reasonmclucus

Republicans have done a better job of selecting presidential candidates during the last 60 years than Democrats. Why have Democrats done so poorly in presidential elections during the last 60 years unless Republicans are smarter?

Franklin Roosevelt won four presidential elections with at least 53% of the popular vote. Since FDR only one Democrat ( Lyndon Johnson in 1964) has won 53% or more of the popular vote. Only one other Democrat (Jimmy Carter in 1976) has even gotten 50% of the vote.

During the same period, Republicans won at least 53% of the popular vote in 5 elections and at least 50% in two others. Winning Republicans got less than 50% in only two elections (1968 and 2000).

Four Republicans have been elected to two terms as President, but only one Democrat and that Democrat (Bill Clinton) didn't get a majority of the popular vote either time he ran.

The poor showing of Democratic presidential candidates is particularly surprising considering that during the last 60 years more Americans have identified themselves as Democrats than as Republicans.

The Democrats seem unable to select strong presidential candidates. Do they prefer weak candidates? Why do those who might be strong candidates decline to seek the party's nomination?

Former Texas Governor John Connally (who had been shot in the attack on John Kennedy) might have been a strong Democratic candidate, but when he decided to run for president he chose to switch to the Republican Party.

Two of the 20th Century's most popular presidents (Theodore Roosevelt and Frankling Roosevelt ) had been New York governors, but New York Governor Mario Cuomo never sought his party's presidential nomination. Sen. Danial Patrick Moynihan had held a cabinet office and was one of the most intelligent members of his generation, but he never sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination. Professor David Boren who served as both governor and U.S. Senator from Oklahoma never ran for president. Many analysts believe former Virginia Governor Mark Warner could have been a strong presidential candidate this year, but he decided not to run.

Instead they have run weak candidates like Sen. George McGovern who made the Vietnam War (which was nearly over for the U.S.) the issue in 1972 instead of the economy which was in trouble. In 2004, Democrats ran John Kerry who claimed he should be elected because he very briefly served as a swift boat skipper in Vietnam.

Perhaps the problem is too much of an influence by the northeast Camelot crowd whose members seem oblivious to the fact that most Americans don't agree with their view of the world.

The two leading candidates for the party's nomination this year lack any real qualifications for the job. Hillary Clinton believes she should be nominated because her husband was president. Being president requires more than can be learned by being married to one, or for that matter playing one on television.

Barack Obama believes his oratorical ability qualifies him for the office. The White House might provide a "bully pulpit", but oratorical ability isn't an essential qualification for president as should be obvious considering President George W. Bush's lack of ability in this area. Democrats tried running a great orator a century ago and Williams Jenning Bryan ended up a three time loser.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has demonstrated they know how to run an organization or make decisions which are relevant to the duties of a president.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has a better resume than any candidate from either party, but he has already dropped out of the race. Richardson has been a governor, member of Congress, U.N. ambassador and Secretary of Energy.

Democrats this year are ignoring the fact that since 1884 all but one of the Democrats who was elected without first inheriting the office because of the death of a president was a governor before running for president. All but one of them was subsequently reelected. Since 1960 every elected president (from either party) has come from the southern half of the country.

__________________
There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. R. Oppenheimer

Ironduke

I wouldn't consider Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, or Richard Nixon as Southerners.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Ray

Then it means, irrespective of party affiliation, the Southerners are the clever characters. Or could it be that they are better shysters?

Politics is after a profession for scoundrels.

Note: I never said that first!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Bigfella

Matt,

Ford wasn't elected, but your point still stands.

I think that the author was trying to cheat by counting California in the 'southern half' of the nation and ignoring the fact that Bush Snr was about as Texan as me.

I also think that the author is over-egging the pudding a bit here. Nixon & Bush Jnr both won by a hair's breadth. I think it is reasonable to assume that at least one of Humphrey or Gore would have been re-elected. Suddenly the balance would tip dramatically.

Indeed, if you look at the really 'hopeless' Democratic candidates (McGovern, Kerry) each faced the difficult task of unseating a sitting President - something only done twice since WW2. I think both sides have fielded a number of poor candidates since 1960. Some became President.

reasonmclucus

You're thinking of the states of the Confederacy as the South. I'm talking about the southern half of the entire country sometimes called the sunbelt. The old south and Southern California have one thing in common. Both have been growing in population since the 60's with northern residents moving there. The result is that the sunbelt has a more national population than the population of northern states.

Sunbelt politicians have to appeal to a more diverse electorate than do northern politicians. Sunbelt politicians themselves may have political views that combine views from the nation as a whole rather than only hold the traditional views of the region.

reasonmclucus

A victory by Gore in 2000 wouldn't change the situation because Gore was from Tennessee. The popular vote in 1968 was close, but the electoral vote was not. Keep in mind that John Kennedy's victory in 1960 was also very close and some believe was the result of ballot box irregularities in Illinois.

I agree that both parties have run relatively weak candidates during the period.

reasonmclucus

Political analysts tend to look at the winners of presidential elections in terms of their political party affiliation or whether they are considered "liberals" or "conservatives". Another way to look at the winners is to examine their previous jobs to determine if the candidate's resume may be a more important factor in their success than their philosophy.

Party activists may be motivated by a candidate's political philosophy, but other voters may consider other factors such as what the candidate's previous job history or where the candidate is from.

I'll emphasize the period after the 1900 election because it resulted in Theodore Roosevelt becoming President after the assassination of President William McKinley. Roosevelt was the first president who was younger than the Republican Party. McKinley was the last Civil War veteran to occupy the White House.

In the 27 elections from 1900 - 2004, 16 were won by governors. including 7 of the last 8 elections.

The 1908 election was won by the former governor-General of the Philippines and provisional governor of Cuba, William Howard Taft who also served as Secretary of War. Herbert Hoover also held a cabinet office before being elected president.

Two elections were won by General Dwight Eisenhower. Incidentally. Theodore Roosevelt had been a colonel as well as a governor. Prior to 1900 former generals had won 10 presidential elections, including all but one election from 1868 through 1888. Franklin Roosevelt was assistant Secretary of the Navy during WWI. George H. W. Bush had been CIA director before becoming vice president.

Two were won by vice presidents( who hadn't been governors) who had succeeded to the presidency because of the death of the president. Two others were won by candidates who had been vice presidents who were elected without succeeding to the presidency because of death first.

Since the U.S. began electing president and vice president as part of team only two vice presidents have been elected to succeed the president they served as vice president, Martin van Buren in 1836 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Both lost reelection bids because of concerns about the economy. Bush's election continued a trend that began in 1840 in which every president elected in a year ending in zero was succeeded by his vice president. (Note: prior to Reagon every president elected in a year ending in zero beginning in 1840 had died in office.)

Former vice president Richard Nixon won in 1968, but he was running against incumbent vice president Hubert Humphrey as well as a strong third party candidate Gov. George Wallace.

Only two elections were won by incumbent Senators, with the last win coming in 1960. The two biggest losers since WWII were both incumbent Senators. Most of the Senators who have run for the nomination since Kennedy have failed to win the nomination. The four who were nominated all lost.

Since James Monroe every 2-term president was previously either a governor or a general. The only governor to lose a reelection bid in the 20th Century was Jimmy Carter who was defeated by Gov. Ronald Reagan.

Geography may also play a role in presidential victories. The first 6 presidents came from either Massachusetts or Virginia. Andrew Jackson in 1828 was the first of the presidents from the western "frontier" which dominated through 1884. New York and its neighbors New Jersey and Massachusetts dominated the presidency from 1884 through 1944. Since 1944 all but two elections have been won by candidates from west of the Mississippi.

From 1860 through 1960 all elections were won by candidates from north of the Mason Dixon line. Since 1960 every election has been won by candidates from south of the Mason Dixon line extended to the Pacific Ocean. The last 5 elections have been won by candidates from either Texas or Arkansas. This change may reflect that the fact that people have been moving from the northern half of the country to the southern half sometimes referred to as the sunbelt. Southern politicians have to appeal to people who have moved from the north as well as those who have always lived in the south.