59 max

Obama/Dems/GOP

Obama/Dems/GOP

Go on about my business.

Is this the first Alaskan to run for the presidency from one of the major parties?

Indiana was fairly competitive for Democrats from 1868 to 1916. Starting with Horatio Seymour in 1868, who received almost 49% of the vote there.

Horace Greeley got 46% in 1872; Tilden won it in 1876 (with Hoosier Hendricks as his running mate); Hancock almost 48% in 1880; Cleveland won with Hendricks in 1884, lost it in 1888 (understandably so, since Benjamin Harrison was from Indiana); Cleveland took it back in 1892; Bryan got 48% in 1896 and almost 47% in 1900; 1904 was a Roosevelt year; and, in 1908, despite his worst national defeat in three tries, Bryan came very close to winning with 47%.

So at least during this period, most Democratic candidates averaged around 47-48% in Indiana.  Of course, having Hoosiers like Hendricks and Marshall on four different tickets helped the Dems.  But then, in 1920, Indiana took a sharp turn to the Republicans from which it has rarely wavered.  My estimation is that the rural Republican vote there, as in Ohio, heavily offsets any margins that Democrats might have in more urban areas.

Non-incumbant Democrat (Angelides or Westly). Ahnold so has to go.

I lived in the Bay Area for over thirty years, so I can shed some additional light on 1976, at least.

It's true that in 1976, the Bay Area was not the liberal bastion that it is today.  In San Francisco, there were still plenty of Republican enclaves (Pacific Heights, etc).  In addition, I think there was somewhat of a Ford sympathy vote here, seeing that there was an attempt on his life in SF a year earlier.  To show how SF was not a liberal town yet, witness that the city didn't elect its first true liberal mayor until 1975 (George Moscone) and he beat a conservative supervisor in that election by only 4,000 votes.

In the SF suburbs, plenty of areas were Republican and still are today. The 680 corridor (Walnut Creek, Danville, San Ramon, Pleasanton) have GOP registered majorities.  These communities, though,  were not that big in 1976.  Much of Ford's strength came from communities that trended GOP then but go Democratic now (San Jose, San Mateo, Redwood City). 

Gore, because there will be more distance from the bad memories of 2000.

Sheesh.  What a choice. Please, Dems, nominate Bayh or Warner!

In a pinch, I'll take Gore.

Agreed, as were Murkowski and Sununu.

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy..
What a great ad and a catchy jingle.  I like the touch of the family photo at the end.

The E.G. Marshall ad for Humphrey was on target about Wallace and Nixon.

Here's something I've always wondered about...

Grover Cleveland returned to the White House, elected in 1892 after being turned out in 1888.  Despite a comfortable victory, he received no votes in 5 states: Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, North Dakota and Wyoming.

I suspect this could be due to the Democratic state parties supporting the Populist James Weaver, and leaving Cleveland off the ballot.  Weaver did very well in all 5 states.  However, Cleveland received votes in other states where Weaver did well, including Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington.

Does anyone know why Cleveland did not receive votes in these 5 states?

I truncated the website address, and got in.  Try
http://geoelections.free.fr

I voted "other."  Surprise - I think 1960 was an upset, in the last sixty years or so. Nixon was more familiar; He had a stronger base (many of JFK's states were razor-thin); he demonstrated leadership after Ike's heart attack; and the economy was in decent shape after the 1958 recession.  TV did him in.

Why not 1948 as the upset?  Clearly, the pollsters were wrong; They stopped polling pretty much after Labor Day.  I think the last poll showed a gain for Truman.  Had they continued, the trend towards Truman would have been obvious.

The assumption the pollsters made was that Thurmond and Wallace would siphon enough Democratic votes to make Dewey president.  However, the South was still strongly Democratic; outside of the four states Thurmond won, he didn't come close to winning another state.  Half of Wallace's support came from New York.  The big surprise is that Truman didn't get the EVs that FDR did in '40 or '44.  Had Wallace and Thurmond not campaigned, Truman certainly would have won AL, LA, MD, MI, MS, and SC. 

Truman credited labor for his victory, but it was a coalition of labor, New Dealers, and African-Americans.  The shock is not that Truman won; the shock is that the election was close.

The difference between McGovern and Dukakis was McGovern didn't stand a chance of winning, no matter how smoothly his campaign ran.  Dukakis had a chance, and squandered a healthy lead in the polls.  Everyone remembers the tank, but how about when he went to Yellowstone to look at the late summer fire damage?  A reporter asked him to comment about Bush's stabs at his platform; Dukakis said he wouldn't comment, that he was there to look at the fire damage.

Missed opportunity after missed opportunity.  And let's not forget Bernard Shaw's softball question during the debates; Dukakis had a golden opportunity to turn that to his advantage, and failed again.

I vote that Dukakis ran the most inept campaign in modern history.

Which county did T. Coleman Andrews win in the 50s?

One lesson to be learned from all of this is not to vote on name recognition alone, especially if the candidate is a relative of a previous officeholder.  Seek out their voting record or platform.  This goes for Reps and Dems, be they a Taft, a Bush, a Kennedy or a Clinton.

If Arnold's propositions fail in the CA special election - or at least if most of them fail - he could be considered just about done.  His ratings are still abysmal here. 

UPDATE: Taft has pleaded "no contest." He was found guilty and fined $4,000.  I like the part below where the judge ordered him to apologize.

Ohio Governor Enter No Contest Plea

By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS

Last updated: Thursday, Aug 18, 2005 - 09:05:30 am PDT
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Gov. Bob Taft pleaded no contest Thursday to charges that he broke state ethics law by failing to report golf outings and other gifts. A judge found him guilty and fined him $4,000.

Taft told Franklin County Municipal Judge Mark Froehlich he chose not to plead guilty but was taking responsibility for ethics lapses. His no-contest plea wraps up the case less than 24 hours after Taft became the first Ohio governor charged with a crime.

He was fined the maximum $1,000 for each of four misdemeanor counts. As expected, no jail time was ordered. The charges had carried a maximum sentence of six months on each count.

Taft nodded his head as the charges were read, and his wife, Hope, sat behind him showing no emotion.

The second-term Republican said that as governor he had expected all state workers to follow state ethics laws, adding, "In this instance I have failed to live up to the those high expectations."

The judge ordered him to apologize.

"From the shores of Lake Erie to the banks of the Ohio River, I want them to know that you are sorry for what you have done," Froehlich said.

Taft's voice cracked as he spoke later at a news conference.

"There are no words to express the deep remorse that I feel over the embarrassment that I have caused for my administration and the people of the state of Ohio," Taft said. The governor has fired others over ethics violations. But he said Thursday he would not resign, saying he still can be an effective governor and has much he wants to accomplish.

A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt but means the defendant will not fight the charges. After Taft entered the plea, Froehlich found him guilty, a routine step in Ohio in no-contest pleas.

Defense attorney William Meeks said Taft has repaid people for the gifts.

Taft was charged Wednesday with failing to report 52 gifts worth nearly $6,000, including dinners, golf games and professional hockey tickets over four years. Taft earlier had revealed that he failed to report some outings but said the omissions were accidental.

Prosecutor Ron O'Brien said the gifts included two golf outings worth $100 each paid for by coin dealer Tom Noe, a Republican fundraiser whose $50 million investment of state money in rare coins launched the scandal that led to the accusations against Taft.

State law requires officeholders to report all gifts worth more than $75 if the donor wasn't reimbursed. The Ohio Ethics Commission last week concluded its investigation into Taft's golf outings and forwarded the results to prosecutors.

A state task force and the commission are investigating public employees for similar offenses and O'Brien has said he expected more serious felony charges to be brought, although not against Taft.

The alleged ethics violations against Taft are another blow to the GOP in the Republican-controlled state that won President Bush re-election. Democrats have found hope for the 2006 midterm elections in the investment scandal and a surprisingly close congressional race this month for an open seat in a GOP stronghold.

Taft's golf partners included John Snow, then the head of transportation company CSX Corp. and now the U.S. Treasury secretary; and Tony Alexander, president and chief executive of Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp.

Some partners have said Taft paid for the golf; others have said they picked up the tab.

Taft's former chief of staff Brian Hicks pleaded no contest last month to failing to report stays at Noe's million-dollar Florida home. He was fined $1,000.

Noe has acknowledged that up to $13 million is missing from the rare coins fund, and Attorney General Jim Petro has accused him of stealing as much as $4 million.

Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006, said the charges are part of a "culture of corruption" in Ohio.

Some residents also are fed up with the corruption.

"It's a sad state of affairs," said Bruce Lively, a Maumee resident who said he had backed Taft in the past but now thinks he should step down.

Taft was elected governor in 1998, following the most expensive campaign in state history. He also had been secretary of state, a state representative and a county commissioner in his hometown of Cincinnati.

Taft's great-grandfather was President and later Chief Justice William Howard Taft. His distinguished political family also includes his father and grandfather, who were both U.S. senators from Ohio.

These misdemeanors aren't earth-shattering - small potatoes, actually... but any news like this doesn't help the Ohio GOP next year...

Ohio's Taft to Be Charged With Criminal Misdemeanors, AP Says

Aug. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Ohio Governor Bob Taft will be charged with four criminal misdemeanors for failing to disclose on state forms that he accepted free golf outings, local prosecutors said today, the Associated Press reported.

Taft, a Republican who is the son and grandson of U.S. senators and the great-grandson of the 27th U.S. President, William H. Taft, becomes the first governor in Ohio history to face criminal charges while in office, AP said.

It is a first-degree misdemeanor in Ohio to knowingly file a false financial disclosure form to the state ethics commission, with a maximum penalty for each misdemeanor count of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, AP said. Taft spokesman Mark Rickel told Bloomberg News the governor won't resign, and that he will make a statement tomorrow. Rickel declined additional comment.

Taft, 63, announced in June that he hadn't properly disclosed golf outings he played in, and began turning over information about the events to the ethics commission.

The commission, which consists of six members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate, yesterday delivered a report of its investigation to Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien, also a Republican, and Columbus City Attorney Rick Pfeiffer, a Democrat. The prosecutors met earlier today to determine whether to file charges, according to O'Brien spokeswoman Christy McCreary.
 

 

VT and ME were the two states Franklin Roosevelt lost in the 1936 election.  Clearly, both states -- as they had in 1932 -- rejected FDR and his New Deal policies.

In 1940, why did these two states show a slight swing to FDR, when many other traditional Republican states swung solidly back to the GOP fold?  Here are the examples:

1936 - Maine

Landon (R) 55.49 %
Roosevelt (D) 41.52 %

Margin: 13.97 % (R)

1940 - Maine

Willkie (R) 51.10 %
Roosevelt (D) 48.77 %

Margin: 2.33 % (R)

1936 - Vermont

Landon (R) 56.39 %
Roosevelt (D) 43.24 %

Margin: 13.15 % (R)

1940 - Vermont

Willkie (R) 54.78 %
Roosevelt (D) 44.92 %

Margin: 9.86 % (R)

FDR lost both states in 1940, of course -- but why did his percentages improve in both states?  Thanks for any answers.

Warner/Biden -- sounds like a winning ticket to me.

KCRA, the NBC affiliate in Sacramento, showed Arnold dropping off special election petitions at a registrar's office a while back.  A few dozen teachers were on hand chanting "Shame on You" for his (as they believe) inattention to education.  Arnold, as he entered the building, looked back and laughed at them.

It's one thing to call the CA legislature "Girly Men."  It's another thing to laugh at teachers. 

Arnold is ticking off a lot of people out here.

Support for governor plunging, poll finds
Special election, budget unpopular among Californians

San Francisco Chronicle, June 21, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suddenly ranks among the most unpopular governors in modern California history, as residents grow increasingly unhappy about the action hero-turned-politician's budget plans and his call for a special election, according to a new Field Poll.

Less than a third -- 31 percent -- of the state's adults approve of the job the governor is doing in Sacramento, down from 54 percent in February. The numbers are only slightly better among registered voters, 37 percent of whom are happy with Schwarzenegger's performance and 53 percent dissatisfied.

"There's very little for the governor to cheer about in this poll,'' said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. "There's a very broad-based view that the governor is off on the wrong track.''

Schwarzenegger's approval rating among registered voters is lower than any number recorded by the Field Poll for governors Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown and George Deukmejian. He now ranks fourth in unpopularity, behind Democrats Gray Davis and Pat Brown and Republican Pete Wilson.

For more than a year, the governor has been surfing a wave of popularity, gathering support not only from his fellow Republicans but from the Democrats and non-partisans who make up the bulk of California's voters.

But Schwarzenegger's high-profile battle with the Democrat-led Legislature and his continuing disputes with groups representing California teachers, nurses and public employees have taken a toll. Only 16 percent of registered Democrats approve of the job the governor is doing, while his support among nonpartisan voters has shrunk to 35 percent, down from 48 percent four months ago.

Schwarzenegger's sinking support even shows up among Republicans, where his approval numbers have fallen from 84 percent in February to 66 percent in the new survey.

The governor's numbers haven't sunk to the dismal levels of former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, who was recalled in October 2003 and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Davis's 22 percent approval rating in August 2003 was the lowest ever recorded by a Field Poll, DiCamillo said.

Besides Davis, the only governors to fall below Schwarzenegger's current 37 percent approval were Pete Wilson, at 33 percent in September 1992 and May 1993, and Pat Brown, at 35 percent in October 1961. Despite those low numbers, both won re-election.

"We've seen these type of reversals and downturns before, but almost always because of an external event, like the declining economy for Wilson or the energy crisis for Davis,'' DiCamillo said. "But here, almost nothing has changed. It's almost a self-inflicted thing.''

The governor's increasing unpopularity is showing up in his other numbers. Only 17 percent of the state's voters have a great deal of confidence in Schwarzenegger's ability to resolve the state's budget problems, compared with 49 percent who don't have much confidence he will do the right thing.

While the survey was taken in the week following the governor's announcement of the Nov. 8 special election, his argument that the election is a desperately needed effort to reform the way the state operates didn't convince the voters.

Support for the special election among registered voters fell to 37 percent from 51 percent in February. That backing dropped to 28 percent when the election's cost of $45 million to $80 million was mentioned.

Although the poll numbers for the three initiatives Schwarzenegger is backing in November won't be released until today, an unpopular messenger won't help the message, said Gale Kaufman, a Democratic consultant who's running the union-backed effort against the governor's initiatives.

"He's been on the air, he's the messenger,'' Kaufman said Monday. "Obviously, voters aren't buying what he's selling.''

While unions and other groups have spent millions on television ads attacking Schwarzenegger this year, the governor and his allies fought back with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign of their own that ran through much of May. The ads, which featured the governor talking with average Californians about the need for government reform, weren't enough to stop Schwarzenegger's political bleeding.

"This doesn't change our strategy one iota,'' Kaufman said. "It just gives us more confidence to go ahead.''

The governor's political team dismissed the Field Poll numbers, saying their own surveys put Schwarzenegger's approval rating above 50 percent and show that a strong majority of Californians back his plan for government reform.

"Anyone who believes that the governor is down to 66 percent support among Republicans is in for a big wake-up call in November,'' Mike Murphy, the governor's political consultant, said. "The real campaign for these reforms has not even begun, and our opponents are already declaring victory.

"They can declare victory all summer long, for all I care. We are squarely focused on November.''

A sour and hostile public can hamstring a governor's ability to get anything done, said Steve Maviglio, who was a spokesman for Davis when the former governor's approval ratings were in free fall.

"It makes it more difficult to make deals since you're negotiating from a position of weakness,'' he said. "The voters are suspicious of everything you do, since they don't trust you.''

The poll wasn't all roses for Maviglio's current employer, Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. As low as Schwarzenegger's ratings were, the Legislature was even less popular: 24 percent of the registered voters were pleased with the job it was doing, and only 5 percent said they had a great deal of confidence in the Legislature's ability to deal with the state's budget deficit.

Voters also are convinced that Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are more interested in confrontation than compromise when it comes to solving the state's problems. About one-third of those surveyed said the governor was negotiating in good faith, while 25 percent thought the Legislature was working hard to come to agreements with Schwarzenegger.

"If the governor and the Legislature attack each other, it's a lose-lose situation, since people lose their faith in government,'' Maviglio said. "The bottom line is that voters want the people they sent to Sacramento to get things done.''

But the most ominous news for Schwarzenegger could be his growing loss of support among the state's nonpartisan voters.

Voters would back the Legislature over the governor in a confrontation over important issues by 44 percent to 33 percent. While Democrats support the Legislature and Republicans line up behind the governor, nonpartisan voters now back the Legislature over Schwarzenegger 2 to 1: 49 percent to 24 percent.

"The governor has turned off nonpartisans enough to turn them toward the Legislature, which they don't particularly like,'' DiCamillo said. "This is a Democratic state, and nonpartisans are the swing voters. There are not enough Republicans to carry the day by themselves.''

The poll is based on a telephone survey of 954 California adults, including 711 registered voters, and was conducted June 13-19. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percent for all Californians and 3.8 percent for registered voters.