Unusual Presidential Elections

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm well aware about East St Louis... problems. That's why I said it.

So it is true: you Americans don't have a sence of irony

[Ryan]

Why I took it as an honest and reasonable suggestion. I was just gonna forward it to the DNC.
And every day after the convention (so after dusk) the democratic senators and representatives should take a stroll through the streets to reconnect with the base. Now that would be good Democracy

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...And the RNC could go to that sh**t hole in Kansas where people are arrested for NOT having a gun...

[WONK]

I read that too, about the town where you get fined $10 if you don't have a gun....BIZARRE...I was thinking rather than an E St. Louis convention, how about an outdoor convention in the Sunni Triangle of Iraq.

[jravnsbo]

The Dem convention in MA , has already backfired.  It seemed at the time they picked AM as Kerry was going to be the party's guy and now he has fallen flat.  PLus this new Gay marriage ruling from MA will be talked about while the Dems are in Boston and lastly all the reminders of NE Liberals and MA and Dukakis will come to bear.

I thought at the time the Dems should have picked a city in a more competitive state.  MA is almosta  Dem lock, heck they even voted for McGovern!

Personally, I think the Republicans using New York as their convention city in order to exploit the 9-11 issue is going to backfire on them.  But the only thing we can do is wait and see.  

Meanwhile I'll be watching the Democratic convention in Boston.

 

[jaichind]

For me a bizzare election would be 1916.  Charles Hughes came withing about 2000 votes of winning California and the entire election.  Hughes swept most of the Northeast and Midwest and when he went to bed on election night he was assured that count in California had him ahead and he could win in several other Western states.  In other words, he went to bed thinking he beat Wilson and was the next President of the USA.  He woke up to discover that he only carried Oregon in the West and lost the election to Wilson by just 23 EV.  Other than 1876 and 2000 this was the closest race in USA history.

Also, invert the results in 1916 for Ohio, Maryland, West Virgina, Washington, California, South Dakata, and Indiana.  It would be an exactly mirror image of 2000 with the Democrats and Republicans inverted.   New Hampshire was also very close in 1916 just like 2000.  Wilson won by 50 some votes.  

 

[jravnsbo]

Don't forget 1960 for closest elections.  Isn't it like one vote per precint would have given it to Nixon?

  Plus a few more live people in Chicago, St Louis and texas, but another story.  

[NorthernDog]

For me a bizzare election would be 1916.  Charles Hughes came withing about 2000 votes of winning California and the entire election.  

I vaguley remember hearing that a freak storm in the  Republican area of nothern CA kept the vote totals down.  I wonder what would happen if an earthquake disrupted an election?  There's no provision to re-schedule a general election!

[jravnsbo]

What would happen, a lot of Cali liberals would be crying unfair! God is even against us! LOL

[Gustaf]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was pretty bad. Also, it was a period when republicans dominated presidential elections, Carter won narrowly in the aftermatn of Watergate. And Reagan was a great politician, no matter what you think of his political views, he was able to get the voters on his side.

[dazzleman]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was absolutely dreadful, although not all the problems he faced were of his making.

During Carter's presidency, the country endured double digit inflation, acute shortages of gasoline, the taking of American hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter projected weakness and uncertainty in dealing with these problems.  Certainly, he inherited stagflation from his predecessors, a condition with roots going all the way back to the Johnson administration, and clearly contributed to by Nixon's manipulative economic policies and the power of OPEC to severely increase the price of oil.  So the economic problems of Carter's term were not all his fault, although it could be said that he didn't deal with them all that well.

On foreign policy, he began his term by saying, at the height of the Cold War, and at the US' weakest point in the Cold War, that we should get over our inordinate fear of communism.  Soviet adventurism accelerated during his term in office, raising great alarm about the security of the US, culminating in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter was generally tougher on our friends than enemies when it came to his vauted human rights policy, something that may have contributed to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.  This event had catastrophic political consequences for Carter, with the taking of the hostage by the militant Islamic government that replaced the Shah.  Carter effectively ceded all initiative in the hostage crisis to the Iranians, making himself a virtual hostage in the White House until they were released, which they were just as he left office.

For somebody who was not around at that time, it's hard to explain the mood of gloom and anxiety that pervaded the country under Carter.  People voted for Reagan because he gave them some hope, any hope, for something better.  And that's usually what elections are about -- who gives people a more optimistic view of the future.  And Carter lost that, hands down.

[Gustaf]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was absolutely dreadful, although not all the problems he faced were of his making.

During Carter's presidency, the country endured double digit inflation, acute shortages of gasoline, the taking of American hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter projected weakness and uncertainty in dealing with these problems.  Certainly, he inherited stagflation from his predecessors, a condition with roots going all the way back to the Johnson administration, and clearly contributed to by Nixon's manipulative economic policies and the power of OPEC to severely increase the price of oil.  So the economic problems of Carter's term were not all his fault, although it could be said that he didn't deal with them all that well.

On foreign policy, he began his term by saying, at the height of the Cold War, and at the US' weakest point in the Cold War, that we should get over our inordinate fear of communism.  Soviet adventurism accelerated during his term in office, raising great alarm about the security of the US, culminating in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter was generally tougher on our friends than enemies when it came to his vauted human rights policy, something that may have contributed to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran.  This event had catastrophic political consequences for Carter, with the taking of the hostage by the militant Islamic government that replaced the Shah.  Carter effectively ceded all initiative in the hostage crisis to the Iranians, making himself a virtual hostage in the White House until they were released, which they were just as he left office.

For somebody who was not around at that time, it's hard to explain the mood of gloom and anxiety that pervaded the country under Carter.  People voted for Reagan because he gave them some hope, any hope, for something better.  And that's usually what elections are about -- who gives people a more optimistic view of the future.  And Carter lost that, hands down.

There is a pretty good novel by Frederick Forsythe, The Devil's Alternative, in which the world is almost brought to nuclear war, b/c Soviet extremists are confident that Carter is too weak to strike back.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was absolutely dreadful, although not all the problems he faced were of his making.

During Carter's presidency, the country endured double digit inflation, acute shortages of gasoline, the taking of American hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter projected weakness and uncertainty in dealing with these problems.  Certainly, he inherited stagflation from his predecessors, a condition with roots going all the way back to the Johnson administration, and clearly contributed to by Nixon's manipulative economic policies and the power of OPEC to severely increase the price of oil.  So the economic problems of Carter's term were not all his fault, although it could be said that he didn't deal with them all that well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

[dazzleman]

The strategy of bankrupting the Soviet Union was actually Reagan's.  His successful plan was to force them to respond to the US weapon's buildup, and therefore destroy their economy.

Carter did unwittingly contribute to the unraveling of the Soviet Union through his human rights policy.  He helped to spread the seed of separatism through the Muslim republics, and created fear about their own internal stability among the paranoid Soviet leadership.  Since these were conquered people who had not joined the union voluntarily at any point, they had good reason to fear.

The Helsinki Accords, which many conservatives including Ronald Reagan derided, also played a role in the unraveling of the Soviet empire.  The official placement of human rights in a document that the Soviets signed, whatever their cynical intentions were about honoring their agreement, led to a sprouting of independence movements in the captive nations, such as Solidarity in Poland.

President Ford, not Carter, signed the Helsinki Accords, but Carter made use of the Helsinki Accords to pressure the Soviets about human rights.

So I think that Carter needs to be given some credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He also helped stabilize the middle east to a degree by negotiating the peace treaty between Eqypt and Israel.  He had solid accomplishments, but I think that a lot of instincts for dealing with the nation's problems were not the correct ones.  Nothing is all black or all white.

[Gustaf]

The strategy of bankrupting the Soviet Union was actually Reagan's.  His successful plan was to force them to respond to the US weapon's buildup, and therefore destroy their economy.

Carter did unwittingly contribute to the unraveling of the Soviet Union through his human rights policy.  He helped to spread the seed of separatism through the Muslim republics, and created fear about their own internal stability among the paranoid Soviet leadership.  Since these were conquered people who had not joined the union voluntarily at any point, they had good reason to fear.

The Helsinki Accords, which many conservatives including Ronald Reagan derided, also played a role in the unraveling of the Soviet empire.  The official placement of human rights in a document that the Soviets signed, whatever their cynical intentions were about honoring their agreement, led to a sprouting of independence movements in the captive nations, such as Solidarity in Poland.

President Ford, not Carter, signed the Helsinki Accords, but Carter made use of the Helsinki Accords to pressure the Soviets about human rights.

So I think that Carter needs to be given some credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He also helped stabilize the middle east to a degree by negotiating the peace treaty between Eqypt and Israel.  He had solid accomplishments, but I think that a lot of instincts for dealing with the nation's problems were not the correct ones.  Nothing is all black or all white.

Hear, hear. Just out of curiosity, can anyone be said to have joined the Soviet Union voluntarily??

[© tweed]

Why did Regan win in 1980? Carter couldnt have be as bad as they say.

Carter was absolutely dreadful, although not all the problems he faced were of his making.

During Carter's presidency, the country endured double digit inflation, acute shortages of gasoline, the taking of American hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter projected weakness and uncertainty in dealing with these problems.  Certainly, he inherited stagflation from his predecessors, a condition with roots going all the way back to the Johnson administration, and clearly contributed to by Nixon's manipulative economic policies and the power of OPEC to severely increase the price of oil.  So the economic problems of Carter's term were not all his fault, although it could be said that he didn't deal with them all that well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote]
[/quote]
Huh?

[dazzleman]

Hear, hear. Just out of curiosity, can anyone be said to have joined the Soviet Union voluntarily??

I don't think so.  The Baltic states were occupied militarily, as were the caucasus states and the muslim republics.  I think it was basically Russia forcibly conquering those other "republics."

[dazzleman]

Speaking of unusual elections, what is everybody's take on the 1948 election?

Not only was Truman not particularly popular going into the election, but his base was split not once but twice.  First, Henry Wallace, the former Roosevelt VP who would have been president had he not been forced off the 1944 ticket, ran against Truman as a progressive, on a platform urging accomdation with the Soviet Union rather than Truman's containment and cold war policies.

Then, the Dixiecrats broke with Truman over his support for civil rights for blacks.  At that time, it was considered impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency without the "solid south," a similar position to what the Republicans are in today.

And yet Truman won anyway.  I guess it helped that Wallace won no electoral votes, but he probably cost Truman New York state anyway.  And Strom Thurmond won several southern states as the Dixiecrat candidate.

This election did have the effect of actually hastening civil rights reforms, because once the Democrats saw that they could actually win without the whole south, they became more courageous about advocating equal rights for blacks.

I have always been a fan of Truman because he had the 'nads to revolutionize US foreign policy and he set up a national security structure that exists to this day.  He showed tremendous courage in urging permanent world involvement to a nation used to minding its own business unless attacked, and took the first step to save the world from Soviet tyranny.  I also admired his desire to move the country in the direction of fair treatment of blacks.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how Truman pulled off this victory against such great odds?

[Gustaf]

Speaking of unusual elections, what is everybody's take on the 1948 election?

Not only was Truman not particularly popular going into the election, but his base was split not once but twice.  First, Henry Wallace, the former Roosevelt VP who would have been president had he not been forced off the 1944 ticket, ran against Truman as a progressive, on a platform urging accomdation with the Soviet Union rather than Truman's containment and cold war policies.

Then, the Dixiecrats broke with Truman over his support for civil rights for blacks.  At that time, it was considered impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency without the "solid south," a similar position to what the Republicans are in today.

And yet Truman won anyway.  I guess it helped that Wallace won no electoral votes, but he probably cost Truman New York state anyway.  And Strom Thurmond won several southern states as the Dixiecrat candidate.

This election did have the effect of actually hastening civil rights reforms, because once the Democrats saw that they could actually win without the whole south, they became more courageous about advocating equal rights for blacks.

I have always been a fan of Truman because he had the 'nads to revolutionize US foreign policy and he set up a national security structure that exists to this day.  He showed tremendous courage in urging permanent world involvement to a nation used to minding its own business unless attacked, and took the first step to save the world from Soviet tyranny.  I also admired his desire to move the country in the direction of fair treatment of blacks.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how Truman pulled off this victory against such great odds?

No, but I agree that Truman was a great president.

[Gustaf]

Speaking of unusual elections, what is everybody's take on the 1948 election?

Not only was Truman not particularly popular going into the election, but his base was split not once but twice.  First, Henry Wallace, the former Roosevelt VP who would have been president had he not been forced off the 1944 ticket, ran against Truman as a progressive, on a platform urging accomdation with the Soviet Union rather than Truman's containment and cold war policies.

Then, the Dixiecrats broke with Truman over his support for civil rights for blacks.  At that time, it was considered impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency without the "solid south," a similar position to what the Republicans are in today.

And yet Truman won anyway.  I guess it helped that Wallace won no electoral votes, but he probably cost Truman New York state anyway.  And Strom Thurmond won several southern states as the Dixiecrat candidate.

This election did have the effect of actually hastening civil rights reforms, because once the Democrats saw that they could actually win without the whole south, they became more courageous about advocating equal rights for blacks.

I have always been a fan of Truman because he had the 'nads to revolutionize US foreign policy and he set up a national security structure that exists to this day.  He showed tremendous courage in urging permanent world involvement to a nation used to minding its own business unless attacked, and took the first step to save the world from Soviet tyranny.  I also admired his desire to move the country in the direction of fair treatment of blacks.

Does anybody have any thoughts on how Truman pulled off this victory against such great odds?

Btw, I know one of Henry Wallace's descendants who is living in Sweden. From what I have heard he has something against Truman!

[zorkpolitics]

Two comments on 1948
1) When Truman proposed Civil Rights it was an incredibly anti-political move, a Gallop Poll after his announcement of support for a comprehensive Civil Rights Legislation was opposed by 91% of the American Public, that included nearly 50% of the minority population!
2)  Truman won by running a campaign of exaggeration verging on demagoguery.  He painted Dewey as anti-working man, anti-farmer, anti-elderly, anti-New deal, and pro-rich fat cats,  when in fact Dewey was a liberal Republican.  Dewey refused to partake of this "class warfare" preferring to promise to improve the economy to benefit everyone.  Truman's fiery attacks (shall we say Dean-like?) hit a responsive nerve leading to his victory.  Though he won by  2 million votes, a shift of 12,000 votes in CA and OH would have thrown the election into the House.

See Truman -- by David McCullough

[dazzleman]

A while back, I read an analysis that stated that Truman's support of civil rights actually benefited him politically despite his loss of several states in the south to Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats.  I wish I could remember where I saw it and dig it up again.

I agree that there was a lot of demagoguery in what Truman said.  I also think that he was basically an economic illiterate.  His main economic proposals seem to have been wage and price control, high tax rates on higher income earners, rent control, government subsidized housing, .... you get the picture.

Luckily, Congress didn't pass most of his economic proposals, so the country prospered economically despite his left-leaning direction in economic affairs.

What really stands out about his presidency is his leadership in foreign affairs.  He went far beyond where Roosevelt had contemplated in confronting the Soviet Union and keeping the US engaged in world affairs after the war.

[NorthernDog]

What really stands out about his presidency is his leadership in foreign affairs.  He went far beyond where Roosevelt had contemplated in confronting the Soviet Union and keeping the US engaged in world affairs after the war.

Yes, this was Truman's strong point, but I think his handling of the Korean War (police action) undermined his support.  His approval rating dropped to about 30% by 1952.  I think the country was tired of Democrat Presidents by then too.

[dazzleman]

Yes, Korea was the forerunner to Vietnam, and although it wasn't as long as Vietnam (3 years of combat vs. 8 years in Vietnam), the casualties were comparable.

It was frustrating for the American people because it was a "limited" war, when Americans are more suited to all-out war like World War II.

The foreshadowed the period of getting involved in wars in which we fought only to avoid defeat, not to attain victory.  Americans don't do too well with that concept.

Truman was right in concept in Korea, but a good deal of it may have been mishandled in my opinion.  However, the importance of details fades with time, and the big picture is what counts.

[NHPolitico]

There were clearly multiple reasons:
1) McGovern was too radical/liberal for the times
2) He made a huge mistake by selecting Tom Eagleton as his VP, then discovered he had gone through electroshock, said he'd stand behind him 1000%, then dumped him a few days later.
3) proposed massive social spending programs that would have required tax increases.

I was a student in Boston then and spent election day getting voters to the polls in Maine, I remember the shock of the election being called for Nixon almost immediately after the polls closed in the east.

Now why did MA go for McGovern?  The Liberal Kenedy legacy, in those days when canvassing door to door it was incredably common to go into any blue collar home and see two pictures side by side: Jesus and JFK.  Moreover the 200,000 studnts in Boston plus the 80 colleges bring an additonal liberal edge to the state.  MA remains highly democratic it had the third highest Gore margin in 2000 (after DC and RI)

So, MA because Nixon was the state's icon's opponent in 1960? That's an interesting theory.