Presidential Elections

Vice Presidents Who Have Accepted Defeat Of Their Party In Electoral College Count

Ronald Leave a comment

One of the roles of the Vice President of the United States is to count and announce the Electoral College vote at the end of a Presidential term.

Every Vice President has done so, constitutionally, in modern times, even when the Vice President may have been the Presidential nominee for the next term in office.

So we have Richard Nixon in 1961, Hubert Humphrey in 1969, and Al Gore in 2001, who have played their proper role.

Also, Walter Mondale in 1981 and Dan Quayle in 1993 were on losing tickets as Vice Presidents, but played their proper role.

And Dick Cheney in 2009 and Joe Biden in 2017, both leaving office, did their duty!

Finally, after much hesitation and the intervention of Dan Quayle led Mike Pence in 2021 to do what he was required, constitutionally, to do in his role as Vice President!

Many groups and individuals, including those who are clearly conservative in nature, argue that the Electoral Count Act of 1887, enacted a decade after the disputed Presidential Election of 1876, and two close elections in 1880 and 1884, needs to be overhauled to prevent the crisis that occurred in 2021, only prevented by Mike Pence, at the last minute, following his duty, despite threats to hang him or murder him by mobs engaged in the US Capitol Insurrection on January 6, 2021!

Democrats, Popular Vote, And Economic Performance Way Ahead Of Republicans

Ronald 5 Comments

Democrats have won the national popular in seven of the last eight Presidential elections, from 1992-2020, with exception of 2004.

Democrats have had more people vote for their candidates for Congress than Republicans in the past two decades.

Democrats have only presided in the White House for one of the past eleven economic downturns, a brief recession in 1980 under President Jimmy Carter, with the other ten under Republican Presidents from Eisenhower to Trump, 1953-2021.

Under Democratic Presidents since 1961, the stock market, job growth, and economic performance have done much greater than Republican Presidents in the same period.

And yet, Democrats are at a political disadvantage, due to:

The Electoral College

Political Gerrymandering of House seats

Republicans working to undermine Democratic Presidents with the Senate Filibuster

This is why Democrats need to play “hardball”, and overcome the barriers of gerrymandering and filibusters, and move to make Washington DC and Puerto Rico the 51st and 52nd states. Also add members to the Supreme Court to overcome the political manipulation of Mitch McConnell, who helped to create a stacking of the high Court with the refusal to approve Merrick Garland in 2016, the rightful nominee of Barack Obama; and the “ram through” of Amy Coney Barrett in record time before the Presidential Election of 2020!

Demographic Changes Dooming The Republican Party Future

Ronald 2 Comments

The Republican Party has lost the popular vote in seven of the last eight Presidential elections, ever since 1992, except for 2004.

The suburbs, and particularly suburban women, are leaving the Republican Party in droves, and racial minorities are increasing rapidly as part of the voting population, despite attempts to suppress it.

At the rate the situation is changing, once Texas goes to the Democrats in the race for the White House, likely in 2024, but certainly in 2028, the Republican Party will never be able to win the Presidency again without changing their views.

The Republican Party must stop its anti immigrant and racist and misogynist policies, as white male America, much of it rural in nature and non college educated, is not the future of the nation.

So demography, along with education affecting the future, rapidly changing before our eyes, America will never be what it was a half century or more ago!

Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, And New Mexico: The Five Most Predictable States In Presidential Elections In American History

Ronald 10 Comments

Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico have been the five most predictable states in Presidential elections in American history.

Ohio has participated in 54 of the 58 Presidential elections in American history since 1804.

It has often been said that Ohio is the “crucial” state in the quadrennial election process, and that is so true.

No state has had the impact of Ohio, and particularly, due to the fact that Ohio has participated in more elections than all states except the original 13 states, plus Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee, and none of those have been as “predictable” in backing the winners of the election.

Altogether, Ohio has been “correct” in backing the winner all but 9 times, a total of 45 out of 54 times, or 83.3 percent of the time.

The exceptions are the following chronologically:

1824–Henry Clay over John Quincy Adams

1836–William Henry Harrison over Martin Van Buren

1844–Henry Clay over James K. Polk

1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor

1856–John C. Fremont over James Buchanan

1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland

1892–Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland

1944–Thomas E. Dewey over Franklin D. Roosevelt

1960–Richard Nixon over John F. Kennedy

Illinois is the second most predictable states, having voted since 1820 for the winner all but 9 times in 50 elections, for a percentage of 82 percent.

The exceptions chronologically are:

1824–Andrew Jackson over John Quincy Adams

1840–Martin Van Buren over William Henry Harrison

1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor

1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland

1916–Charles Evans Hughes over Woodrow Wilson

1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter

2000–Al Gore over George W. Bush

2004–John Kerry over George W. Bush

2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Note that Illinois voted for the popular vote winner in 1824, 2000 and 2016.

Missouri is the third most “predictable” state, coming into the Union in time for the Presidential election of 1820, so having voted in a total of 50 of the 58 national elections, and being with the winner 37 out of 50 times, or about 74 percent of the time.

The exceptions chronologically are as follows:

1824–Henry Clay over John Quincy Adams

1840– Martin Van Buren over William Henry Harrison

1848–Lewis Cass over Zachary Taylor

1860–Stephen Douglas over Abraham Lincoln

1872–Horace Greeley over Ulysses S. Grant

1876–Samuel Tilden over Rutherford B. Hayes

1880–Winfield Scott Hancock over James A. Garfield

1888–Grover Cleveland over Benjamin Harrison

1896–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley

1900–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley

1956–Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower

2008–John McCain over Barack Obama

2012–Mitt Romney over Barack Obama

Note that Missouri voted with the popular vote winner in 1888.

Two other states also have a high consistency rate of accuracy voting for the winner of Presidential elections, but have fewer times of participation in Presidential elections.

Nevada voted for the winner 31 out of 39 times since 1864, 79.5 percent of the time, with the exceptions chronologically as follows:

1880–Winfield Scott Hancock over James A. Garfield

1884–James G. Blaine over Grover Cleveland

1892–James B. Weaver over Grover Cleveland

1896–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley

1900–William Jennings Bryan over William McKinley

1908–William Jennings Bryan over William Howard Taft

1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter

2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Note that Nevada voted with the popular vote winner in 2016.

Finally, New Mexico, in the Union since 1912, and therefore participating in 27 elections for President, has voted with the winner all but three times, 88.8 percent of the time, the exceptions being:

1976–Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter

2000-Al Gore over George W. Bush

2016–Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump

Note that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton both won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College to their opponents.

Trump Reversal Of Cuban Policy Of Obama A Massive Blunder And Sign Of Total Hypocrisy!

Ronald Leave a comment

Donald Trump is continuing his mission of destroying the Obama legacy in every way possible.

So now, in Miami, and to appease Marco Rubio and the Diaz Balarts (one of whom is a Congressman), he has reversed Barack Obama’s policy of ending the embargo on Cuba, which failed for 57 years.

So now it will be more difficult for Americans to travel to Cuba, and business dealings designed to open up Cuban society after six decades of isolation will be curbed.

Ironically, this massive blunder and sign of total hypocrisy comes after the death of Fidel Castro, and the planned retirement of Raul Castro early in 2018.

This is precisely the time to work to open up Cuba, but the effect will be more Russian and Chinese intervention in economic terms in the island nation.

And to think we almost went to war in 1962 over Russian intervention in Cuba, and now we are promoting it by our narrow minded, outdated policy toward the Cuban regime.

Having isolated them for nearly six decades did NOT make Cuba a democracy, and doing that now will not help to democratize Cuba as much as interaction and influence.

We have people who condemn Cuba’s government because of violation of human rights, and in that, we all concur, BUT somehow, we have dealings and business with many nations that systematically violate human rights, including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, the Philippines, and innumerable others.

But an island 90 miles from the Florida Keys is too full of sin, apparently, that we spite ourselves, and deny Cuban Americans free access to their relatives and heritage in their home nation, all because of extremist right wing Cubans in America who have no concern about human rights, but only about their desire to take back property confiscated at the time of the Cuban Revolution.

Yes, that is an outrage, but after six decades, and looking at victims of despotic governments elsewhere, the only reason for such intransigence by our government toward Cuba is because of the political significance of Florida in the Congress and in Presidential elections.

Why, for instance, do we say nothing about violations of human rights on a much wider scale, and instead embrace such a brutal government as Saudi Arabia, from where the September 11 hijackers came from?

How does Cuba affect national security, when Russia and Saudi Arabia and China in particular do so, and yet we treat them as nations we are willing to work with?

The Growing Democratic Party Suburbs: The Death Knell Of The Republican Party!

Ronald 1 Comment

Traditional views of American politics tell us that the cities, the urban areas, are overwhelmingly Democratic in loyalty; that the suburbs, which blossomed after World War II, are Republican, as people escape the city and urban problems, and are heavily white; and that the exurbs, those areas much further away from the cities, are Republican, along with the widespread land we consider rural areas.

So as long as the Republican Party wins the suburbs, the exurbs, and the rural areas,a they can be competitive and win national elections.

But it is now apparent by statistics that the suburbs are rapidly turning Democratic, as they have become no longer white “flight” havens, but instead have become a mix of Americans of all races and religions and cultures, and sadly, poverty has come to the suburbs, in some ways almost as badly as in the cities, due to the Great Recession.

The Republican refusal to accept that poverty is not the fault of citizens, but of circumstance, and rejection of the concept that everyone should be entitled to health care, is having a long range effect on Americans living in the suburbs.

It is not just economic factors, but also social factors, such as the issues of gay marriage, abortion rights, labor rights, concern about the environment, education, and the recognition of the need to adjust to a changing American society, which is also helping the Democrats, as the Republicans come across as mean spirited, biased, prejudiced, uncaring about anyone except the wealthy, and refusing to recognize the demographic changes that have developed in suburbs, as well as the cities.

So a political party that thinks it can survive and prosper on the basis of winning the exurbs and the rural areas is a party in total denial, as while there are massive land areas where these people live, the percentages of population living in those areas is miniscule, compared to the larger population numbers in the suburbs, as well as the cities.

While many Congressional districts can be gerrymandered and give the Republicans greater influence than they should rightfully have in the House of Representatives, their agenda and public persona of their leadership insures that the cities and the suburbs will be majority Democratic for a long time, giving the Presidency and the Senate to the Democrats. In the long run, this guarantees that the future Supreme Court , and even the lower courts, will be heavily influenced by Democratic Presidential appointments, which are considered and approved by the Senate, where Democrats need to fight to keep control so that they can promote the agenda of Democratic Presidents, and resist a Republican House majority based on artificial conditions, that can eventually be turned over to a Democratic Party majority over time.

Multiple Times On National Ballot Of Presidents, And Total Popular Vote Combined!

Ronald Leave a comment

The question arises as to how many times a candidate has been on the Presidential ballot in American history, and how many total popular votes any President has received historically.

The all time record for times on the Presidential ticket, either for President or Vice President, is shared by:

Franklin D. Roosevelt–five times–1920, 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944
Richard Nixon–five times—1952, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972.

John Adams was on the ballot four times–1789, 1792, 1796, 1800.

Martin Van Buren was also on the ballot four times—1832, 1836, 1840, 1848.

George H. W. Bush was also on the ballot four times–1980, 1984, 1988, 1992.

Others who have been on the ballot three times include:

Thomas Jefferson–1796, 1800, 1804
Andrew Jackson–1824, 1828, 1832
Grover Cleveland–1884, 1888, 1892
Theodore Roosevelt–1900, 1904, 1912

Additionally, several Presidential nominees who lost were on the ballot multiple times:

Henry Clay—1824, 1832, 1844
William Jennings Bryan–1896, 1900, 1908

And which President had the MOST popular votes in total for all of the elections that he was on the ballot for either President or Vice President?

One would assume Franklin D. Roosevelt or Richard Nixon, who were on the ballot more times than anyone.

Realizing there was no counted popular vote for John Adams, and a small population for Martin Van Buren’s time, the only other candidate for the most total popular votes, of these three people who were on the ballot four times, would be George H. W. Bush.

So which one of these choices—FDR, Nixon or Bush I has the distinction of the most total popular votes in American history?

The answer is, surprisingly to many, George H. W. Bush who benefited from the massive reelection victory of Ronald Reagan in 1984, followed by Nixon and FDR, realizing far fewer people were voting in the time of FDR, and more so for Nixon, but fewer in his time than in the 1980s and early 1990s, when Bush was running for national office.

So the totals for Bush were, in round numbers, a total of 192 million popular votes in two elections where he ran for Vice President, and two for President.

Richard Nixon was next, with 182 million popular votes in two elections where he ran for Vice President, and three for President.

And finally, Franklin D. Roosevelt is third, with 112 million popular votes in one election where he ran for Vice President, and four for President.

The Republican Delusion That They Can Win The Presidency And Majority Status Just By Having More Whites Voting!

Ronald 6 Comments

The Republican Party is truly delusional in their belief that they can win the Presidency and majority status in the future as long as they can convince more whites to vote, than did so in the Presidential Election of 2012.

With the percentage of whites in the population declining, and with the reality that it will continue to decline, this is a losing strategy in so many ways.

Not all whites would vote Republican, even in the South and Great Plains and Mountain West, GOP strongholds, and certainly NOT in the Northeast, New England, Midwest, and Pacific Coast, and in parts of the Mountain West.

Not all whites would wish to back the right wing policies of Republicans toward women, minorities, labor, and on other issues, such as the environment and science.

Not all whites would endorse the social conservatism of the religious right, particularly with a decline in religiosity among younger whites and voters generally.

A majority of whites who vote Republican are old, and once they pass the scene, many younger whites will have a greater influence on elections, and combined with those who are social liberals, female, and minority background, will NEVER vote Republican because they know that the Republicans are trying to ignore them, if not undermining their right to vote!

With their backward, regressive, vindictive policies toward the middle class and the poor, along with their anti women, anti labor, anti environment, anti minority viewpoints, the GOP will insure that they will be dinosaurs, looked back upon as a historical curiosity as to the issue of how they self destructed despite many warnings as to their self suicide by refusal to adapt!

Second Obama Term More An Accomplishment Than First Term Election

Ronald Leave a comment

As great an accomplishment as the first term victory of Barack Obama was, the election of the first African American President, one could always have naysayers who would claim that it was a mistake, an emotional action, a reaction to difficult times, an experiment, a fluke.

But the fact that Barack Obama has now won a second term, and both times by a majority of the popular vote, and in the midst of the highest unemployment for a sitting President running for reelection since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, and with the tremendous polarization that sadly exists in America as the second inauguration looms, it cannot be said that Obama being President fits any of the descriptions listed above.

America is indeed divided, the most since 1879 in Congress, it has been stated, but again, Obama has won the majority of the popular vote twice now, and has won a majority of states twice, and has won most of the heavily populated states as well, with the major exception of Texas.

So this inauguration is something to celebrate more than even the first one, and while many will be unhappy, that is actually not all that uncommon, particularly considering how many times a President has been elected by fewer than a majority of popular votes, including in the past half century, the following: John F. Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and George W. Bush in 2000–five times out of 13 elections.

So it is time to celebrate American democracy!

Barack Obama Joins Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, And Ronald Reagan In Major Accomplishment!

Ronald 2 Comments

President Barack Obama joins three other Presidents in the past century in a major accomplishment.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the last Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote in two consecutive elections.

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan are the two other Presidents, both Republican, who have accomplished that same goal.

So now Barack Obama joins that exclusive fraternity, and since the other three are put into the top ten of all Presidents in American history in most polls, the odds of Barack Obama ending up there eventually are greatly improved.

Imagine this accomplishment, and it is a marvelous extra dividend for the historical record and significance of Barack Obama!