"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn history correctly--why they are simply doomed." --Gene Roddenberry
I have nothing against the potential of a Herman Cain presidency. I hope that a leader can emerge out of the woodwork and lead the US back to prosperity. But I think his chances at election are about as good as mine are, perhaps only slightly better. The reason is history. Americans like an experienced person in the Oval Office, otherwise the history we study would be different. We have only elected people to the Presidency who have served successfully in the following offices prior to running for President.
State Governor if 4 years have been completed. Last Governor was George W. Bush. Last Governor to lose was Michael Dukakis.
Vice President, Last VP to win White House was George H.W. Bush. Last one to lose was Al Gore.
Cabinet Secretary, Last one to win was Herbert Hoover. Last one to lose was...Lewis Cass
US Senator, Last one to win was Barrack Obama. Last one to lose was John McCain.
US House of Representatives, Last one to win was James Garfield. Last one to lose was John W. Davis
4-Star Military Officer, senior commander or higher. Last one to win was Dwight Eisenhower. (Eisenhower was a 5-star General.) No 4-star military officer or senior commander has lost. The military men who lost their White House bids were of lower rank.
Those who have not served in one of these offices has not only lost, but lost badly without exception. Here is the history.
1940--GOP selected businessman Wendell Wilkie to take on President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 449 electoral votes to 82 for Wilkie.
1904--Democrats of Tammany Hall push New York State Appeals Court Justice Alton B. Parker to take on President Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt wins 336 to 140.
1880--Major General (2-star) Winfield Scott Hancock is selected by the Democrats to take on Congressman James A. Garfield. Garfield wins 214 to 155. (Of note, Brian Mallon portrayed Hancock in the film Gettysburg.)
1872--Writer Horace Greeley stood up to President Grant and lost 286 to 76. Horace Greeley was an independent who peeled off the liberal faction of the Republican Party (Yes, there used to be one). The Democrats did not put forth a nominee of their own against Grant in 1872, but supported Greeley.
1864--Major General (2-star) George B. McClellan accepted the Democratic nomination against President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln won 212 to 21.
1852--Lieutenant General (3-star) Winifield Scott wins the Whig nomination against Democrat Franklin Pierce. Pierce wins 254-42. Pierce served as a Senator from New Hampshire.
1808--Secretary of State James Madison defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 122-47
1804--President Jefferson easily defeated Colonel CC Pinckney 162-14
In the 8 elections where the nominee from the major party served outside of the six traditional preparatory offices, all 8 were landslides. They were not even close.
There, of course, were mitigating factors in all of these elections. In 1940, Wilkie won the nomination because the early favorite Robert A. Taft was an isolationist who wanted to keep the US out of World War II. But the Nazis were over-running France during the party convention, and delegates soured on Taft.
In 1904, Tammany Hall was ruling the national Democratic party. They could be compared to the Tea Party today, but those are fighting words...maybe not. I doubt most Tea Party members know history well enough to know about Tammany Hall. Follow the link if you do not know about Tammany Hall. My next blog will compare the Tea Party of today to Tammany Hall.
Of course the Civil war was a factor in Presidential politics long after Appomattox. And slavery was a big issue before the Civil war. And Pinckney was probably a concessionary candidate from the weakening Federalist Party.
The election of 1872 is probably the most similar to the election of today. It was a faction of one of the major parties that pushed for Greeley's candidacy. Just is today where a faction of the Republican Party, the Tea Party, is pushing for the candidacy of Cain. The President and administration of US Grant was considered one of the most corrupt in history, where the administration today is considered to be one of the most ineffective in recent history. This election goes to show that you need a good candidate to challenge a sitting president, even if the incumbent is unpopular.
But as a student of History, and married to a History major, the potential nomination of Herman Cain is worrisome. As a Republican, the potential nomination of Cain is scary. It seems, however, that the Tea Party does not care. They would rather I believe that when the Obama camp sees a poll with Cain in front, they have to be overjoyed. Based upon what I am seeing, I am worried that we will not see another Republican President until next decade. I beg people who are drinking the Tea Party cool-aid to read this article. Learn from history. Please consider Romney, Perry, Huntsman or Johnson instead. This quartet gives us the best chance at winning the White House.
About the sexual harassment allegations. None of them have been in the last 10 years. If it is in his past and a problem that he has personally addressed, then that is good enough. As long as this does not turn out to be an on-going or current problem.
If Cain wins the nomination, he will likely win some firmly republican states. My guess is that he will win 14 states, including Texas. Obama would win the election 414 electoral votes to 124.
Posts
