, from one of gregariousness to one of withdrawal in most public situations. Looking back now, it is amazing how Coolidge continued his run for a full term in 1924, and lasted another four years, before finally choosing to enter retirement, as the loss of his son clearly put him into a state of depression.

The effect of his son’s death, however, may also have contributed to Coolidge’s early demise, as he died after the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt over Herbert Hoover, but before Hoover left office.

Only James K. Polk, Chester Alan Arthur and Woodrow Wilson had failed to survive their successor’s term in office, other than Coolidge.