Comments to the Internets - The Freedom Party

taken from facebook...
it's funny bc when she came on to the national scene in '08 I thought of her as a TR figure in the GOP...now understand I love TR and do not compare him to her intellectually in any way. If TR were plucked from 1913 and brought to our present, he'd still be smarter than Sarah Palin in 2013. I compare them as young aspiring politician, and that's cool to see a female at a relatively young age shoot for the national scene, like a young TR did. So her "bolting" from the GOP and starting a third party, reminds me of the 1912 election, who's 100 year anniversary we just had and I'd hope for a repeat of party bolting, but with this info it sounds like Palin's Freedom Party would do just what the Progressive Party did to the 1912 election and divide the GOP vote, as well as the progressive vote (Wilson was running as a progressive just as TR was), but gave the election to the Democrats. I don't think, however that the Freedom Party would come in second place as TR's Progressive Party did...the only 3rd Party to come in second place both in the popular vote and the Electoral College. Other Third Parties have won States (and thus Electoral College Votes) since TR's Third Party and 1968's General Election was the last time a third party won any States and 1972 for an electoral college vote because of a "faithless elector". If the Freedom Party happens...maybe it'd win States, but like 1968's it'll be the States formerly known as the Confederate States of America.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #44 - "THE FIRST DEMOCRAT SINCE... PART 2: THE 50 PERCENT"

In 1996, President William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd POTUS, was the first Democratic president of the United States to be reelected to a second term since Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd POTUS. Harry Truman, the 33rd, and Lyndon Johnson, the 36th, were reelected to the office after finishing the term of the late president they succeeded. This pfact is focusing on full presidential terms. The difference between Clinton's reelection and FDR's, is that Roosevelt 32 received more than 50% of the popular vote in all four of his presidential runs. Clinton's plurality wins in both 1992 and 1996 is the first for a Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson's two-term wins in 1912 and 1916.

President William Jefferson Clinton the night he won reelection as the 42nd POTUS with the First Lady, Hillary, and their Daughter Chelsea on Election Night 1996.

When Clinton won the White House in 1992, he only won 43% of the popular vote, the same amount won by Richard Nixon in 1968. Unlike President Nixon's reelection in 1972, Clinton did not win in a landslide but just short of getting 50% with just 49%. So the last double plurality popular vote wins was President Wilson. Whereas Clinton faced a three-way race in 1992 between the incumbent Republican President George Bush and independent businessman Ross Perot, eighty years prior Wilson faced a four-way race against the incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft, the Progressive Party, or Bull-Moose Party ran former president Theodore Roosevelt, and Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs. Wilson won 41% of the popular vote and in his reelection bid four years later he came just as close to 50% as Clinton would 80 years later in 1996.

Campaigning for Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

After Roosevelt 32, of the rest of the 20th Century Democratic presidents Johnson 36 and Jimmy Carter are the only other ones to receive more than 50% of the popular vote. In 1964, Johnson 36 won reelection in a landslide to the office he inherited through assassination. Then-former-Governor Carter got 50% of the popular vote in the super close 1976 election, not a mandate like Johnson 36's but 50%.

The first Democratic president elected in the 21st Century would be the first Democrat to win the presidency with more than 50% of the vote since Carter's win in 1976, and that would be Barack Obama in 2008. It would be with President Obama's reelection in 2012 that he would achieve what only two other Democratic presidents have achieved, winning over 50% of the popular vote in back-to-back elections. Andrew Jackson's two wins in 1828 and 1832 (there was also his plurality win, but of no matter to the House of Representatives in 1824) and FDR's 1932 and 1936 wins, as well as his 1940 and 1944 reelections to a third and fourth term, respectively.

President Barack Obama on the night he won reelection to a second term as the 44th POTUS.

Pointless Presidential Pfacts #16 - "Back-to-Back 50 Percenters (D)"

Barack Obama is one of only 3 Democratic presidents to be reelected back-to-back with over 50% of the popular vote. Franklin Roosevelt received over 50% of the popular vote in all four of his elections (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944). Before FDR, you have to go back to the first Democrat elected president, Andrew Jackson won both his elections (1828, 1836) with over 50%. In 2008, Obama was the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter's 1976 election to receive 50% of the popular vote.

2012 Prediction

My first time voting was in 1996, and after I cast my vote I felt I was voting for the winner of the election. In the end, I was right...it was William Jefferson Clinton. I didn't predict his election, but somehow knew he'd be reelected. I was a registered Republican for a couple of months before switching to the Democratic Party just before the election. I turned 18 in July of '96 and, of course, the election was in November.

In 2000, I voted for the incumbent vice president, and somehow believed and thought he would win. I voted the day of the election and of course had no idea that the outcome would not be revealed until December 13, 2000. I don't know why I thought he'd win, even though the popular vote would support my notion that Al Gore was more popular among the electorate than the actual winner, Governor George Bush of Texas. I should've known better since only 4 incumbent vice presidents have won a presidential election. At that point in 2000, Vice President George Bush was the first incumbent vice president to win since Martin Van Buren in 1936. Notice I used the Bush's titles to differentiate them rather than their middle initials. Of course, had Gore used more of President Bill Clinton and simply won his own home state he'd have won the election.

Historically, with the exception of Samuel Tilden, the person that won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, returned 4 years later and defeated the president elected simply by the Electoral College. Andrew Jackson had the most votes in 1824, but John Quincy Adams was eventually elected president by the House of Representatives because neither candidate had a majority in the Electoral college. President Grover Cleveland won the popular vote in 1888, but Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College. Four years later, former president Cleveland defeated President Harrison in a rematch. In 2004, Gore joined Tilden by not running again against the man that lost the popular vote but won the presidency. Most likely, Gore didn't run in '04 because Bush was a wartime president and no Democrat was going to beat him. If you asked me on September 10, 2001, if Gore were to run in '04, I'd say he would win. But if you asked me on September 12, 2001, in a post-9/11 America, I'd tell you that Bush would win reelection. I predicted it on that tragic day and proof that Bush was unbeatable is that Gore didn't run and the other most popular Democrat, Hillary Clinton, didn't run. Sure she was a first term U.S. Senator from New York, but in 2002 she was considered a front-runner for the presidential nomination on the Democratic side. But she knew, like Gore did, that she'd lose to a popular wartime president. Called it!

If you follow President Bush's ratings from 9/11, you'll see he has the highest approval rating since his father after the Gulf War. But if you follow those numbers they go down, and a chart would show that if the election of 2004 were in December the president would probably lose. And his poll numbers just kept going down from there. So by 2008, there was no way a Republican could win the presidency. The presidential election of 2008 was pretty much determined during the 2008 Democratic primary/caucus elections between then-senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Once Obama won the nomination it was clear that he'd be winner in November.

As I write this and explain my justifications for the '04 an '08 election predictions, the evidence for reelection was so clear. Since Obama's election in 2008, I've predicted his reelection. As Election Day approaches, it looks like 2012 will be another 2004, 1976, or a 1968 to name a few close elections. But I've always thought that he was unbeatable, maybe it's like my vote for Clinton in '96 and Gore in '00, but the evidence for his reelection is there. The Republicans in 2012 nominated Mitt Romney out of a field that included fringe candidates and the lone logical candidate in Jon Huntsman, and he got no love whereas all those others scared Romney at least once by out polling him. In 2012, the Republicans had to choose a candidate out of the B-team (I don't think B-team is right, maybe Z-team), the no-love-candidate Jon Huntsman, and Etch A Sketch Mitt Romney. The A-Team of the Republican Party didn't show up, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, and Jeb Bush, to name a few. Jeb Bush at least had his last name as a reason not run.

My prediction of Obama's '12 victory was confirmed by the A-Team GOPers skipping the race because they knew they couldn't defeat a popular president like Obama, just like Gore and Hillary skipping '04. Now if I am wrong, I'll admit it and those A-Team GOPers will be upset that they didn't step up. If I am wrong, I'll still predict that a President Romney will win reelection in 2016, because the economy will be better in the 2013-2017 presidential term and that president will get the credit. Meaning a President Romney will win reelection or President Obama will be able anoint his successor whether that's Vice President Joe Biden, probably-by-then former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, or some other popular Democrat in four years, just like President Theodore Roosevelt did with William Howard Taft in 1908 or Ronald Reagan with Vice President Bush in 1988. Had Gore relied more on the popular Clinton, he too would have received the love of a popular outgoing incumbent. But Gore felt the Lewinsky scandal should not touch him, even though Clinton was popular post-impeachment and more so as an outgoing POTUS.

I don't see my 2012 prediction being wrong, although in the days leading up to election night I'm reminded of the days before 2000. I'm probably questioning myself because of all the articles I read that say how close the election is, or how friends or comments-online-people declaring a Romney landslide victory. I just wonder where are they getting their info since they bash any poll that says Obama will win. Obama's reelection will not just be the first for someone of African ancestry, but also the first time that 3 presidents have been reelected back-to-back since James Monroe succeeded James Madison in 1816 and Madison succeeded Thomas Jefferson in 1808. I'm sure the 57th U.S. Presidential Election will result in the reelection of the 44th President of the United States and 47th Vice President. Why is it the 57th election and 44th POTUS and 47 VPOTUS? That sounds like that can be a pointless presidential pfact, which is probably better than this pointless presidential 'pinion.

Why Mitt

President Barack Obama has a tough one-hundred-forty-seven days ahead of him. The 2012 Presidential Election is turning into a 50-50 race like 2004 and 2000, among many others. Obama or Governor Mitt Romney will be lucky to break 50% in the popular vote. Squeaking by with 270 or just a few more Electoral Votes will confirm the closeness of this race. The Republican Party probably speaks with confidence now that victory seems more and more likely. Mitt's the one!

Mitt became the one not because he is a political genius, well maybe he was to be the 2012 Republican Party Presidential Nominee. I'm sure that's it's official name. But Mitt isn't the party's A-game. Mitt took the next-in-line concept and was...next-in-line. Just like John McCain was in 2008, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, and the list goes on. But he sort of got it by default. He was almost an understudy for the actual next-in-liner.

The time it takes a presidential candidate to seriously run for the nomination, he or she must begin as soon as Election Day is over. By the end of the mid-term elections, the candidate must be in-it-to-win-it. When the 2008 election ended, Obama the victory and the GOP on the losing side, the nomination for the 2012 election didn't have a next-in-liner like previous elections which had candidates waiting like a ride at Disneyland. The 2008 election cycle produced possible contenders; Romney the second place finisher in the primaries and Governor Sarah Palin, the second place finisher in the Electoral College for the vice presidency.

The A-game of the GOP like Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour stayed out of the 2012 election because they didn't want to face a popular incumbent like Obama. Even with the economic troubles he faces Obama has a chance of winning reelection...even at 50-50. Obama's misfortune is Romney's gain, so the A-game might be rethinking their decision. Other A-gamers like Chris Christie didn't enter the race even at the halfway point of Obama's first term.

So not facing Obama in the general was one factor, and another factor in the A-game vying for the GOP nomination would be to face the Republican Party star Sarah Palin. After losing in the 2008 General Election, Palin became the party's frontrunner for the nomination. She had political capital after her national introduction at the Republican Party Convention in Saint Paul. She's a good politician. I don't mean she's one that writes legislation and works across party lines, but as a politician that can rally people for a cause. But she's not a traditional politician that plays by established customs. It didn't look like she was a serious contender for the 2012 nomination. All the other wanna-be-nominees waited for Palin's decision while still massing their armies for the primary-caucus battles. In the end she chose not to run for the nomination, disappointing her following and allowing the other candidates to try and win her over...as well as her following.

With Palin out of the way and the A-gamers not wanting to challenge a popular incumbent no matter the problems, the next-in-line would be Mitt Romney. As he would mention in the (2011-)2012 primary-caucus debates/forums, he wasn't a politician. But that was by the voters decision. He lost the 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy and used that failed election, as well as his business background, as a campaign for Massachusetts Governor...WHICH he won. But instead of allowing the voters to decide if he should continue being governor, Romney chose not to run for a second term. Instead he went after the 2008 Republican nomination and came in second to McCain. Instead of being rewarded with the second spot on the ticket, that went to Palin, he went to being considered as a fronter-runner for 2012.

While others with more experience, knowledge, education sat out because of fear of challenging two popular political figures allowed a non-"politician" out politician the politicians and Sarah Palin. Wait I don't think she's a practicing politician anymore. She's simply a political commentator...or agitator. But yeah...GO MITT! You did it. You got the party's nomination and if by some chance you connect with those few individuals that decide this election I hope you don't run for reelection. But once again...I don't think we'll have a referendum on a Romney Administration.

The Non-Cleveland Qualifications to be President

There are only 3 qualifications to be President of the United States, being a natural born citizen, 14 years residency, and 35 years old.

As long as these qualifications are met, then there should be no reason why one individual couldn't run for the highest office in the land. In the 2008 Democratic primary race, then-Senator Hillary Clinton of New York touted her experience (which is real, genuine, and legit), verse then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois' lack of experience (which was just at the federal level of politics...or just ageism). Experience was the theme of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the first half of the primary before evolving to an experienced politician for the working class American.

Senator Clinton's experience then in 2008, qualified her to be president. Her resume included a college graduate, law school graduate, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States and senator from New York, and now she can include Secretary of State, an old stepping stone to the presidency. Let's just say, she's gone up in value since '08.

In that primary race her argument that then-Senator Obama wasn't experienced enough never stuck and the reason is because he met the qualifications to hold the office just as men before him with a small policial resume, like Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy.

While experience is not a qualifier to be POTUS, then-Senator Clinton's resume probably came the closest to having the chops for the job without having been president. She was married to the president so she has some first hand experience seeing what the office holder must go through. There has only been one person ready for the job of the presidency before winning on election day and that's Grover Cleveland...only because he had been elected president 8 years before resuming the office.

In 1992, then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas just had five terms as governor under his electoral belt before running. His main opponent, President George H. W. Bush had an even bigger resume plus as the commander-in-chief during a time of war. In 1996, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas had racked up years of political service in Congress and even as a vice-presidential candidate on a national ticket. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore's resume led him to the nomination as the sitting v-p, just like Bush, while his opponent, Bush's son George W. Bush, got the electoral weight from one full term as governor of a large state, Texas, and an election to a second term. John Kerry used his military service in Vietnam and political service in the senate as building blocks to his candidacy and then-President Bush 43 used his first term on top of all his experience for reelection. So really there is no clear cut mold for a person to fit to become a nominee. Obama used his brief federal experience, and State-level experience, and everything that made him unique to help him win the nomination, just as his opponent Senator John McCain used to prove to the electorate that he too was qualified to be president. In 2012, Obama is using his first term and Mitt Romney (assuming he is the nominee) will use his one term as governor and business career (he'd be using his political career had he won the senator race against Ted Kennedy in 1994) to be president. So why in 2008, didn't Sarah Palin's unique resume make her qualified for the bottom of the ticket?

Her lack of intellectual curiosity was made clear in her interview with Katie Couric and then later with Charlie Gibson and it was nobody's fault but her own...and probably the McCain camp's vetting team. Palin's resume is a political dream come true and only if she had intelligence to back up her short political resume, she would be a political super-star just like Obama, Reagan, Bush 43 (pre-2006), and both Clintons. She can muster a following, but if there was only substance to back it up would her following become more powerful in putting her into a position of power.

There are only 3 qualifications to be POTUS and they are clearly stated in the Constitution. Individuals like Obama and Palin have vied for it and have had to prove themselves beyond the qualifiers mentioned in one of our founding documents. You don't have to be a life long politician to be president but you have to show some knowledge of current events...just like students in a social studies class. Or if you're lucky, you can run for a non-consecutive term like Cleveland...but that's difficult in this 22nd Amendent era we live in.

Madame Vice President

In 1984, Geraldine Ferraro of New York was the first female on a national ticket. 64 years after gaining the right to vote, a female was on the ticket for the vice presidency. She lost. That presidential ticket lost, to quote a vice president...big time.

There wouldn't be a female on the ticket again until 2008. The Democrats never opined the idea again after 1984, with the exception of the brief flirtation with a female at the top of ticket during the heated 2008 Democratic Party Primary when it was clear Senator Hillary Clinton, of New York by the way, was not going to be the presidential nominee. It took the Grand Old Party 152 years, but they broke the white-males-only ticket streak, with the selection, by Senator John McCain of Arizona, of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Once again the ticket with the female on it did not win. Women voters voted for the ticket without the female on it both in 1984 and 2008. If McCain had his way he'd have former-Democratic-but-still-siding-with-said-party-now-Independent Joe Lieberman. But in 2008 that would not happen. Clinton's major defeat during the primaries, which came with "18 million" or 48% of the primary vote a few hundred thousand more than the man that won the nomination. Her near victory was a great way to attract voters (i.e. woman voters) that were hoping for a female on the ticket. So selecting the young (opposite of McCain), attractive (same as before), and executive branch experienced (about as much "experience" as then-Senator Barack Obama). Choosing Palin, McCain went with the way to get votes and not the person that would work best with him to governor if he won. No offense to the other female politicians or non-politicians in the GOP circa 2008. Remember Alaska doesn't bring the Electoral votes. It's already in the GOP column.

The third time can happen in 2012...and with the GOP too. Recently the GOP has had difficulties with women, just like a Star Trek fan at any age. The GOP can save themselves with the women vote by putting a female on the ticket. They of course have to go with the opposite of Palin. The woman does not have to be old, unattractive, that would be an insult to the would be candidate. But the party can find a vp candidate in the governor mansions, Congress, in the judiciary, and the non-political world. They just need to be opposite of Mitt Romney ideologically...whatever that is or the election he's running in. So the general election by the time it's important.

Now while the GOP have the opportunity to put a female on the ticket and a political reason, the Democrats have probably until the end of August/start of September to nominate their candidates. If the GOP put a female on the ticket and the benefit, there's nothing stopping the Democrats from doing the same. Vice President Joe Biden will be 73 in 2016, the same age President Ronald Reagan was when he ran for reelection in 1984...the election Ferraro lost as vp. Biden will be 74 a few weeks after the election in 2016. Not really presidential age. The loyal and foreign-policy-minded Biden could be persuaded to step down from the ticket with a new post at the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton's current job. The dream ticket of 2008, thought of during the heat of the primary battle, can be a reality in 2012. If it happens, 2012 and the third time a female is on the ticket (2nd time for both parties) could be the charm.