« This Weekend's Show: Pelosi-Palooza! | Main | Two Thoughts For Today »

January 07, 2007



Here's the data going back to 1904.

Past presidential elections:
(E) - Executive; (L) - Legislative; (O) - Other; (I) Incumbent (I have indicated the most recently held position)

2004 - George the Younger (I) beat Kerry (L)
2000 - George the Younger (E) beat Gore (E) and Nadar (O)
1996 - Clinton (I) beat Dole (L) and Perot (O)
1992 - Clinton (E) beat George the Elder (I) and Perot (O)
1988 - George the Elder (E) beat Dukakis (E)
1984 - Reagan (I) beat Mondale (E)
1980 - Reagan (E) beat Carter (I) and Anderson (O)
1976 - Carter (E) beat Ford (I) and McCarthy (L)
1972 - Nixon (I) beat McGovern (L) and Schmitz (L)
1968 - Nixon (E) beat Humphrey (L) and Wallace (E)
1964 - Johnson (I) beat Goldwater (L)
1960 - Kennedy (L) beat Nixon (E)
1956 - Eisenhower (I) beat Stevenson (E)
1952 - Eisenhower (O) beat Stevenson (E)
1948 - Truman (I – FDR term) Dewey (E), Thurmond (L), Wallace (E), and Thomas (O)
1944 - Roosevelt (I) beats Dewey (E) and Thomas (O)
1940 - Roosevelt (I) beats Wilkie (O) and Thomas (O)
1936 - Roosevelt (I) beats Landon (E) and Thomas (O)
1932 - Roosevelt (E) beats Hoover (I) and Thomas (O)
1928 - Hoover (O) beats Smith (E) and Thomas (O)
1924 - Coolidge (E) beats Davis (L) and LaFollette (L)
1920 - Harding (L) beats Cox (E) and Debs (L)
1916 - Wilson (I) beats Hughes (E) and Benson (O)
1912 - Wilson (E) beats Roosevelt (E), Taft (I), and Debs (L)
1908 - Taft (O) beats Bryan (L) and Debs (L)
1904 - Roosevelt (I - McKinley term) beats Parker (O) and Debs (L)

Incumbents are 12 and 5. All 5 of the losses have been to executives. No incumbent has lost to a legislator in the past 100 years.

Non-incumbent executives are 4 and 2 against legislators (Kennedy and Harding).

Tom TB

Monica, I see it in a simple way; if you have done a good job running a State, you could do the job of running the United States. Senators can wait and see which way the wind blows before casting a vote; they are only one of a hundred, and can always use the excuse afterward that they "weren't given the proper information".


In the case of Iraq, none of them were given the correct information, were they?



I agree that Al Gore is a dark horse for Dem draft in 2008. After all, he hasn't become the Messiah of the Warmists, or the new South version of Preacher Man just to get the attention of a Lindy Lohan. That said, is Vice-President really an executive position, other than technically? Isn't it more like a homo sapien mandated to wear a chastity belt? He may talk, and even talk well, but what can he do?


Monica, you dope, Vilsack already announced, weeks ago, the first. He's not "toying" with anything. C'mon, please at least do a little bit of research or fact-checking before posting.

Helen Breen

Monica, I usually catch the beginning of your show when I am out doing my Saturday errands but I missed it today because I was having a pedicure. But I am sure it was a frontal attack on anyone who dared to question the wisdom of W’s latest “Way Forward” in Iraq as presented in Wednesday’s speech, n’est pas? You probably beat the media up pretty bad on that point.

However, later on I was lucky enough to catch your ridiculing of Hillary and Obama as potential 2008 presidential front runners. You would call me a “lib” (I prefer moderate) but I do not favor Hillary’s candidacy although I love Bill and think his presence behind the throne might bring some sanity back to the office. What I object to is the Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II, Clinton II legacy thing.

I really think that you and your right wing, excuse me “conservative” colleagues,” are petrified that Hillary won’t be the standard bearer. She would be so delicious to skewer. That would leave Obama. (In my view, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, et al are history). Now there is someone whom the right must fear. He had the good sense to oppose this disaster of choice in Iraq from Day One. You must have caught Obama on all the networks after President Bush’s speech. He was so articulate and without rancor. One of his themes is “let’s turn the page.” I say “Amen.


Hillary Clinton is a good and decent person. She is an extremely bright person. She is almost a Saint in the manner in which she handled her husband's peccadilloes, and by the poise and equanimity she has displayed in the face of outrageous and vicious personal attacks from Monica Crowley and a plethora of right wing ideologues out there.
Senator Clinton has been a dedicated, highly skilled representative of the people of New York. But that is as far as it should go.
If she runs for President, (not that she wouldn't make an excellent one), there will be too much division and diversion, (such as we see on here)—so much so that serious issues will get lost or disappear under a tonnage of swift boat type attacks, falsities, and ridicule.

We must not forget who started the bandwagon for Hillary. It was that hypocritical, pornographic maggot, Dick Morris, who re-birthed himself out of the
seamy and steamy disrepute of a prostitute's loins into the darling of Fox News, and since then has made it his personal mission to wipe the Clintons from the face of the earth.
He is the greatest Iago since Iago, and has done it all without shame, regret, or a picture of Jesus on his lapel.
We Democrats should beware of making that scoundrel's dream come true—a dream in which Hillary runs for President and loses.
That evil man waits, with rage in his heart and vengeance on his mind, to deliver the final eulogy, sweep away the the flowers, and gleefully p#ss on the graves of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
We should not let the Democrats lose in 2008 because of the shenanigans and intrigue of that foul creature, and by the likes of his bosom buddy, Monica Crowley.


If you want to know the real Bill and Hilaryand their genuine feelings about poor, black and powerless people, check out the story of Ricky Ray Rector, possibly the last Black Man lynched in Arkansas and a useful prop in the invention of the "Man from Hope.".

The comments to this entry are closed.