All posts tagged "gerald ford"

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Growing up in Texas, we were treated to stories of colorful political characters. Few could top John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner, who once pronounced that the vice-president position “is not worth a bucket of warm spit.” (Some say Garner said worse.)

That seems to be the opinion of more than a few pundits and political scientists. National Public Radio, The Economist and Politico have all run articles asserting how little impact a vice presidential pick makes on the ultimate outcome of a presidential election.

I take a different approach, comparing vice presidential picks’ performance in their states to how the party did in that state four years earlier.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

To test their hypothesis, I analyzed how a party’s presidential ticket performed in the vice president nominees’ state in a given election year. Then I compared it to how the party’s ticket did in that state four years earlier.

It turns out that more often than not, a vice presidential candidate running as vice president for the first time helps you perform better in his or her state than four years earlier when that VP candidate wasn’t on the ticket.

ALSO READ: Tim Walz's personal finances are extraordinarily boring — and that may help Harris

For example, did Mike Pence help Donald Trump’s performance in Indiana during 2016 compared to how Republicans did in 2012? This case matters, given that Democrats won Indiana in 2008.

By the same token, did Democrats do better in Virginia with Sen. Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s running mate in 2016 than Democrats did in the same state during 2012?

In these most recent 17 cases, where the vice presidential nominee isn’t already a vice president running for reelection — such as Joe Biden in 2012 — the vice presidential candidate boosted the party ticket 10 times in his or her home state. On seven occasions, the VP candidate did not do as well for his or her party as the party did four years ago in the state.

There were three cases where the vice presidential candidate boost or drag on the ticket was less than a percentage point. Taking those three out means that on nine occasions, the vice presidential candidate improved the ticket in his or her state. In five cases, the VP candidate did not help the ticket in the state he or she is from.

The average boost a vice presidential candidate gets a ticket in his or her own state is 4.4 percentage points, when considering all 17 cases.

That difference definitely matters in 2024.

As recently as last month, some polls put Trump ahead of Biden in Minnesota, which Biden had won by about 7 percentage points in 2020.

With Biden off the ticket, the advantage has swung back toward Democrats, but Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz’s addition to the ticket Tuesday will all but ensure that Minnesota — a must-win for Kamala Harris’ presidential chances — stays blue.

In three cases (1976 Democrats, 1980 Republicans and 1992 Democrats), a vice presidential candidate helped flip a state. In 2016, Kaine boosted the Democrats in his swing state of Virginia in a tight election — Clinton won Virginia, even if she lost the election.

One should also consider the cases where a presidential candidate would have done much better, possibly winning the overall election, with a better vice presidential selection.

ALSO READ: Why ‘vanilla’ Tim Walz is the ingredient to beat Trump: Dem lawmakers

Imagine President Gerald Ford keeping Vice President Nelson Rockefeller — and winning New York in 1976. It could have meant the difference in Ford defeating Democrat Jimmy Carter and winning his own four-year term after assuming the presidency from disgraced Richard Nixon. Instead, Carter narrowly won New York — and the election.

It’s also hard to imagine Democrat Al Gore losing Florida with the highly popular Sunshine State politician Bob Graham — a senator and governor — in 2000. Instead, he picked Connecticut's Joe Lieberman.

Republicans would have almost certainly fared a bit better against Democrat Barack Obama with a ticket of John McCain and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania in 2008, instead of McCain and then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) might have helped Mitt Romney in 2012, at least in Ohio.

Still need convincing?

Many others in the media and academia have challenged the idea that vice presidential picks matter.

The Economist takes issue with the notion that vice presidential nominee Lyndon B. Johnson delivered the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy, who edged out Nixon in one of the nation’s closest elections in history.

And they might be right, given that the only states that voted for Democrat Adlai Stevenson II in 1952 and 1956 were from the South. Yet Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Republican, did win Johnson’s home state of Texas in both elections, and Kennedy captured Texas in 1960.

In a recent interview with A Martínez from National Public Radio, professor Kyle Kopko at Elizabethtown College takes issue with the idea that a VP candidate can deliver an election:

MARTÍNEZ: All right. So if the Harris campaign is thinking about picking a VP candidate to help them carry one of November's swing states, what is your message to them? Kyle, let's start with you there.

KOPKO: Well, first of all, it's probably not going to happen. Whenever we estimate a number of statistical models dating back decades, it's pretty rare that we find a vice presidential candidate that can deliver a battleground state. And even if they could, then it really has to be the decisive state in the Electoral College really to make a difference. So you can think about this as lightning needing to strike ever just right for it to count in the presidential election.

In a Politico article two elections ago, Kopko and Christopher Devine go into more detail about their model.

They look at state-level election returns from 1884-2012. They also delve in public opinion polls from 1952-2008 to see how much a vice-presidential candidate means for their home state.

Here are their findings: “While presidential candidates typically enjoy a home-state advantage (approximately 3 points to 7 points), vice presidential candidates generally do not. In each of the three analyses described above, a presidential ticket performs no better in the vice-presidential candidate’s home state than we would expect otherwise. Statistically speaking, the effect is zero.”

It's not that Kopko and Devine are wrong, but they are looking at eras with many blowout elections.

Think of Republican victories from 1896-1908 (William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt), 1920-1928 (Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge), and 1952-1956 (Eisenhower), or Democratic dominance from 1932-1944 (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

It wouldn’t have mattered if you put Superman on the ticket for the losing side, even with the X-ray vision.

But in more recent years, with 24-hour media and social media coverage, we learn a lot more about Palin, Pence, Kamala Harris and Joe Biden than America ever heard about Thomas Marshall, Thomas Hendricks, Levi P. Morton or Allen G. Thurman in those days.

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

But in more recent years, from 1976-2020, one could say that it’s a whole new ballgame for vice presidential picks.

And the selections of J. D. Vance of Ohio and Walz of Minnesota are likely to have a much bigger impact than Charles Fairbanks, Charles G. Dawes, Charles Curtis, Charles W. Bryan and Charles L. McNary (all vice presidential picks between 1904-1940) ever did.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

Do presidents’ popularity increase after assassination attempts? History has an answer.

In the 2010 movie “Machete,” Sen. John McLaughlin of Texas (played by Robert De Niro) stages an assassination attempt to frame the title character. A newscaster in the film reports that a poll, taken within minutes of the fake shooting, shows McLaughlin at record-high approval ratings.

It’s part of a popular belief that when high-profile political figures survive assassination attempts, their approval ratings skyrocket.

So will Donald Trump — having survived an assassination attempt Saturday when a gunman wounded his ear — suddenly run away with the 2024 presidential election as some fretting Democrats and exuberant Republicans now believe?

EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s ‘secretary of retribution’ has a ‘target list’ of 350 people he wants arrested

To test this argument, I analyzed Gallup approval rating data involving modern-era presidents who survived assassination attempts.

Here are the results:

Since John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, there have been at least six high-profile attempts upon the lives of presidents, with three against Republicans (Gerald Ford twice and Ronald Reagan once) and three against Democrats (Bill Clinton twice and Joe Biden once).

Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme tried to assassinate Ford on September 5, 1975, in Sacramento.

Gallup Polling from August 15-18, 1975, showed Ford with 46 percent support. That support declined to 45 percent by September 9-12, 1975.

Then, on Sept. 22, 1975, Sara Jane Moore tried to kill Ford in San Francisco. Ford’s approval rating from Sept. 12-15, 1975, was 45 percent, which went up to only 47 percent on Oct. 3-6, 1975 — a two-percentage-point gain.

President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. on March 30, 1981. From March 13-16, 1981, before the shooting, the president’s support was at 60 percent. It increased to 67 percent on April 3-6, 1981, a seven-percentage-point gain in Gallup polls.

On Sept. 12, 1994, Frank Eugene Corder hijacked a small plane and attempted to crash it into the White House where Clinton, the then-president, resided. The plane instead landed on the South Lawn. Before then, Clinton had an approval rating of 39 percent. It increased in the next Gallup Polling average to 42 percent during Sept. 16-18, 1994.

Francisco Martin Duran, another would-be assassin who targeted Clinton on Oct. 29, 1994, shooting with an assault rifle at the White House while the president was inside. Before then, Clinton’s approval rating, according to Gallup, was 48 percent (Oct. 22-25, 1994) and it fell to 46 percent afterward (Nov. 2-6, 1994).

On May 23, 2023, a neo-Nazi tried to kill President Joe Biden by crashing through a barrier a block from the White House. The May 1-24, 2023, Gallup polling average for Biden was 39 percent. For the following month, it was 43 percent (June 1-23, 2023), according to Gallup polling.

Bottom line?

If you add the Gallup poll improvements and poll declining cases and divide the sum by the number of cases, you get an average increase of 2.17 percentage points — barely a statistical blip by presidential approval rating standards.

Movies aside, myths about assassination attempts boosting presidential poll numbers typically come from tales about Reagan.

Peter Sheridan in the United Kingdom’s The Express argues “President Reagan’s popularity soared by 22 per cent [sic] when he was shot by a would-be assassin 43 years ago, and political and financial experts expect Trump to savour a similar boost.”

But as the Gallup evidence showed, it was only a seven-percentage-point jump, and the percent boost is still not near 22 percent (only a little above 10 percent).

Moreover, Del Quentin Wilber, writing for the Associated Press, claims in a book of his book that the assassination attempt “changed the trajectory of his presidency” for the positive. He also cites David Broder, who claims that Reagan’s survival of the assassination attempt and his folksy humor, made him a “mythical figure.”

It is worth noting that by the start of the summer, Reagan was back down to 59 percent. By November, he was at 49 percent. By the end of 1982 and early 1983, his approval rating was 39 percent. All of these are verified by Gallup polling.

Reagan’s political fortunes would soon turn around — but not because of an assassination attempt. Instead, a strong economy, competent re-election campaign and middling Democratic opposition in Walter Mondale conspired to propel Reagan to a landslide victory in 1984.

Assassination attempts typically only make very small boosts in approval ratings.

Speakers at the Republican National Convention this week in Milwaukee can’t stop talking about how strong and brave Trump is — the former president appeared at Milwaukee’s Fiserv Forum on Monday night — for bouncing back so quickly.

But if Trump becomes president of the United States again, and defeats Biden, it’ll likely be caused by any of several factors unrelated to the assassination attempt.

And an initial poll from Morning Consult supports that notion: Trump did not receive a nationwide popularity boost following the assassination attempt, according to the survey.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

History shows presidential debate victors often win the battle but lose the war

Donald Trump has to feel pretty good, as he bested — some might say obliterated — a stammering, low-energy President Joe Biden in their first debate of 2024. A CNN poll declared Trump the hands-down winner, 67 percent to 33 percent.

But are those who win that first debate more likely to take the election?

In short: no.

During the television era, history indicates that the winners of first general election presidential debates went on to win the election only five out of 13 times.

ALSO READ: How The Onion’s founding editor finds humor in the dismal age of Trump

So at a moment when some Democrats are questioning Biden’s fitness for the presidency, and wondering aloud whether Biden should exit the race altogether, this is a bit of bad news for Trump.

Let’s run the numbers:

In 2020, Biden won 60 percent to 28 percent for Trump in the first debate, according to CNN’s poll. Then Biden went on to win the election in November 2020.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton was judged to have won the first debate, according to CNN’s poll that had her winning 62 percent to 27 percent for Trump. But she lost the 2016 election.

In 2012, Mitt Romney won the first debate easily. According to Gallup, the Republican and former Massachusetts governor prevailed 72 percent to 20 percent for President Barack Obama. But it was Obama, the Democrat, who easily won reelection in 2012.

In 2008, Obama took the first debate from Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 51 percent to 38 percent in the first debate according to CNN. This served as a good launching point for Obama’s victory in the election later that year.

In 2004, Democratic Sen. John Kerry won the first debate against George W. Bush. Newsweek’s poll revealed that Kerry won 61 percent to 19 percent for Bush. But it was Bush who narrowly won the election.

In 2000, Gallup polling had Vice President Al Gore winning the first debate (48 percent to 41 percent), which may surprise people, as the media criticized Gore’s audible sighs. But Bush won the 2000 election.

In 1996, Democrat Bill Clinton outperformed Republican Sen. Bob Dole, in the first debate (51 percent to 31 percent) according to Gallup polling. And Clinton was reelected in 1996.

In 1992, Reform Party nominee Ross Perot won the first debate 47 percent to 30 percent for then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and 16 percent for President George H. W. Bush, according to Gallup. But Perot finished third in the election, behind Clinton and Bush, and didn’t earn a single electoral vote despite winning about 19 percent of the popular vote.

In 1988, Democrat and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was judged the winner of the first debate in two polls, but lost the election, by a wide margin, to Bush.

In 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale handily defeated Republican President Ronald Reagan 54 percent to 36 percent in their first debate. Yet Reagan won 49 of 50 states during the general election — one of the most notable landslide victories in U.S. History.

In 1980, Reagan also won the only debate against Democratic President Jimmy Carter and independent John Anderson, according to surveys from Gallup. Reagan also won the election.

Data from Gallup surveys showed that President Gerald Ford drastically reduced Carter’s big lead in 1976 but lost the election, while John F. Kennedy overtook Richard Nixon in the polls after their first debate in 1960 and ultimately won the ultra-close contest, according to Gallup.

That means that in 13 elections, the first debate winners have won five of these contests (1960, 1980, 1996, 2008, 2020). In the other eight cases, the first debate winners went on to lose at the ballot box (1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2012, 2016). That’s a 38 percent success rate for winners of the first debate.

No televised debates were conducted in 1964, 1968 or 1972.

Why do winners of the first presidential debate often come up short in the election?

ALSO READ: NRA no longer 'human rights group' on Google

It could be because the first debate serves as a wake-up call for the first debate loser, as it did for Reagan in 1984, and Obama in 2012; each had to answer questions about their poor debate performance.

It could be that taking the first debate puts pressure on the winner to make a repeat performance.

Or, perhaps, the first debate winner could become overconfident in his or her chances of winning the election.

Whatever the case may be, Trump may find that history is not on his side just because he dominated Biden in the first debate.

A second debate between Trump and Biden is scheduled for Sept. 10.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange College in LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.edu. His “X” account is JohnTures2.

All posts tagged "gerald ford"

Yes: VP pick Tim Walz matters for winning the election. History shows it.

Vice presidential picks: a recent history

Still need convincing?

Legacy of Charles not-quite-in-charge

Do presidents’ popularity increase after assassination attempts? History has an answer.

History shows presidential debate victors often win the battle but lose the war

Sean Penn: 'I applaud the spirit' of Occupy Wall Street