Wonderful side-by-side comparison! I didn't realize that Boris was a philanderer too. Not sure if all of Donald's children were born at the time he was actually married to at least one of his sexy young wives....or did one baby sneak in and get born out of wedlock? I should research that.
Donald polls so poorly with Mormons in this regard (Mitt Romney is apoplectic about him) that there is speculation about the possibility that Hillary might actually carry UTAH in the presidential election! YES, think about that! A DEMOCRAT possibly carrying Utah!
The New York Times...."The Gray Lady"......the "newspaper of record"......with "All the News that Fit to Print" (to separate it from the riff raff papers)......is now in a big spat with Donald about women.
You'll not want to read all of this, but is there no end of evil that Trump can cause? Donald Trump and women: The New York Times as tabloid.....LOL.
Just another day in the 2016 US "PRESIDENTIAL" campaign. The Times and The Post in a tabloid battle. Is there no end to the carnage that the Donald can create? ;-))
If I've been following matters properly, then Hillary Clinton winning Utah on 8 November would be like the Tories sweeping Glasgow. There's a not completely zero chance of this happening, but I never expect to see it in my lifetime...
Jon.....I agree with you that a Democrat taking Utah is pretty unlikely. But to even have some political pundits speculating on the possibility that Utah might be in play for Hillary certainly attests to the stunning under-performance of Trump among Mormon voters in the primaries....based on exit polling, and the stunning defeat of Trump in the Utah primary. In Utah, Trump came in third in a Republican field of three, an astounding 55 percentage points behind Ted Cruz.
Hi Danny, Jon... The Tories taking Glasgow! Now that's something that I suspect no one in the world has ever considered for a second.. even given their seat doubling leader, the Tank Commander, and their change of name to the Ruth Davidson Unionist Tank Party.
I think this must be the most interesting presidential campaign since I started following them seriously (with Danny's help) in 2004!
Am I right in thinking that a third term for a Democrat is pretty much unprecedented?
Danny, you're right about that. I'm not sure how they're going to go, though; Republican tribalism is as strong as what we've seen for Labour.
Tris & Munguin, that's how shocking it will be if Utah goes Democratic. Remember the Coyote's jaw hitting the ground just after the moment when the Road Runner hits his afterburners? We'll be about like that.
FDR was early in his fourth term when he died. Considering that and Harry S Truman's own full term from 1948-1952, that was five straight for the Democrats.
Thanks to Jon for the info on the five terms for the Democrats. But while he posted, I was doing a bit of research on the issue back to the early days of the republic. So you're not going to be spared my copy and paste discourse on American presidential terms going back to the eighteenth century. Please excuse some duplication of Jon's information.
As follows:
In modern times (back to 1828) Democrats have been reelected to a third term only ONCE in five opportunities. These were the five terms of FDR/Truman in 1933-1953. So if Hillary does it again after Obama, it will be only the SECOND Democrat “third term” in the last 188 years.
The Republicans, with more opportunities in the period of the Republican ascendancy after the Civil War, have won a “third term” FOUR times in seven opportunities over that period; the most recent being Ronald Reagan’s so-called third term with the election of his VP George H. W. Bush (Bush the elder) in 1988. There has never been a fourth term for the Republican Party.
You will want a few more details, which I’ll provide free of charge. ;-))
The Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented FOURTH term as president in 1944, but died after three months in office. So FDR COMPLETED three terms, but was ELECTED to a fourth. Then his VP Harry Truman completed FDR’s fourth term and was then elected to one of his own...making a total of five terms in office for Democrats from 1933 to 1953, under the special circumstances of WWII.
This string of presidencies is unprecedented in modern times, and is only equaled in American history in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (before the modern two-party system had developed,) when there were a string of presidents of the Democratic-Republican Party.
The Democratic-Republicans were originally (sometimes) called “Jeffersonians”, or “Republicans.” These early “Republicans” are not to be confused with modern Republicans....the party of Lincoln, which ran its first presidential candidate in 1856.
There were SEVEN straight Democratic-Republican presidential terms starting with Thomas Jefferson who was elected in 1800 through John Quincy Adams in 1824.
By the election of 1828, the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson had morphed into the modern Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, and a form of the modern two-party system had developed with the Whig Party. So the period starting with the modern Democratic Party and the two-party system in 1828 is usually considered the "modern era" of American politics.
So in the last 188 years, third terms have been achieved only ONCE in five tries for the Democrats, and FOUR for seven tries for the Republicans. Pretty rare in American politics, and REALLY rare for the Democrats.
LOL, Tris......I was thinking about just telling you that of the modern parties in modern times, the Democrats have only had a third term once, and Hillary if she does it will only be the second. Which was actually the question you asked, but I then thought about telling you that I will now inform you of how to make the watch. But wasn't sure if you would remember the reference....LOL.
PS: The Republican Party (with all their pious religious conservative minions) in turmoil about the orange-faced reality show freak, real estate huckster, and serial-marriage womanizer they have chosen as their candidate for president of the United States! Doesn't get much sweeter than that!.....IMHO.
LOL. It does though, say something pretty serious about the fact that somewhere along the line something has gone very wrong at least in the top level of US federal politics.
Out of a field of people who were standing nationally, there was a range of candidates, and they were all rejected for this bloke.
Overall surely they must realise that they are all but handing the keys to Hillary. Who is voting for him? Why?
And on the other side, a guy who is almost a socialist, who isn't going to get the nomination, but who is making a damned good show, and who will therefore surely have some influence.
I see Trump has said he won;t have a special relationship with Cameron if he is elected.
I'm wondering if that means we can spend the £205 billion that the replacement for Trident is going to cost, on the desperate plight of the chronically poor and sick in the UK instead of using it as a down payment for creeping to the president.
Yes Tris, the Donald seems considerably pissed off at David Cameron and Sadiq Khan. Cameron's "stupid, divisive, and wrong" comment did not go down well with the Donald. So I would not rule out the possibility of war with the UK, if Trump is elected. ;-))
Or at the very least, the special relationship might become a bit strained.
Cameron of course, is unlikely to be in Downing Street much longer.
All sorts of hell appear to be breaking out in the Tory party over Europe (as usual).
So depending on who or what wins the EU referendum, Trump might have to deal with Boris, or the House Elf Michael Gove, Dopey George Osborne, or the idiot Theresa May.
I hope to reassure you that the probability of Donald Trump becoming president is small. He's already so alienated women, Latinos (who are a growing percentage of our electorate) and African Americans, that his negatives among those groups are historic. Moreover, our Electoral College system means that Hillary Clinton's "Blue Wall" states -- remember that over here Blue is good -- already account for approximately, if not more than, 200 Electoral Votes.
And Trump is just getting started. This past weekend the story broke about his calling reporters in the 1980s and '90s claiming to be a Trump PR flunky. And he's refusing to release tax returns, which is still a big deal here. (Gerald Ford was the first president to do so, as a way to restore confidence in the wake of Richard Nixon, who would be considered too liberal by today's Republicans!) Among Mitt Romney's myriad self-inflicted wounds was his initial refusal to release his tax returns. And his misogynist, racist reaction to Sen. Elizabeth Warren jabbing him on Twitter is being noticed.
There is yet much noise and "reality show" to come, but the odds are very good that we'll elect our first female president in November.
If -- God forbid! -- I'm wrong, however, can you please recommend a good place to come over for a very extended visit, along with the nearest Gaelic language lesson center?
Firstly let me reassure you that Munguin will offer you a place in Munguin Towers. He's sure there's a small room somewhere you could have ...for a consideration, of course. (Media moguls didn't get where they have got by handing out charity, you know.)
And we have just the man to teach Gaelic. He's a bit of a layabout up in the Western Isles, who spends far too much time drinking and carousing (and, I've heard, even going to the dancing!!!) so some discipline will do John Brownlie the power of good.
Like Alex Salmond in his New Year message, I reckon that you're right. Mrs Clinton will be in the White House, and, as Danny and I have speculated, Bill will be overseeing the flower arrangements and seating plans when Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel come to visit!
But as I said earlier, people are voting for him. Who are they? Why are they so desperate, on both sides, to have someone who isn't mainstream?
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
True. We could have been a small insignificant country getting on with its own affairs instead of running wars and being America's "go for", ya know, like Norway or Denmark, Finland or Iceland.
Instead we have to be part of a supernation.
I see that the cost of Trident renewal has now hit £205 billion
As I have mentioned before I have many friends in the USA following my time living there and it could be closer than many think. While I agree with Jon, Clinton if selected to run will probably get the African American vote but there are many , like here, who are sick of the establishment politicians of both sides.
Clinton is as disliked by many, as Trump is, and some friends have been saying there is a real appetite to kick the system in the balls esp in some of the smaller states and a few big cities. While I would expect Clinton to win, although I think she is as big a nightmare to be honest, bought and sold by the same minority as Cameron and possibly not out of the woods with the emails. We also have to remember that the Courts / law enforcement in America are more likely to go after a politician than we are in this country as we all well know, so she could get charged.
It will be closer than many think and Sanders still has a slight chance, he is not a socialist though, I know he calls himself that but he comes across more as a social liberal.
I've said a few times now that I'd vote for Saunders. Hillary is a bit too right wing for me. But I'm not American, and I can't judge what might work there.
Mind you even as Secretary of State she whipped Cameron's ass!
Talking of the likelihood of the police dealing with politicians, have you read Craig Murray's piece today.
I read Craig's blog today but he is saying what many of us have been tweeting etc since the story broke, nothing will come of it. Not even a sacrificial lamb either, I am just not holding my breath and it has been amazing how quiet the Liberals and Labour have been also. I think only the SNP and Greens have raised the issue and not that forcibly either. They are all at it to varying degrees but I suspect the 3 unionist parties are deep in it.
It will be swept under the carpet though, like Chilcott, Davidson and vote counting, expenses blah blah blah. We are to blame though we keep voting for the planks when we need to be taking a stand and party members need to be taking a stand rather than arseing about with things like aws and all that guff.
I even thought today how stupid are some of our MSPs, SNP ones tweeting that they had just voted for NS as FM, yeah and what were you going to do vote for Willie Rennie and Greens abstaining pisses me off, f vote, that's what we pay you do not come away with some dinna ken shit. No wonder people can't be bothered with politics at times, they do themselves no favors. I would ban abstentions full stop, yes or not once it comes to the vote pure and simple.
Whilst I defer to your greater knowledge, there seems to me to be a lot of groups that would vote for Hilary, perhaps with their fingers over their noses.
I include women, Latino Americans, African American Americans, sane Democrats, anyone that thinks the 'Rapture' is not predicated on blowing the world up just because Donald is having a bad hair day, i.e. every day.
Obviously I'd have voted for Bernie, but I don't have a vote in your modern 'End of the World' presidential elections.
Perhaps the whole planet should elect the 'man' with ultimate power of life and death? For that is a godlike power and should not be reserved to any one nation state.
At this point, Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination. Sanders doesn't have enough delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and won't be able to persuade the so-called "super-delegates" -- Democratic office-holders and higher party officials, etc. -- to dump her for him. Firstly, he's run an insurgency against a "corrupt" party, which then makes "Vote for me" a rather tough sell to the party regulars. Secondly, Clinton has racked up more popular votes and more delegates in the states' primary elections and caucuses; as of today, Sanders would have to rack up victories of 65-70-75 percent and better in the few remaining states just to start catching up to her lead. Essentially, he's four goals down at the 88th minute.
Clinton is whip-smart. Her 2016 team combines the best of her 2008 campaign and a lot of Obama veterans, and they're already getting under Trump's rather thin skin. National polls here show a narrowing between her and him, but Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, has what I think is the correct analysis of that. Voters are looking for someone to make the system work better, even Republican voters. That they chose to nominate Trump is the ultimate damnation of the Republican Party.
But please don't mistake Republican primary voters for the whole of our electorate. They're a minority of the whole. And by the time October and November come around, after a summer's worth of Trump's racism, misogyny, xenophobia, narcissism, lying, bluster and blather -- not to mention his yet-to-be named running-mate -- millions of American voters who are rightly angry at the state of our union, will also be asking themselves, "Can I really vote for Trump?" I suspect most of them will say, "No."
African Americans, women, Latinos, cities and our more ethnically diverse suburbs. All, I predict, will say "No" to Trump.
Which leaves the hardcore Republicans who will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, racists, and those who would accept authoritarianism and ignorance.
Finally, Hillary Clinton the politician and the person is much more subtle and nuanced than the news media here has had you believe since 1992. Her positions aren't that far off from Sanders, and she's got a much better grasp than he does for how to make the creaky, cranky machinery of government and policy work. She'll do rather well as our first female president.
Yes, Bruce, I know it's been said before. We all know that it is rare for people that far up to be hit with punishment, unlike some poor disabled bloke who turns up 5 minutes late for an appointment with the JC and loses his entire income for 3 months.
I think I agree with you on the voting matters. We don;t pay people to have no opinions. If they do have no opinions perhaps they should move over and give the space to people who do. Ruth leading the opposition... as she wanted to do should have the bottle to oppose, or agree. She could have voted for Willie, or she could have bowed to the inevitable and voted for Nicola. Now it seems that she doesn't really care who the First Minster is.
She couldn't be FM herself, becasue she was elected as the leader of the strong opposition, but she could have proposed Patrick or Kezia. I mean she really should have an opinion on the position of the leader of your country.
Douglas. I've often thought that maybe we should all get to have a say in the US presidential election. I mean whilst the Queen is technically commander in chief of our forces, we all know that the de facto chief is the American President. The lot in Westminster may issue the orders but they have come from Washington.
Of course Jon, I do realise that it will be really hard for Trump to be elected.. but not impossible.
I was wondering who he might have as his running mate and Danny said that they usually try to widen the appeal ... so, in this case, just about anyone. Woman, religious, southerner; maybe a politician with a little experience of Washington, or someone who might know a little more about the military than he sees on the talk shows?
I have absolutely no doubt that she will beat Saunders and go on to beat Trump. Hopefully that will be a lesson to the Republicans to clear out the stable of presidential hopefuls for 4 years down the line.
Any clues yet as to who Hillary might chose for her running mate...?
I really haven't heard a lot of speculation about who Hillary might choose as a running mate. In the old days, it wasn't decided until the convention, after they chose the presidential nominee. As Jon pointed out, there is no way under God's heaven that she will not be nominated by the convention at Philadelphia. Even if Bernie wins every primary from Kentucky and Oregon tonight through California in three weeks. It just won't move the pledged delegate count enough to make a difference, and the Super-delegate party pros will vote with Hillary. I suspect she might not make a VP move until nearer the Convention in late July.
She might try to unify the party politically, rather than aim for a geographic balance. She needs to bring Bernie's left wing of the party on board, and IMHO, it won't be Bernie. I like his Democratic Socialist (Socialist by USA standards) policies, but apart from the Republicans being all set to brand him a Commie if he were to run in the general, he is a flinty old New Englander who is by all accounts cranky and irascible, and not really all that pleasant to be around (some reporters will say on background.) Having a candidate who is actually likable should not be underestimated as a goal, and Hillary needs all the additional likeability and warmth that she can get. There are some popular liberal Senators who come to mind....notably Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts who rescued Ted Kennedy's old seat from the odious Republican Scott Brown. An all female ticket would be a plus for some voters and a minus for others I suppose. On the male side there's popular liberal Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio who would also bring an important swing state to the ticket. But it would also be nice to have a Latino on the ticket, so maybe she can find a nice warm likable liberal Latino from a swing state....LOL. Who knows? Maybe a little early to speculate.
I wish I could feel a little easier about the whole thing. Trump is riding high now, and national polls show him just a few points behind Clinton. It goes up and down, but often close to a statistical tie. National presidential polls are of limited predictive value on the best of days, and certainly not at this early point in the Campaign. You can consider the present power of the ethnic minorities in the Democratic vote and conclude that Donald has no chance. But then you see a lot of passion and anger, both for Trump, and in Bernie's left wing, and wonder whether Hillary can capture that. And when voters are really angry about the status quo, then the institutional mainstream of the Clinton machine may suffer. The Trump and Bernie phenomena are certainly an expression of voter anger toward both parties.
People might say that if an actor can be president, then a real estate tycoon and TV reality star surely can. But that ignores the fact that Ronald Reagan was first of all a well regarded two term Governor of California. Trump has zero experience in politics. And is also out of his mind with arrogance and narcissism....IMHO.
If it were voted on the basis of a resume, it would be Hillary hands down. She has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. For foreign affairs experience, she was Secretary of State, on a first name basis with most of the foreign ministers and a lot of the Heads of State on earth. For Domestic experience, she was an elected two term US Senator from New York. Even some policy experience in the Bill Clinton White House and the Bill Clinton Arkansas State House. And then, what people often forget. Fresh out of the Yale law school, she was a legal counsel advising the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Watergate hearings. Some thought that it was quite a come-down in her career when she decided to leave Washington and marry an unknown lawyer who was thinking of running for Governor of Arkansas. And now the possibility of the presidency looms. Love her or hate her, it's quite a story.
Usually, you'd be right about balance and broadening the appeal as factors a presidential candidate would consider in a running-mate, but this year with Trump? Who knows? Who among the Republican has-beens, wanna-bes and never-weres would help broaden his/their appeal?
Chris Christie would do it because he was out out-bullied by an alpha-ier male so bared his neck in submission. But that would just be doubling down on the vile, and he's still got the "Bridgegate" scandal looming over his head. Ted Cruz won't because he hates Trump for usurping his "rightful" place as the nominee. I doubt John Kasich will because he despises Trump and considers himself a "realist." And who among the remaining clowns who ran for the GOP nomination are qualified for dog catcher, much less vice president?
I predict Trump will pick someone who will be utterly subservient to him. God knows who that will be.
Last thought on the Republicans: I think they're in an all-out "civil war" for the party's direction, and it'll take more than four more years for them to return to sanity and a point where their presidential stable will be anywhere near clean. And while I don't think they'll fracture, I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
As for Hillary Clinton, there is lots of love for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, though much debate over whether she would be more effective as vice president or remaining in the Senate with a possible committee chair if Democrats retake the chamber.
Other names I've either seen bandied about or have heard mentioned so far include Hilda Solis (former U.S. Representative, Secretary of Labor in Obama's first term) and Julian Castro (former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development). Naming either would be the first appearance of a Hispanic American on a major party's presidential ticket" and certainly "broadening the appeal"; not a bad idea when the Latino populace is already fired up to vote against Trump.
I had been hoping that trump would choose Sister Sarah, and it looked like they were teaming up at one point. Then she made that incoherent, slightly drunken speech at one of his rallies and was never seen again.
Oh well, that's bit of entertainment I'll not get to enjoy.
A ticket of Donald and Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods (hat-tip to Charlie Pierce, one of our best political writers) would be a comedian's dream come true, but I have to think that once God finished laughing Himself silly, He said "Naah. Once was punishment enough, even for Republicans."
Serial womanising may be good tabloid tittle tattle, but its nothing new in rich or powerful men. Even guys as handsome as Jimmy Wray, John Major and Robin Cook had issues, and I wouldnt say any of those had the Chutzpah ( or looks :) ) of the Donald.
Its a sad state of affairs when the choice open to voters appears to be so poor, however its not their electioneering pronouncements which they will be judged on. For us on airstrip 1, its how the world economy turns, and how much is wasted on warfare that matters. We are unlikely to be affected much by domestic American policy.
At home, Boris has some reputation for delegating well. If he keeps hands off - and listens to voters concerns - he won't be the worst of those potential Conservative successors. I would think in fact, he is probably the best of that gang of 4 you list. I suspect he would be the least resistant to Scotland regaining its independence.
I expect if we were Americans we would have more affinity with Redneck Confederates than to East Coast liberals. We are the independent minded bloody nationalist Scots here after all.
Yes, there's a fair bit of womanising that goes on... and some of it a damned sight closer to home than I would have liked. It's human nature I guess, but maybe it would be a good idea whilst in high office to take bromide!
Why do they think they won;t be caught?
As for Wray, major, Cook... erm, add in Prescott to the mix... they are hardly god's gift to women. In fact pug ugly might me nearer it.
I take it you mean if Boris gets the job and then takes an extended break on the moon delegating to his pet chimp, we should be OK.
I know he's bright, but he's such a buffoon. And making his prime ministerial address in Latin or Ancient Greek might be super cool... but.
Still he has to be better than Gove or May or Mr Dopey. Or there's my granny's cat?
The redneck Confederates are the same assclowns who decry the "War of Northern Aggression" and are Trump's best fanboys. You sure you want to associate yourself, much less the YES campaign, with them?
I am just going on what people have told me and will defer to Jon all the way as he knows far more than myself. To be honest I think both Clinton and Trump are a nightmare and would rather America had more choices to be honest. Americans deserve better, when I lived there I learned very quickly that Americans are not their government and are very hard working and honest people who I enjoyed being around a lot to be honest. I do think America is miss understood, they may come at different points on economics and things but most I met generally care what goes on in the rest of the world,
Hi Tris just received this from my Friend Molly in California with regard to Mr Trump and his sexual attentions with women. She is looking for more signatures. http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/trump_nyt/?aktmid=tm439215.x9TLsg&t=2&source=conf Helena
Wonderful side-by-side comparison! I didn't realize that Boris was a philanderer too. Not sure if all of Donald's children were born at the time he was actually married to at least one of his sexy young wives....or did one baby sneak in and get born out of wedlock? I should research that.
ReplyDeleteDonald polls so poorly with Mormons in this regard (Mitt Romney is apoplectic about him) that there is speculation about the possibility that Hillary might actually carry UTAH in the presidential election! YES, think about that! A DEMOCRAT possibly carrying Utah!
The New York Times...."The Gray Lady"......the "newspaper of record"......with "All the News that Fit to Print" (to separate it from the riff raff papers)......is now in a big spat with Donald about women.
You'll not want to read all of this, but is there no end of evil that Trump can cause? Donald Trump and women: The New York Times as tabloid.....LOL.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
And then on FOX there was push-back against the Times story by one of his girlfriends:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/trumps-ex-girlfriend-recants-on-fox-new-york-times-lied-being-a-trump-girl-was-not-demeaning/
And now The Washington Post weighs in. (The Post is only slightly less snooty and just as traditionally respectable as the Times.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/16/a-laughable-backlash-against-the-new-york-times-article-on-trumps-treatment-of-women/
BTW, I see that the Daily Mail has had a lot to say about it too....SURPRISE SURPRISE!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3590699/Trump-history-questionable-behavior-women-NY-Times.html
Just another day in the 2016 US "PRESIDENTIAL" campaign. The Times and The Post in a tabloid battle. Is there no end to the carnage that the Donald can create? ;-))
If I've been following matters properly, then Hillary Clinton winning Utah on 8 November would be like the Tories sweeping Glasgow. There's a not completely zero chance of this happening, but I never expect to see it in my lifetime...
DeleteJon.....I agree with you that a Democrat taking Utah is pretty unlikely. But to even have some political pundits speculating on the possibility that Utah might be in play for Hillary certainly attests to the stunning under-performance of Trump among Mormon voters in the primaries....based on exit polling, and the stunning defeat of Trump in the Utah primary. In Utah, Trump came in third in a Republican field of three, an astounding 55 percentage points behind Ted Cruz.
DeleteHi Danny, Jon... The Tories taking Glasgow! Now that's something that I suspect no one in the world has ever considered for a second.. even given their seat doubling leader, the Tank Commander, and their change of name to the Ruth Davidson Unionist Tank Party.
DeleteI think this must be the most interesting presidential campaign since I started following them seriously (with Danny's help) in 2004!
Am I right in thinking that a third term for a Democrat is pretty much unprecedented?
F. D. Roosevelt was in his 3rd term when he died
DeleteAh yes, thanks. Is that the only one?
DeleteDanny, you're right about that. I'm not sure how they're going to go, though; Republican tribalism is as strong as what we've seen for Labour.
DeleteTris & Munguin, that's how shocking it will be if Utah goes Democratic. Remember the Coyote's jaw hitting the ground just after the moment when the Road Runner hits his afterburners? We'll be about like that.
FDR was early in his fourth term when he died. Considering that and Harry S Truman's own full term from 1948-1952, that was five straight for the Democrats.
Thanks Jon. Five terms is amazing.
DeleteThanks to Jon for the info on the five terms for the Democrats. But while he posted, I was doing a bit of research on the issue back to the early days of the republic. So you're not going to be spared my copy and paste discourse on American presidential terms going back to the eighteenth century. Please excuse some duplication of Jon's information.
DeleteAs follows:
In modern times (back to 1828) Democrats have been reelected to a third term only ONCE in five opportunities. These were the five terms of FDR/Truman in 1933-1953. So if Hillary does it again after Obama, it will be only the SECOND Democrat “third term” in the last 188 years.
The Republicans, with more opportunities in the period of the Republican ascendancy after the Civil War, have won a “third term” FOUR times in seven opportunities over that period; the most recent being Ronald Reagan’s so-called third term with the election of his VP George H. W. Bush (Bush the elder) in 1988. There has never been a fourth term for the Republican Party.
You will want a few more details, which I’ll provide free of charge. ;-))
The Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented FOURTH term as president in 1944, but died after three months in office. So FDR COMPLETED three terms, but was ELECTED to a fourth. Then his VP Harry Truman completed FDR’s fourth term and was then elected to one of his own...making a total of five terms in office for Democrats from 1933 to 1953, under the special circumstances of WWII.
This string of presidencies is unprecedented in modern times, and is only equaled in American history in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (before the modern two-party system had developed,) when there were a string of presidents of the Democratic-Republican Party.
The Democratic-Republicans were originally (sometimes) called “Jeffersonians”, or “Republicans.” These early “Republicans” are not to be confused with modern Republicans....the party of Lincoln, which ran its first presidential candidate in 1856.
There were SEVEN straight Democratic-Republican presidential terms starting with Thomas Jefferson who was elected in 1800 through John Quincy Adams in 1824.
By the election of 1828, the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson had morphed into the modern Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, and a form of the modern two-party system had developed with the Whig Party. So the period starting with the modern Democratic Party and the two-party system in 1828 is usually considered the "modern era" of American politics.
So in the last 188 years, third terms have been achieved only ONCE in five tries for the Democrats, and FOUR for seven tries for the Republicans. Pretty rare in American politics, and REALLY rare for the Democrats.
Ah. Thank you Danny.
DeleteYou once told me (many years ago) that if someone asked you the time, you were inclined to explain to them how to make a watch! :¬/
Something for which, I must say, I have been most grateful over the years.
I appreciate the trouble you go to to explain these matters!
LOL, Tris......I was thinking about just telling you that of the modern parties in modern times, the Democrats have only had a third term once, and Hillary if she does it will only be the second. Which was actually the question you asked, but I then thought about telling you that I will now inform you of how to make the watch. But wasn't sure if you would remember the reference....LOL.
DeleteI do, mate. I certainly do. :)
DeletePS: The Republican Party (with all their pious religious conservative minions) in turmoil about the orange-faced reality show freak, real estate huckster, and serial-marriage womanizer they have chosen as their candidate for president of the United States! Doesn't get much sweeter than that!.....IMHO.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know Tommy Sheridan had emigrated ?
DeleteLOL. It does though, say something pretty serious about the fact that somewhere along the line something has gone very wrong at least in the top level of US federal politics.
DeleteOut of a field of people who were standing nationally, there was a range of candidates, and they were all rejected for this bloke.
Overall surely they must realise that they are all but handing the keys to Hillary. Who is voting for him? Why?
And on the other side, a guy who is almost a socialist, who isn't going to get the nomination, but who is making a damned good show, and who will therefore surely have some influence.
I see Trump has said he won;t have a special relationship with Cameron if he is elected.
I'm wondering if that means we can spend the £205 billion that the replacement for Trident is going to cost, on the desperate plight of the chronically poor and sick in the UK instead of using it as a down payment for creeping to the president.
Yes Tris, the Donald seems considerably pissed off at David Cameron and Sadiq Khan. Cameron's "stupid, divisive, and wrong" comment did not go down well with the Donald. So I would not rule out the possibility of war with the UK, if Trump is elected. ;-))
DeleteOr at the very least, the special relationship might become a bit strained.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/16/donald-trump-unlikely-have-good-relationship-david-cameron
Oh, goodie.
DeleteCameron of course, is unlikely to be in Downing Street much longer.
All sorts of hell appear to be breaking out in the Tory party over Europe (as usual).
So depending on who or what wins the EU referendum, Trump might have to deal with Boris, or the House Elf Michael Gove, Dopey George Osborne, or the idiot Theresa May.
I hope to reassure you that the probability of Donald Trump becoming president is small. He's already so alienated women, Latinos (who are a growing percentage of our electorate) and African Americans, that his negatives among those groups are historic. Moreover, our Electoral College system means that Hillary Clinton's "Blue Wall" states -- remember that over here Blue is good -- already account for approximately, if not more than, 200 Electoral Votes.
ReplyDeleteAnd Trump is just getting started. This past weekend the story broke about his calling reporters in the 1980s and '90s claiming to be a Trump PR flunky. And he's refusing to release tax returns, which is still a big deal here. (Gerald Ford was the first president to do so, as a way to restore confidence in the wake of Richard Nixon, who would be considered too liberal by today's Republicans!) Among Mitt Romney's myriad self-inflicted wounds was his initial refusal to release his tax returns. And his misogynist, racist reaction to Sen. Elizabeth Warren jabbing him on Twitter is being noticed.
There is yet much noise and "reality show" to come, but the odds are very good that we'll elect our first female president in November.
If -- God forbid! -- I'm wrong, however, can you please recommend a good place to come over for a very extended visit, along with the nearest Gaelic language lesson center?
Firstly let me reassure you that Munguin will offer you a place in Munguin Towers. He's sure there's a small room somewhere you could have ...for a consideration, of course. (Media moguls didn't get where they have got by handing out charity, you know.)
DeleteAnd we have just the man to teach Gaelic. He's a bit of a layabout up in the Western Isles, who spends far too much time drinking and carousing (and, I've heard, even going to the dancing!!!) so some discipline will do John Brownlie the power of good.
Like Alex Salmond in his New Year message, I reckon that you're right. Mrs Clinton will be in the White House, and, as Danny and I have speculated, Bill will be overseeing the flower arrangements and seating plans when Nicola Sturgeon and Angela Merkel come to visit!
But as I said earlier, people are voting for him. Who are they? Why are they so desperate, on both sides, to have someone who isn't mainstream?
That's a tome too long for me to give from my phone, but I'll be back later to give my thoughts on this one.
DeleteBut if it comes to pass, I'll gladly take Storage B, but can I keep the red Swingline?
OK, Jon. No problem. :/
Delete"Office Space"...
DeleteIf trump wins the free ride for illegal immigrants is over.
ReplyDeleteYeaaah. And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a tea cart.
DeleteWhat about the "free ride" for the folks who hire them?
I'm inclined to ignore people who haven't the time to do anything more than write a one line criticism and don;t give themselves a name.
DeleteBut if an answer has to be found, that is a perfect one :)
Just one more point. In American terms, define immigrant!
Delete"Give me your tired, your poor,
DeleteYour huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Makes you laugh, Conan.
DeleteIt'd make you laugh, if it wasn't so f#£%&@! depressing.
DeleteYep... exactly.
DeleteWith every passing day, the consequences of the No vote in 2014 become more terrifying.
ReplyDeleteHillary or Donald? Gideon or Boris? At least Independence would have shielded us from the worst.
True. We could have been a small insignificant country getting on with its own affairs instead of running wars and being America's "go for", ya know, like Norway or Denmark, Finland or Iceland.
DeleteInstead we have to be part of a supernation.
I see that the cost of Trident renewal has now hit £205 billion
'Instead we have to be part of a supernation'?
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Munguin will have to give you down time to take your tongue out of your cheek.
Although Cameron would probably see Trident at a Zillion Pounds as a 'price worth paying' for summat.
I forget what.
Oh! Yes.
Blowing up the dreaded foreigner.
Wonderful strategy for an Eton boy.
If Carlsberg did schools, it would not want them to atomize their brewery.
Just sayin'
The guy is as mad as a bag of Republican hair pieces.
Ha ha... Yes, it was kinda. But you know, it's they way they see it.
DeleteThey genuinely believe that Britain IS important and that it should have a leading place in the world.
I guess they read all the wrong history books at Eton.
As for down time... at Munguin Enterprises?
You haff to be jesting!
:)
Tris
ReplyDeleteAs I have mentioned before I have many friends in the USA following my time living there and it could be closer than many think. While I agree with Jon, Clinton if selected to run will probably get the African American vote but there are many , like here, who are sick of the establishment politicians of both sides.
Clinton is as disliked by many, as Trump is, and some friends have been saying there is a real appetite to kick the system in the balls esp in some of the smaller states and a few big cities. While I would expect Clinton to win, although I think she is as big a nightmare to be honest, bought and sold by the same minority as Cameron and possibly not out of the woods with the emails. We also have to remember that the Courts / law enforcement in America are more likely to go after a politician than we are in this country as we all well know, so she could get charged.
It will be closer than many think and Sanders still has a slight chance, he is not a socialist though, I know he calls himself that but he comes across more as a social liberal.
Bruce
I've said a few times now that I'd vote for Saunders. Hillary is a bit too right wing for me. But I'm not American, and I can't judge what might work there.
DeleteMind you even as Secretary of State she whipped Cameron's ass!
Talking of the likelihood of the police dealing with politicians, have you read Craig Murray's piece today.
Very interesting.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/05/conservatives-will-protected-election-fraud/
The Nobs can get away with almost anything here, unless they fall foul of other nobs!
Tris
DeleteI read Craig's blog today but he is saying what many of us have been tweeting etc since the story broke, nothing will come of it. Not even a sacrificial lamb either, I am just not holding my breath and it has been amazing how quiet the Liberals and Labour have been also. I think only the SNP and Greens have raised the issue and not that forcibly either. They are all at it to varying degrees but I suspect the 3 unionist parties are deep in it.
It will be swept under the carpet though, like Chilcott, Davidson and vote counting, expenses blah blah blah. We are to blame though we keep voting for the planks when we need to be taking a stand and party members need to be taking a stand rather than arseing about with things like aws and all that guff.
I even thought today how stupid are some of our MSPs, SNP ones tweeting that they had just voted for NS as FM, yeah and what were you going to do vote for Willie Rennie and Greens abstaining pisses me off, f vote, that's what we pay you do not come away with some dinna ken shit. No wonder people can't be bothered with politics at times, they do themselves no favors. I would ban abstentions full stop, yes or not once it comes to the vote pure and simple.
Bruce
Bruce,
DeleteWhilst I defer to your greater knowledge, there seems to me to be a lot of groups that would vote for Hilary, perhaps with their fingers over their noses.
I include women, Latino Americans, African American Americans, sane Democrats, anyone that thinks the 'Rapture' is not predicated on blowing the world up just because Donald is having a bad hair day, i.e. every day.
Obviously I'd have voted for Bernie, but I don't have a vote in your modern 'End of the World' presidential elections.
Perhaps the whole planet should elect the 'man' with ultimate power of life and death? For that is a godlike power and should not be reserved to any one nation state.
Just sayin'
At this point, Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination. Sanders doesn't have enough delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and won't be able to persuade the so-called "super-delegates" -- Democratic office-holders and higher party officials, etc. -- to dump her for him. Firstly, he's run an insurgency against a "corrupt" party, which then makes "Vote for me" a rather tough sell to the party regulars. Secondly, Clinton has racked up more popular votes and more delegates in the states' primary elections and caucuses; as of today, Sanders would have to rack up victories of 65-70-75 percent and better in the few remaining states just to start catching up to her lead. Essentially, he's four goals down at the 88th minute.
DeleteClinton is whip-smart. Her 2016 team combines the best of her 2008 campaign and a lot of Obama veterans, and they're already getting under Trump's rather thin skin. National polls here show a narrowing between her and him, but Josh Marshall, proprietor of Talking Points Memo, has what I think is the correct analysis of that. Voters are looking for someone to make the system work better, even Republican voters. That they chose to nominate Trump is the ultimate damnation of the Republican Party.
But please don't mistake Republican primary voters for the whole of our electorate. They're a minority of the whole. And by the time October and November come around, after a summer's worth of Trump's racism, misogyny, xenophobia, narcissism, lying, bluster and blather -- not to mention his yet-to-be named running-mate -- millions of American voters who are rightly angry at the state of our union, will also be asking themselves, "Can I really vote for Trump?" I suspect most of them will say, "No."
African Americans, women, Latinos, cities and our more ethnically diverse suburbs. All, I predict, will say "No" to Trump.
Which leaves the hardcore Republicans who will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, racists, and those who would accept authoritarianism and ignorance.
Finally, Hillary Clinton the politician and the person is much more subtle and nuanced than the news media here has had you believe since 1992. Her positions aren't that far off from Sanders, and she's got a much better grasp than he does for how to make the creaky, cranky machinery of government and policy work. She'll do rather well as our first female president.
Yes, Bruce, I know it's been said before. We all know that it is rare for people that far up to be hit with punishment, unlike some poor disabled bloke who turns up 5 minutes late for an appointment with the JC and loses his entire income for 3 months.
DeleteI think I agree with you on the voting matters. We don;t pay people to have no opinions. If they do have no opinions perhaps they should move over and give the space to people who do. Ruth leading the opposition... as she wanted to do should have the bottle to oppose, or agree. She could have voted for Willie, or she could have bowed to the inevitable and voted for Nicola. Now it seems that she doesn't really care who the First Minster is.
She couldn't be FM herself, becasue she was elected as the leader of the strong opposition, but she could have proposed Patrick or Kezia. I mean she really should have an opinion on the position of the leader of your country.
Douglas. I've often thought that maybe we should all get to have a say in the US presidential election. I mean whilst the Queen is technically commander in chief of our forces, we all know that the de facto chief is the American President. The lot in Westminster may issue the orders but they have come from Washington.
DeleteOf course Jon, I do realise that it will be really hard for Trump to be elected.. but not impossible.
DeleteI was wondering who he might have as his running mate and Danny said that they usually try to widen the appeal ... so, in this case, just about anyone. Woman, religious, southerner; maybe a politician with a little experience of Washington, or someone who might know a little more about the military than he sees on the talk shows?
I have absolutely no doubt that she will beat Saunders and go on to beat Trump. Hopefully that will be a lesson to the Republicans to clear out the stable of presidential hopefuls for 4 years down the line.
Any clues yet as to who Hillary might chose for her running mate...?
I really haven't heard a lot of speculation about who Hillary might choose as a running mate. In the old days, it wasn't decided until the convention, after they chose the presidential nominee. As Jon pointed out, there is no way under God's heaven that she will not be nominated by the convention at Philadelphia. Even if Bernie wins every primary from Kentucky and Oregon tonight through California in three weeks. It just won't move the pledged delegate count enough to make a difference, and the Super-delegate party pros will vote with Hillary. I suspect she might not make a VP move until nearer the Convention in late July.
DeleteShe might try to unify the party politically, rather than aim for a geographic balance. She needs to bring Bernie's left wing of the party on board, and IMHO, it won't be Bernie. I like his Democratic Socialist (Socialist by USA standards) policies, but apart from the Republicans being all set to brand him a Commie if he were to run in the general, he is a flinty old New Englander who is by all accounts cranky and irascible, and not really all that pleasant to be around (some reporters will say on background.) Having a candidate who is actually likable should not be underestimated as a goal, and Hillary needs all the additional likeability and warmth that she can get. There are some popular liberal Senators who come to mind....notably Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts who rescued Ted Kennedy's old seat from the odious Republican Scott Brown. An all female ticket would be a plus for some voters and a minus for others I suppose. On the male side there's popular liberal Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio who would also bring an important swing state to the ticket. But it would also be nice to have a Latino on the ticket, so maybe she can find a nice warm likable liberal Latino from a swing state....LOL. Who knows? Maybe a little early to speculate.
I wish I could feel a little easier about the whole thing. Trump is riding high now, and national polls show him just a few points behind Clinton. It goes up and down, but often close to a statistical tie. National presidential polls are of limited predictive value on the best of days, and certainly not at this early point in the Campaign. You can consider the present power of the ethnic minorities in the Democratic vote and conclude that Donald has no chance. But then you see a lot of passion and anger, both for Trump, and in Bernie's left wing, and wonder whether Hillary can capture that. And when voters are really angry about the status quo, then the institutional mainstream of the Clinton machine may suffer. The Trump and Bernie phenomena are certainly an expression of voter anger toward both parties.
People might say that if an actor can be president, then a real estate tycoon and TV reality star surely can. But that ignores the fact that Ronald Reagan was first of all a well regarded two term Governor of California. Trump has zero experience in politics. And is also out of his mind with arrogance and narcissism....IMHO.
If it were voted on the basis of a resume, it would be Hillary hands down. She has the best resume since George H. W. Bush. For foreign affairs experience, she was Secretary of State, on a first name basis with most of the foreign ministers and a lot of the Heads of State on earth. For Domestic experience, she was an elected two term US Senator from New York. Even some policy experience in the Bill Clinton White House and the Bill Clinton Arkansas State House. And then, what people often forget. Fresh out of the Yale law school, she was a legal counsel advising the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Watergate hearings. Some thought that it was quite a come-down in her career when she decided to leave Washington and marry an unknown lawyer who was thinking of running for Governor of Arkansas. And now the possibility of the presidency looms. Love her or hate her, it's quite a story.
Usually, you'd be right about balance and broadening the appeal as factors a presidential candidate would consider in a running-mate, but this year with Trump? Who knows? Who among the Republican has-beens, wanna-bes and never-weres would help broaden his/their appeal?
DeleteChris Christie would do it because he was out out-bullied by an alpha-ier male so bared his neck in submission. But that would just be doubling down on the vile, and he's still got the "Bridgegate" scandal looming over his head. Ted Cruz won't because he hates Trump for usurping his "rightful" place as the nominee. I doubt John Kasich will because he despises Trump and considers himself a "realist." And who among the remaining clowns who ran for the GOP nomination are qualified for dog catcher, much less vice president?
I predict Trump will pick someone who will be utterly subservient to him. God knows who that will be.
Last thought on the Republicans: I think they're in an all-out "civil war" for the party's direction, and it'll take more than four more years for them to return to sanity and a point where their presidential stable will be anywhere near clean. And while I don't think they'll fracture, I wouldn't be surprised if they do.
As for Hillary Clinton, there is lots of love for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, though much debate over whether she would be more effective as vice president or remaining in the Senate with a possible committee chair if Democrats retake the chamber.
Other names I've either seen bandied about or have heard mentioned so far include Hilda Solis (former U.S. Representative, Secretary of Labor in Obama's first term) and Julian Castro (former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, and current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development). Naming either would be the first appearance of a Hispanic American on a major party's presidential ticket" and certainly "broadening the appeal"; not a bad idea when the Latino populace is already fired up to vote against Trump.
Thanks guys...
DeleteLot to digest there.
I had been hoping that trump would choose Sister Sarah, and it looked like they were teaming up at one point. Then she made that incoherent, slightly drunken speech at one of his rallies and was never seen again.
Oh well, that's bit of entertainment I'll not get to enjoy.
A ticket of Donald and Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods (hat-tip to Charlie Pierce, one of our best political writers) would be a comedian's dream come true, but I have to think that once God finished laughing Himself silly, He said "Naah. Once was punishment enough, even for Republicans."
DeleteLOL... you see, he IS merciful after all. Even to those who don't deserve it.
DeleteSerial womanising may be good tabloid tittle tattle, but its nothing new in rich or powerful men. Even guys as handsome as Jimmy Wray, John Major and Robin Cook had issues, and I wouldnt say any of those had the Chutzpah ( or looks :) ) of the Donald.
ReplyDeleteIts a sad state of affairs when the choice open to voters appears to be so poor, however its not their electioneering pronouncements which they will be judged on. For us on airstrip 1, its how the world economy turns, and how much is wasted on warfare that matters. We are unlikely to be affected much by domestic American policy.
At home, Boris has some reputation for delegating well. If he keeps hands off - and listens to voters concerns - he won't be the worst of those potential Conservative successors. I would think in fact, he is probably the best of that gang of 4 you list. I suspect he would be the least resistant to Scotland regaining its independence.
I expect if we were Americans we would have more affinity with Redneck Confederates than to East Coast liberals. We are the independent minded bloody nationalist Scots here after all.
Take me back to Virginia.....
Saor Alba
Yes, there's a fair bit of womanising that goes on... and some of it a damned sight closer to home than I would have liked. It's human nature I guess, but maybe it would be a good idea whilst in high office to take bromide!
DeleteWhy do they think they won;t be caught?
As for Wray, major, Cook... erm, add in Prescott to the mix... they are hardly god's gift to women. In fact pug ugly might me nearer it.
I take it you mean if Boris gets the job and then takes an extended break on the moon delegating to his pet chimp, we should be OK.
I know he's bright, but he's such a buffoon. And making his prime ministerial address in Latin or Ancient Greek might be super cool... but.
Still he has to be better than Gove or May or Mr Dopey. Or there's my granny's cat?
I'd have sod all to do with Confederates, slavery is, was and always will be a crime against humanity.
DeleteThe redneck Confederates are the same assclowns who decry the "War of Northern Aggression" and are Trump's best fanboys. You sure you want to associate yourself, much less the YES campaign, with them?
DeleteOuch!
DeleteI was attempting to inject some humour. But to be fair, the slave owners were often "ours". Scots being big plantation owners and slavers.
I dont really want to go back to Virginia either.
S.A.
LOL. It happens in written text.
DeleteDon't worry!
Douglas
ReplyDeleteI am just going on what people have told me and will defer to Jon all the way as he knows far more than myself. To be honest I think both Clinton and Trump are a nightmare and would rather America had more choices to be honest. Americans deserve better, when I lived there I learned very quickly that Americans are not their government and are very hard working and honest people who I enjoyed being around a lot to be honest. I do think America is miss understood, they may come at different points on economics and things but most I met generally care what goes on in the rest of the world,
Bruce
Hi Tris just received this from my Friend Molly in California with regard to Mr Trump and his sexual attentions with women. She is looking for more signatures. http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/trump_nyt/?aktmid=tm439215.x9TLsg&t=2&source=conf
ReplyDeleteHelena
Thanks Helena.
Delete