Presidential Election Of 1876

The Closest Presidential Elections In American History

Ronald Leave a comment

The closest Presidential Elections in American history would be the following in chronological order since the introduction of popular vote in 1824:

Presidential Election of 1824—Andrew Jackson vs John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and William Crawford

Presidential Election of 1876–Rutherford B. Hayes vs Samuel Tilden

Presidential Election of 1880–James A. Garfield vs Winfield Scott Hancock

Presidential Election of 1884–Grover Cleveland vs James G. Blaine

Presidential Election Of 1888–Benjamin Harrison vs Grover Cleveland

Presidential Election of 1892–Grover Cleveland vs Benjamin Harrison, James Weaver

Presidential Election of 1916–Woodrow Wilson vs Charles Evans Hughes

Presidential Election Of 1960–John F. Kennedy vs Richard Nixon

Presidential Election of 1976–Jimmy Carter vs Gerald Ford

Presidential Election of 2000–George W. Bush vs Al Gore, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan

Presidential Election of 2004–George W. Bush vs John Kerry

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

Donald Trump Accusations Of “Rigging” And “Voter Fraud” Are Preposterous, Based On History

Ronald 5 Comments

Donald Trump is setting up a situation where he will claim “rigging” and “voter fraud”, that he plans to use as an excuse to refuse to concede when he loses the Presidency three weeks from now.

IF the election ends up close, this will cause a constitutional crisis, and promote the illegitimacy of Hillary Clinton to be in the White House.

This has never occurred in American history, as the loser, even when angry and frustrated, has always conceded to the winner of the election. This includes such example as the Presidential Elections of 1824, 1860, 1876, 1888, 1916, 1960, and 2000 as great examples.

A study of voter fraud as an issue shows over many years, and many elections, only 31 reported accusations out of one billion votes, so the whole idea that a national election, with 51 separate states and the District of Columbia having jurisdiction, could bring about a fraudulent election, is preposterous on its face.

We have to hope that Donald Trump suffers such a massive defeat that any such claim would have no basis or legitimacy in any form or fashion.

It would make the second straight President (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) that would have been declared illegitimate by Donald Trump.

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!

The Myth That The Election Victory Of Hillary Clinton Is Narrowing: The Misunderstanding Of The Electoral College As Against Polls

Ronald 11 Comments

It is amazing to this author and blogger that so many Americans seem to think that the election victory of Hillary Clinton is narrowing, according to some public opinion polls.

There is a failure to understand that news media have an investment in building up that there is a real battle between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, when there is absolutely no realistic chance for Donald Trump to overcome the deficits that he has created for himself over the past 15 months.

The point to be made is that it is the Electoral College and 270 electoral votes that elects our President, and in fact, as George W. Bush reminded us, a candidate can actually lose the national popular vote and still be elected President, as happened in 2000, and also in 1824, 1876, and 1888.

There are 18 “Blue” states and the District of Columbia, which have voted Democratic from 1992 on, and are not about to change. But even if Pennsylvania and Wisconsin somehow surprised us, which is not going to happen in the real world, Hillary Clinton is presently ahead in all of the “Swing” states that Barack Obama won, plus she is even or slightly ahead in a number of “Red” states.

If she wins the likely 242 from the 18 states and DC, all Hillary needs is Florida OR Ohio and Virginia OR a combination of other “Swing” or “Red” states, the latter including, possibly North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah, Montana, South Carolina, and even in new polls the states of Texas and Mississippi, and even possibly one vote in Nebraska in the Omaha area, since Nebraska, along with Maine, allows splitting of electoral votes.

To believe that Hillary will somehow lose is totally preposterous, while it can be said that IF the Republican Party had nominated John Kasich, or even possibly, Jeb Bush, all bets would have been off.

And while Gary Johnson will have some effect in some states, the Libertarian nominee is not going to be the spoiler he thought he would be.

And the Green Party and Jill Stein—just forget it, not worth one’s time and attention!

CNN Reminds Us Of “The Endless Election” Tonight At 9 PM

Ronald Leave a comment

CNN tonight will have an hour presentation, reminding us of the Presidential Election of 2000, entitled “The Endless Election”.

Many Americans, younger than college age students, have no real memory or knowledge of this transformative election, in which, for the fourth time in American history, the loser of the national popular vote won the Electoral College and the Presidency.

George W. Bush joined John Quincy Adams in the Presidential Election of 1824; Rutherford B. Hayes in the Presidential Election of 1876; and Benjamin Harrison in the Presidential Election of 1888, in that unique circumstance and quirk of the Electoral College system set up by the Founding Fathers at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Bush turned out be a major disaster in many ways, including the September 11, 2001 attacks; the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003; Hurricane Katrina in 2005; and the Great  Recession of 2008-2009.

No one is saying all of these tragedies would have been avoided with a President Al Gore, but most observers agree that Bush will rank in the bottom ten of all Presidents for the long run.

The idea that “hanging chads” in Florida would cause a 36 day election crisis, until the Supreme Court controversially intervened on a straight party line vote to grant Bush the win in Florida by 537 popular votes, still is upsetting to many, and one has to wonder how the Al Gore contribution to the Presidency would have changed history, and affected America long term!

Third Term Presidents: The Truth And The Historical “Might Have Beens”!

Ronald Leave a comment

Anyone who studies American history knows that the 22nd Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1951, prevents any future President from serving more than two complete terms by election or a total of ten years by succession in the last two years of the Presidential term.

Only Franklin D. Roosevelt served more than eight years in the Presidency, a total of 12 years and 39 days, having been elected four times (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), and this fact causing the opposition Republicans, when they controlled the 80th Congress in 1947-48, to pass the 22nd Amendment in 1947, and send it on to the state legislatures for ratification.

However, Ulysses S. Grant in 1876; Theodore Roosevelt in reality in 1912 as a third party (Progressive Bull Moose) candidate; Woodrow Wilson in 1920; and Harry Truman in 1952 considered a third term.

Additionally, it is clear that Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960, Ronald Reagan in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 2000 would have won a third term if it had been allowed and they had agreed to seek it , with George H. W. Bush being the beneficiary of Reagan in 1988, and Al Gore being the beneficiary of Clinton in 2000, winning a larger margin of popular vote victory than any of the four cases of popular vote victory but Electoral College loss!

Also, if one considers popular vote victories of Andrew Jackson in 1824 and Grover Cleveland in 1888, but in each case losing the Electoral College, that could have meant three terms for Jackson (1824, 1828, 1832) and for Cleveland (1884, 1888, 1892)!

So if things had been different, instead of only FDR having a third and fourth term, we could have had Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton having third terms in the Presidency!

Nine Presidential Nominees Who Lost In Very Close Races To Their Opponents

Ronald 1 Comment

It is not generally known that we have had several Presidential candidates who lost the Presidency in very close races, where one could note that a small switch of votes would have changed the result, with five such cases in American history. And some Presidential candidates have lost despite winning the national popular vote, with four such cases in American history. So therefore, nine elections saw these scenarios.

Andrew Jackson lost the Election of 1824 to John Quincy Adams despite winning the national popular vote by about 45,000.

Henry Clay lost the Election of 1844 to James K. Polk by losing New York State by about 5,000 votes.

Samuel Tilden lost the Election of 1876 to Rutherford B. Hayes despite winning the national popular vote by about 250,000.

James G. Blaine lost the Election of 1884 to Grover Cleveland by losing New York State by about 1,000 votes.

Grover Cleveland lost the Election of 1888 to Benjamin Harrison despite winning the national popular vote by about 100,000.

Charles Evans Hughes lost the Election of 1916 to Woodrow Wilson by losing California by about 3,800 votes.

Richard Nixon lost the Election of 1960 to John F. Kennedy by losing the state of Illinois by about 8,000 votes.

Gerald Ford lost the Election of 1976 to Jimmy Carter by losing the state of Ohio by 5,600 votes and the state of Hawaii by 3,700 votes.

Al Gore lost the Election of 2000 to George W. Bush despite winning the national popular vote by 540,000, and by losing the state of Florida by 537 votes.

Of course, Jackson, Cleveland, and Nixon went on to win the next national election in each case, and Ford, although never being elected, had the satisfaction of having been President for almost two and a half years.

Tilden and Gore were the most tragic cases, as they never ran again for President, and yet had won the national popular vote in each case.

Henry Clay and Charles Evans Hughes were exceptional public servants in so many ways, but would never be President.

Finally, James G. Blaine losing was probably good, as he was regarded as the most corrupt national candidate in American history!

Supreme Court Bitterly Divided Over Possible Curbing Of Voting Rights Act: A Repeat Of The Compromise Of 1877 Abandonment Of African Americans!

Ronald 6 Comments

It is clear that the Supreme Court is bitterly divided over the Voting Rights Act, which is hanging in the balance after the oral arguments this week, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan strongly challenging Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the act was a “racial entitlement”, which demonstrates that Scalia has no understanding of the history of the denial of voting rights, and the need to continue to monitor what those states that have discriminated are now doing.

The Republican Party abandoned African Americans on this day in 1877, when they agreed to the Compromise of 1877, making their candidate for President, Rutherford B. Hayes President, despite the clear cut lead of Democrat Samuel Tilden in popular votes. Part of the deal was for the GOP to stop being the party that had advanced civil rights through two laws during Reconstruction, the creation of the Freedmen’s Bureau, and the passage of three amendments to the Constitution.

The southern states went ahead and continued a policy of discrimination for the next ninety years on voting, and imposing Jim Crow segregation, and the GOP, the majority party until 1932, did nothing about it, due to the deal set up in the Compromise of 1877.

After ninety years, finally, voting rights, supposedly guaranteed under the 15th Amendment, but not enforced, were restored under the Voting Rights Act, but not before civil rights marchers were beaten up, such as Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, and others slaughtered in the name of promoting civil rights in the South.

But along comes Antonin Scalia, who conveniently forgets that even Jews, and also Italians such as himself, were lynched in the South in the near century in which African Americans were denied their basic rights, including voting.

And he wants the Court to become “activist”, when that is precisely what conservatives claim they hate about the Supreme Court. And so therefore, to hell with the overwhelming vote of the Congress to extend the Voting Rights act in 2006, and let’s wipe out all progress and return us to the states “deciding” if any group can vote, instead of “guaranteeing” the right to vote, the basic element of democracy!

So just as the Compromise of 1877 brought us a President who had NOT won the popular vote, and followed through on taking the GOP out of its civil rights activism, so now, two appointments of another President, George W. Bush, not elected by popular vote, and instead put in by a partisan Republican Court including Scalia, shall repeat history and deny Africans Americans the guarantee of the right to vote granted in the 15th Amendment in 1870!

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!