Presidents

1988-2004: The Submerging Democratic Majority

Gore4US — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:24:26 -0400

1988-2004 Election Analysis: The Submerging Democratic Majority http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/TruthIsAllFAQResponse.htm#HistoricalElections

The Democrats actually won all FIVE elections by an average 8.9 MILLION vote margin. That’s the True Emerging Democratic Majority. Don't believe it? Run the numbers yourself.

This analysis is based on the 1988-2004 Election Calculator model. The model first estimates the number of returning voters by adjusting prior election recorded vote totals for uncounted votes and mortality. An estimated turnout percentage is applied to this value. As preliminary NEP vote shares were not available for 1988-2000, Final National Exit Poll shares (which were matched to the recorded vote) were assumed for the base case. In 2004, however, preliminary 12:22am "pristine" vote shares were available, so these were used instead.

The model used Census-reported total votes cast as the base case assumption. The pool of potential returning voters was assumed to include all who cast votes, rather than just those whose votes were recorded. Uncounted vote rates based on the Census are much higher than the assumed 3.0% rate in prior models. Another assumption change is the mortality rate. Annual voter mortality, estimated as 1.22-1.30%, is more accurate than prior models which assumed the total US 0.87% mortality rate.

The new base case assumptions had the effect of increasing Democratic vote shares compared to prior models. For example, the Election Calculator indicates that Kerry won by 53.0- 45.9%, a 9 million vote margin. The prior True Vote Model had Kerry winning by 52.6-46.4%.

Following are the key results based on AVERAGE CALCULATED 1988-2004 Vote shares:

- The Dem share was 3.8% HIGHER than the RECORDED share.

- The GOP share was 3.2% LOWER than the RECORDED share.

- The Dem share was 1.4% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.

- The GOP share was 0.1% HIGHER than the PRELIMINARY Exit Poll.

Voter turnout of prior election Dem, GOP and Other voters is calculated as:

Turnout = prior election (recorded vote + uncounted votes - voter deaths)* voter turnout percentage

The True vote for the Dem, GOP and Other candidate is calculated as:

True Vote = shares of returning (Dem + GOP + Other + New voters)

Summary Statistics (1988-2004)


	Calculated
	TRUE Vote			Exit Poll		Recorded			Calculated Dem
	Dem	Rep		Dem	Rep	Dem	Rep		Margin (mil)
Average	50.9%	43.0%		49.5%	42.9%	47.1%	46.2%		8.86

2004	53.0%	45.9%		50.8%	48.2%	48.3%	50.7%		8.96
2000	51.1%	46.0%		48.5%	46.2%	48.4%	47.9%		5.66
1996	52.0%	39.3%		52.2%	37.5%	49.9%	41.4%		13.36
1992	47.9%	35.0%		46.0%	33.1%	43.3%	37.7%		14.71
1988	50.2%	48.7%		49.8%	49.3%	45.6%	53.4%		1.61


1988-2004 Avg	Total	Dem	Rep	Other	Margin	Dem	Rep	Other	Margin
Calculated	111.5	56.76	47.90	6.86	8.86	50.9%	43.0%	6.2%	7.9%
Recorded	102.9	48.47	47.66	6.74	0.81	47.1%	46.2%	6.7%	0.9%
Prelim Exit poll	102.9	50.84	44.28	7.93	6.56	49.5%	42.9%	7.9%	6.6%
Discrepancies
Calc - Recorded	8.7	8.29	0.24	0.12	8.05	3.8%	-3.2%	-0.5%	7.0%
Calc - Exit poll		5.92	3.62	-1.07	2.30	1.4%	0.1%	-1.7%	1.3%
Exit - Recorded		2.38	-3.38	1.19	5.76	2.4%	-3.4%	1.2%	5.7%

Fritz Mondale Unveils Revolutionary 'NEW' Concept of Governance

CactusPat — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:25:20 -0500

Former VP Walter "Fritz" Mondale and President Jimmy Carter made an unprecedented dual appearance on Wolfie Blitzer's Saturation Room. Fritz started things off by (replying to a question?) answering whether he's criticizing the Bush MisAdministration. In doing so he unveiled a revolutionary "new" concept of governance. I'm para-phrasing, transcript below...

[cut to Wolf Blitzer]
Blitzer: Blah, blah, blah (I had just switched the channel and didn't focus in for a second or two...)

[cut to Mondale]
Fritz Mondale: "....we told the truth, we obeyed the law, and we kept the peace."

[cut to Mondale and Carter] picture shows Mondale with "cat ate the canary" expression and Carter resembling a choirboy with an with angelic halo

[three to five seconds of this shot while Wolfie stammered off-camera]

I laughed so hard I nearly busted my gut... (full transcript below the fold)

I'll get the transcript up as soon as it's available...

Update: Here's the CNN transcript of the segment I described -

They dealt with international crises, they pursued peace in the Middle East, they experienced both highs and lows in public opinion. So former President Jimmy Carter and his vice president, Walter Mondale, are both uniquely qualified to talk about the pressures and the perils of the U.S. presidency, this on the 30th anniversary of their taking office.

A short while ago, I spoke with them exclusively and they compared and contrasted their White House with the current one.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER MONDALE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One of the things that I'm proudest of about our four years together was that we told the truth, and we obeyed the law, and we kept the peace.

It doesn't sound like much, maybe just what is expected. But I think we're seeing evidence of what happens when you stray from these fundamental principles.

BLITZER: It sounds, Mr. Vice President...

MONDALE: I was never...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It sounds, Mr. Vice President -- excuse me...

MONDALE: Yes.

BLITZER: ... for interrupting -- that that's an implied criticism, if not a direct criticism, of the current president...

MONDALE: Well...

BLITZER: ... and vice president.

MONDALE: That's -- well, that's acceptable to me, if you want to draw that conclusion.

(LAUGHTER)

MONDALE: But the fact of it is that ours was an honest administration. You could believe what you were told. We never played games with the law.

We were true -- we were true to that oath of office. And we did everything we could to enhance American power, based on our principles, and try to avoid war. And we accomplished that. And I feel good about it.

BLITZER: Is this a dishonest administration?

MONDALE: You know, let me just say this. A lot of the things -- I never use that word. A lot of the things we were told proved not to be true.

BLITZER: But it -- was that a deliberate -- was the president and the vice president -- here is the question, Mr. Vice President. Was the president and the vice president -- did they mislead the American people, or were they misled themselves?

MONDALE: I have been very careful about avoiding words like deceit or lying and so on.

What I'm talking about is our four years, during which I'm absolutely positive we told the truth, we obeyed the law, and we kept the peace. That's what I'm talking about.

We now have an administration that stumbled over these values, and is having its own great difficulties trying to sustain public leadership, in part because of things they said that got us into this war. They surely have been contemptuous of enforcing the law. And they have been -- they have dumped, basically, the whole foreign intelligence surveillance system. They may be bringing it back.

And it seemed, for a while, they just recklessly wanted to get involved in international military conflicts. And I think it's been at great cost to our country.

BLITZER: Mr. Mondale, about Dick Cheney, you have been critical of him, the relationship he's had with the president. Contrast that to the relationship you had when you were vice president with President Carter.

MONDALE: Carter is credited by all historians, I think, for having established a unique, new relationship with his vice president.

I was brought into the White House. I was privy to the same information. We met repeatedly. I was involved as an adviser and worked for the president in many, many different ways.

And I think future vice presidents have all followed that example, including the Cheney example. But I think one of the problems now is that this vice president, the current vice president, seems to have stepped across the line that we thought was important in our time.

In other words, I tried to work as a representative of the president. I didn't go around volunteering my own policies. I considered myself that kind of officeholder, and not a prime minister, not a deputy president or something like that.

This vice president, see, is troubling to me, because, time and time again, we have seen the establishment, for example, of almost a parallel National Security Council, the involvement of the vice president in trying to pressure, influence the kind of information that flows to the top and up to the presidency.

And I think that political scientists ought to study about whether there should be a recognized line that a vice president must obey to prevent that kind of problem that we're seeing today. Many of the things we have been told that has helped got -- get us in trouble here, I think, is a reflection of that problem.

BLITZER: Mr. President, how far should the Congress go in trying to stop this war in Iraq? Specifically, should it use the so-called power of the purse?

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that's perfectly legitimate, Wolf, not dealing with our military already over there. We don't want to cut them off, because they haven't been adequately supplied, as you know, with body armor or with armor of their vehicles and other facilities.

But I think the Congress should use its maximum authority. My own recommendation to the Congress, particularly to the Democrats in the Congress, is to adopt, with minor modifications only, the -- the Hamilton-Baker task force recommendations.

I think that's a solid bunch of recommendations on what we ought to do. And it's something that all Democrats could adopt, but with individual candidates for president, and so forth, modifying themselves somewhat slightly.

But I have been very proud, so far, of this first 100 days and the things that the House has done. And my hope is that the Senate, despite the restrictions of -- and a need for getting 60 votes, will follow in the footsteps of the House, and have very strong moves toward the future...

BLITZER: You...

CARTER: ... to correct some of the mistakes that have been made during the last six years.

BLITZER: You meant the first 100 hours, not the first 100 days.

CARTER: First 100 hours. Excuse me.

BLITZER: First 100 legislative hours.

The president is going through a period right now, where he is very unpopular. His policies are unpopular. You went through a similar period during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis.

What advice do you have for the president right now, as he goes into his final two years in office?

CARTER: Well, obviously, I can't change the character of the president. I don't want to comment on that.

But I -- obviously, what needs to be done is to reassess some of the mistakes that have been made that are patently obvious to everyone, the violation of basic laws, some of which Mondale and I passed -- that is the -- getting judicial approval before you start spying on American people -- there seems to be some acknowledgment, in the last few hours, as a matter of fact, that they violated a law there and the basic elements of the Constitution -- to reassert America's status in the entire world as a champion of human rights, instead of a foremost violator of human rights, both domestically and in our prison camps, or sometimes innocent people, also to pursue the effort to have an energy policy that will correct the mistakes that we have made in recent years, letting the oil companies establish the energy policy.

And I would say that, in many other ways, the tax program that has benefited, almost unanimously, the wealthiest people in the United States, those need to be revised.

So, health programs -- I think the best advice is to reassess the mistakes that have been made, cooperate as much as possible with the Democrats in the Congress. And I think there's a -- not a unanimous, but there is a bipartisan inclination to make some of the corrections that I have described. (END VIDEOTAPE)

Annual Zogby Poll - Bush a failure, FDR the greatest

CactusPat — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:23:19 -0500

Roosevelt Continues to Dominate Presidential Greatness Scale

Annual Zogby International poll shows Bush’s ranking falls again; Ford’s rating more than doubles following his death in December

Franklin D. Roosevelt is back on top of the list of the greatest presidents of the modern era, returning to the highest ranking after Kennedy displaced him in last year’s survey, a new nationwide Zogby International telephone poll shows. Roosevelt has dominated Zogby’s Presidential Greatness survey since 1997 – only losing out to Kennedy in 2006 and 2002.

Roosevelt was rated “great” or “near great” by 78% of those surveyed, while 74% said they feel the same way about Kennedy. Both Roosevelt and Kennedy experienced slightly higher greatness rankings in this year’s poll – 71% ranked Roosevelt as great or near great last year compared to 73% who said they felt the same about Kennedy. The Zogby survey of 843 likely voters took place January 5-9, 2007, and contains a margin of error of +/- 3.4 percentage points.

George W. Bush, who continues to struggle with dwindling job-performance numbers, trails Nixon as the modern president with the highest negative ranking – 50% of those surveyed place the current president at the low end of the scale compared to 40% who felt the same last year. Even though Nixon has the greatest overall negative rating (57%), Bush beats him out on the failure scale – 30% say Bush is a failure as a president, compared to 23% who feel that way about Nixon. Just 21% rated Bush as a great or near great president this year – those numbers have fallen steadily since his all-time high greatness rating of 63% in 2002, following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.... (full news release w/graph)

Gerald Ford - Selected, not elected. Sound familiar?

CactusPat — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:02:20 -0500

We interrupt the Corporatist State Media's Saint Gerald Ford Memorial Beautification Propagandafest for this report from the reality-based community... All right, I've had up to here with this Canonization of Ford by the Corporatist State media. Can we all take a deep breath and contemplate Gerald Ford as a politician, and how his actions belied his bumblin' "regular guy" persona? Well, perhaps a two-by-four up side your head is necessitated... Selected, not elected. Sound familiar?

Heal the nation? I think not. More like the ultimate enabler. Thanks to Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon, the seed of Criminal Republican Rule was thereby fostered and allowed to grow and flourish in a direct timeline from Nixon's criminal enterprise to the present criminal and illegitimate rule of Dear Misleader. Personified by the likes of Nixon WH war criminal Henry Kissinger, and "youngsters" Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld... (more)

"Nice guy" or not, Gerald Ford compiled arguably a reactionary right-wing voting record in Congress during his 1949-1973 tenure. From the era of McCarthyism through Cold War militarism, to supporting the Vietnam War, to opposing Civil Rights, and from opposing as a congress-critter, to ultimately, vetoes of much Progressive social legislation once installed as Chief Executive. How else you think he rose to the rank of Repugnant minority leader and selection as VEEP/POTUS?

So he was a healer, not a divider? GMAFB!

To recite a short litany of Ford's ills (or evils, if you will) -

There's his broken promise not to run for Prez in '76.

His complicity in the whitewash of JFK's murder as a member of the Warren Commission.

His obstruction of the Church Committee investigations of an out of control state security apparatus.

His naming, then commissioning, CIA director Poppy Bush to hype the Soviet Military threat (later used by RayGun to to obscenely inflate our military budget).

His participation in the failed attempt to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

And lastly Ford and Kissinger's green-lighting of Indonesia's occupation and genocide in East Timor in 1975 that left over 200,000 people dead.

Amy Goodman covered much of this in Wednesday's DemocracyNow show with interviews with several folks in the know, including Brad Simpson of the National Security Archives and journalist Alan Nairn on the Ford/Kissinger green-light of East Timor invasion, Journalist Robert Parry on Ford's legacy and the Bush MisAdministration's roots in the Ford WH, and Nation magazine publisher emeritus Victor Navasky on the possibility of an Alexander Haig brokered deal to pardon Nixon.

Victor Navasky: Let's see, in August of 1974, which was about a week before Nixon resigned, General Hague took Gerry Ford for a walk in the rose garden, and told him that Nixon was going bonkers and they had to get him out of there, and there were four possible ways to do that. The first three turned out to not realistic. But the fourth, he said, was if you would promise to pardon him after you become president, I think he would agree to resign.

Now, some years later Ford wrote about this in his memoir. And, someone, and his memoirs were being kept secret as they had sold publication rights and he had signed a contract saying he wouldn't talk about it until the book came out. And someone who had access to it asked me if I wanted to read it. And, I said not particularly, but I would, and it turned out that there was this one chapter that dealt with this conversation. And, the way Ford told the story, he put a gloss of innocence on it...

...After Hague took Ford for a walk in the rose garden, Ford writes in his memoir that he came back to his office, and he mentioned this to an aide of his named, Bob Hartman, and the aide said, and then what did you say after you heard that? And, Ford said well, I didn't say anything. And, the aide said, gee, that's not good, silence implies assent. Because Ford had asked Hague well, is it possible to pardon someone before he is indicted? And Hague said yes, we checked it out with our lawyers and it is. So Ford says, he then went to sleep and he didn't say anything to Betty about it and the next morning he got up and he mentioned it to another aide, a fellow named Jack Marsh. And Marsh said, and then what did you say? And, Ford said, I didn’t say anything, and this aide said, gee, that could be a time bomb.

So, Ford then writes, that he then went and called General Hague and read him a statement, which he reprints in his book, and the statement said, nothing I did or didn't say yesterday should be taken to mean that I did or didn't agree to pardon or not to pardon Richard Nixon. And, he writes it as a kind of proforma thing, and the way I read it was it was a an attempt to put a gloss of innocence on a deal they had made. And this is a possible obstruction of justice, and that it’s something that he shouldn’t have done and against the law, and possibly, after he got nominated and confirmed, an impeachable offense, even....

I thanks my lucky stars each and every day for Amy Goodman.

Gerald Ford R.I.P., I won't be missin' ya....

h/t to T.P.S.M. for some excellent links....

Bush Says Ford Healed Nation, Hopes for Some "Healing" Himself Soon

davidswanson — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:04:26 -0500

Bush turns out to be a fan of pardoning criminal presidents. Ford turns out to have promised to pardon Nixon in order to become president, and to have thought Bush's war was nuts.

Our Grand Dame of American Journalism

Chip — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 05:42:12 -0500

The Grand Dame of American Journalism, Helen Thomas, again spoke truth to power in an interview with her niece, Suzanne Geha, of NBC's Grand Rapids station, WOOD-TV. Ms. Thomas, born of Lebanese parents, made a sleeper cameo appearance in the short of President Clinton's final White House days.

Pulling no punches, the ever direct and gracious "Lady Helen" characterized the current Bush administration as the "most secretive" she has reported in her 40 professional years, calling Iraq a "debacle," and leaving the U.S.'s only option to "cakewalk out," a wry and penetrating critique of the fascist PNAC'r Kenneth Adleman's 2002 incendiary bravado that "demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk...This President Bush does not need to amass rinky-dink nations as ‘coalition partners' to convince the Washington establishment that we're right."

Adelman is a member of the Defense Policy Board, a federal advisory committee to the United States Department of Defense that is charged with serving "the public interest by providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense and will be responsible for research and analysis of topics, long or short range, addressed to it by the Secretary of Defense."

Helluvajob, Adelman!

Ms. Thomas noted that neo-cons like Adelman are jumping ship to "safe housing" like university think-tanks.

Describing her take on American journalism, she noted that the charge of the fourth estate is for "basic truth" and to "keep people informed" as the people have a right "to know most everything."

Ronald Reagan made "liberal" a four-letter word, a legacy that lives to this day. She assails Bush 43 for "fabrications" and "showing no coffins" of our courageous departed military, noting "everything he said was untrue...(it's) incredible that we've been lead into this quagmire."

For now, her lament is that "you can lose your credibility and remain president" while noting in contrast that the journalistic ideals are "credibility, honesty and speaking to the people."

It's our (hopefully transitory) lament, too, Ms. Thomas.

Her desire is to "spread peace and freedom" and judging by those who demonstrated support by showering her with roses - it is a message that resonates.

In acknowledgement, she wrote to her supporters:

"Blessed are the peacemakers. The bounty of beautiful roses from such wonderful people has lifted my heart and will remain in my memory for the rest of my life. Thank you for caring that others may live.

Helen Thomas
Columnist, Hearst Newspapers"

As you, and the principles for which you so firmly stand, remain in ours, dear Grand Dame Thomas.

Real President Gore Will Take On The Impostor!

Bob Fertik — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:07:14 -0500

President Al Gore has been giving rip-roaring speeches to Moveon audiences for two years. On Monday Gore will give another one at the historic Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Washington DC. This will be sponsored by the bipartisan Liberty Coalition (of which Democrats.com is a member) and the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

John Nichols says the topic will be how Bush has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

He will address

the threat posed by policies of the Bush Administration to the Constitution and the checks and balances it created. The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review...

Don't expect a direct call for impeachment from the former vice president. But do expect Gore to make reference to Richard Nixon, whose abuses of executive authority led to calls for his impeachment -- a fate the 37th president avoided by resigning in 1974.

With a Congressional inquiry into Bush's repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scheduled to begin in February -- and with Bush already preparing to pitch an Nixon-style defense that suggests it is appropriate for the executive branch to violate the law when national security matters are involved -- Gore will articulate the more traditional view that reasonable checks and balances are required even in a time of war. And he will do so in a bipartisan context that will make it tougher for Republican critics to dismiss the former vice president's assertion that the Constitution is still the law of the land.

Former U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the Georgia Republican who served as one of the most conservative members of the House, plans to introduce Gore. Barr, an outspoken critic of the abuses of civil liberties contained in the USA Patriot Act critic who has devoted his post-Congressional years to defending the Bill of Rights, refers to the president's secret authorization of domestic wiretapping as "an egregious violation of the electronic surveillance laws."

Count on Gore, who has pulled few punches in the speeches he has delivered in recent months, to be at least as caustic.

Al Gore for President in 2008!!!