Unexplained Numbers Time in Brief: Lists

 The following is just simply everything I love all rolled into one: presidents, numbers, and lists.

1) Eisenhower: 899
2) Clinton: 749
3) Wilson: 712
4) Obama: 697
5) HW Bush: 594
6) McKinley: 563
7) W Bush: 557

1) Reagan (1984) 525
2) FDR (1936) 523
3) Nixon (1972) 520
4) Reagan (1980) 489
5) LBJ (1964) 486
6) FDR (1932) 449
7) Eisenhower (1956) 457
8) FDR (1940) 449
9) Hoover (1928) 444
10) Eisenhower (1952) 442
11) Wilson (1912) 435
12) FDR (1944) 432
13) HW Bush (1988) 426
14) Harding (1920) 404
15) Coolidge (1924) 382
16) Clinton (1996) 379
17) Clinton (1992) 365
18) Obama (2008) 365
19) TR (1904) 336
20) Obama (2012) 332
21) Taft (1908) 321
22) Biden (2020) 306

Incumbent Losers in Brief

The year is 1789. A group of rich, white land owners are gathering together to enact the first of many flawed democratic traditions. Given two votes each, electors chose a guy born in Scotland, some Georgia farmer, and some guy named James Armstrong. More importantly, every single one of them used their other vote on George Washington. Eleven years later (1800), the same fucked up process came one Hamilton arm twist away from putting Aaron Burr in the White House, but more importantly, it was the first time an incumbent, John Adams, had lost re-election.

Adams’ Federalist Party had crumbled, leaving Jefferson’s proto-Republicans in charge through the most stable time in US Political history, ending when John Quincy Adams became president despite clearly losing the election. Andrew Jackson led a four year charge against him until, 28 years after his father’s defeat (1828), JQ became the second Adams and second incumbent to lose re-election.

Only 12 years later, after Jackson spent eight years destroying the economy, an economic panic tanked his successor’s re-election chances, and in 1840 Martin Van Buren lost to a rich drunk the people mistook for a poor drunk.
Keep Reading >>

2020 Super Tuesday in Brief

In 2016, the entire election was completely messed up by California being last. Super Tuesday used to mean something. It was an all or nothing day that put an end to a primary cycle that could go on way too long. There's an argument to be made that it cheapens all the other primaries, but big picture, that kind of chaos hurt the race. It makes a two-candidate race a bad thing. It makes the fractured time longer and the healing time shorter.

In 2020, it's a completely different story. With this many candidates, Super Tuesday could end the race in one day, or blow the thing wide open. For those not happy with either of the current front runners, Super Tuesday is a point of hope. There are 1,357 delegates up for grabs in one day. That means the less than 20 delegate lead the front runners currently hold could be wiped out completely. For all intents and purposes, the race begins or ends on March 3. Any candidate could win California, Texas, and North Carolina; lose all the others; and still win the day. Or the current front runners could continue to win big, and everyone else drops out.

California	415		Massachusetts	91		Alabama	52		Maine	24
Texas	228		Minnesota	75		Oklahoma	37		Vermont	16
North Carolina	110		Colorado	67		Arkansas	31		Dems. Abroad	13
Virginia	99		Tennessee	64		Utah	29		Am. Samoa	8

This means everyone is still in it, even Tulsi. It's going to get contentious for a while. Everyone believes their candidate is the best hope, and a lot of people believe the other candidates are total betrayals of Democratic values. The thing is, we can't all decide what Democratic values are. That's what it means to be Democrats. We don't get in lock step. We don't all just blindly agree. We are a coalition of ideas. As such, I refuse to call any of these candidates evil. I refuse to call any of them dangerous. I refuse to call any of them secret Republicans. That is just partisan nonsense. This is a pros and cons of every candidate, trying very hard to be neutral, but knowing I'm not going to be.

Keep Reading >>

2020 Candidates In Brief

EDIT 1/14/20: Six months later, it's a completely different field, so I'm giving this list a makeover.

Not Just Old White Men

Elizabeth Warren, Senator-MA: The clear best choice for now. She has a plan for everything. She has ideas, but against this incumbent, will her low-key demeanor be a plus or a minus? Will people see her and her ideas and see a leader, or just a collection of great policies? EDIT 1/14/20: A part of me wants to believe that the smartest person in the room will win. But another part of me watches a candidate who isn't really impressing me as a politician. I worry about her facing off against the president.

Amy Klobuchar, Senator: Maybe if she wasn’t the only boring candidate, she’d be worth listening to. But she’s like the fifth most popular boring candidate. Good on her for tearing apart Brett Kavanaugh. We thank you for your service. EDIT 1/14/20: With most of the other women out, Klobuchar might be able to pull off the old Kamala gamble, to lay low and stay in the pack until it's time to make her move. If we're going to go with a middle of the road, mostly boring candidate, can it at least be a woman? More importantly, she might be the best option now to stand on the stage with the president and tear him down.

Pete Buttigieg, Mayor-IN: Make no mistake, the mayor of a city of 100,000 people is in no way qualified to run the country. But it’s 2019, and I said the same thing about a one-term Senator in 2008. Pete’s young, he’s exciting, he’s white.

Keep Reading >>

Harrison Tyler

This is Harrison Tyler. He was born in 1928 when his father, Lyon, was 75 years-old. Gross, right? Don’t judge Lyon too harshly. He comes by his creepy old dad vibe honestly. His father, John, was 63 years-old when he was born. Oh yeah, Lyon’s father and Harrison’s grandfather John was, for just under four years, president of the United States.

Okay, you may have heard about that. It’s pretty weird that a guy born in 1790 has a living grandson, especially when he supported the confederacy, I mean used to be president.

It seems like a cool homage for Lyon to name his son after William Henry Harrison, the guy who died so his dad could become president. But here’s the cool part. Harrison Tyler is also William Henry Harrison’s great-grandson.

Harrison’s son William is now in charge of the Tyler estate, Sherwood Forest. Next time you’re in Virginia, go say hi.

Fun with Ranking Presidents

Boise State has released their latest ranking of the Presidents. As I’ve said many times before, this is an absurd undertaking. It’s impossible to fairly compare Presidents who faced different challenges, different worlds, different expectations, different jobs. I do find them fascinating. It’s worth it to see how modern politics affects how experts view history. Before reading further, I suggest you click the link above and look at their methodology and breakdowns. Don’t comment on bias in this list. It’s addressed in the breakdown.

On the breakdown, they mention that they asked the experts about which presidents were the most polarizing. More fascinating than the answer to that question is the actual breakdown on ideological lines in the study itself. They broke down how the experts voted based on their political affiliation. The differences and similarities among Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, and Liberals is worth a look. First, where all four groups agree:

Within the Top 10: Lincoln Washington FDR T Roosevelt Jefferson Truman Eisenhower

Firmly in the middle: Cleveland Grant Ford

Within the Bottom 10: Taylor Tyler Harding Fillmore Trump Pierce A Johnson WH Harrison Buchanan

Keep Reading >>

Shitpost: Young, Scrappy, and Carrie

Losers in Brief: Losing Our Damn Minds

(part 13 of 12, bonus entry)

Since 1789, 117 men and 2 women have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 71 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 31 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 40, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (Former Secretary of State, Democrat-IL) Lost to Trump-2016

Clinton had been in the national public eye since her husband ran for president 24 years before. She spent eight years in the White House advising the president. She parlayed her visibility into a successful New York Senate run. After six years serving her state, championing Democratic causes and leading in the Senate after 9/11, the people of her state re-elected her, knowing she intended to run for president two years later. After losing the 2008 primary, she was appointed Secretary of State, where she earned international respect as our chief diplomat. To recap, that's 8 years in an elected office of the legislative branch and 12 years in appointed and unappointed positions in the executive branch. Combined with a JD from Yale, she is basically the walking embodiment of all three branches of the federal government.

So why’d she lose? People fucking HATE her. It's almost absurd, the level of hate, unless you happen to also hate her, in which case is seems perfectly rational. During the election, I tried to refer to her as an expert in foreign policy, and I was told her foreign policy experience doesn't count because Secretary of State isn't an elected office. WHAT!?!?!?!? Obama had Wall Street folks in his cabinet, but apparently getting paid to give speeches made her more corrupt than every other politician who are also getting paid to give speeches to Wall Street. Not to mention her opponent was literally a Wall Street guy, so why the fuck does it matter? It matters because people fucking HATE her.

Keep Reading >>

Sigh, I Ranked the Presidents, Again

C-SPAN did a whole new list ranking the presidents and everyone is freaking out that Obama is #12. He's amazing! Wow! Obama is the best president ever! Keep in mind, guys, this list is the Make America Great Again of lists, with an insane bias for the middle of the 20th Century. Eisenhower is #5, higher than Jefferson. Sorry, no. Reagan is top 10? Nixon is higher than Garfield, who died having not be-smirched the office he swore to uphold nor ruined the presidency even to this day?

On the other hand, it's always good to update lists. I'm pretty compulsive. Updating lists keeps me from flipping out at old people who drive 40 in the fast lane (you have four other lanes, you fucking asshole). During the election, I talked to a lot of people about the symbolism of a president, and it gave me a new appreciation for the less concrete aspects of the job. On the flip side,  I have been thinking a lot about Jackson in the age of Trump. Maybe it's maturity that made me finally realize changing the entire political landscape and ushering in a new era in American government doesn't matter much when you've committed genocide.

I still hold to the spirit of the original list, that the actions of a president must be viewed through neutral political eyes. We don't have enough perspective to know the consequences of Reaganomics or Obamacare.

So I laid out my list and compared it to the C-SPAN list to see how different they were. Below is my old list, in comparison to the C-SPAN list. The numbers reflect my position in relation to theirs (Jefferson +3 means I rated him 3 slots higher. Zero means same, and there are some random zeroes in here)

The Old List
Keep Reading >>

Them Crazy Veeps: Biden My Time

In case anyone cares, I did a proper ranking of Joe Biden on the list. He's #8, just ahead of Al Gore, and just behind John Adams. Here's the link: http://blog.adamdaroff.com/2011/08/them-crazy-veeps-9-8.html

And here's a link to the whole list: http://blog.adamdaroff.com/2008/06/them-crazy-veeps-list-so-far.html

Elections in Brief: Top 10 Third Party Candidates

I'm tired of hearing about people talking about voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Not because I disagree with them but because most of them have no idea what voting for a third party candidate means (if this isn't you, don't get offended, it's not about you then). I'd venture a guess none of them have ever heard of Eugene Debs, the most tenacious third party candidate in US History. Do they know anything about historical third parties or their role in American politics? Or why we don't have any small, strong parties today? Instead of mocking these ignoramuses (ignoramii?) , it's time to get educated.

I'm not just going to lecture here about the dangers of third party presidential candidates. Ralph Nader arguably turned the results of the 2000 election. As a result, people who want to vote for a third party candidate keep having to hear about the futility of that decision. Nader won only 2.74% of the vote and received no electoral votes, but he still tipped the election toward the candidate most ideologically opposed to himself, George W. Bush. Is this always the result? With the two parties controlling the entire political process, is there hope for third-party candidates? Here's a list of the top 10 most successful third-party candidates, by success in both electoral votes and percentage of popular vote. Nader doesn't even rank on this list, and he tipped an election.

Keep Reading >>

Elections in Brief: Non-Incumbent Elections & Hillary Clinton

The election of 2016 is unprecedented, and not just because Hillary Clinton is the first woman to be a major party's candidate. If she wins, she will have accomplished something no Democrat has done since 1856. Let me explain.

Since 1788, we have held 56 elections (2016 will be 57). Of those 56, 24 have not included an incumbent president as a candidate, like this go-round. Before 1828, the whole electoral system was very different. That all changed in 1828 when the Democrats won the White House for the first time, so for the purposes of this exercise, we will start there and just lob off the first ten elections. That's 46 elections, 20 of which did not include an incumbent.

Of those 20, Democrats have only won 7, and of those 7, only 2 follow a Democrat president.

Following a Democrat President  Year   President  Followed By   1836   Jackson  Van Buren  1848  Polk  Taylor  1856  Pierce  Buchanan  1860  Buchanan  Lincoln  1868  A. Johnson (VP)   Grant  1896  Cleveland  McKinley  1920  Wilson  Harding  1952  Truman  Eisenhower  1968  L. Johnson  Nixon  2000  B. Clinton  W. Bush

Following a Republican President  Year   President  Followed By   1844   Tyler (VP)  Polk  1852  Fillmore (VP)   Pierce  1876  Grant  Hayes  1880  Hayes  Garfield  1884  Arthur (VP)  Cleveland  1908  T. Roosevelt  Taft  1928  Coolidge  Hoover  1960  Eisenhower  Kennedy  1988  Reagan  H.W. Bush  2008  W. Bush  Obama

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: Revenge of the Boring

(part 12 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

John Forbes Kerry (Senator, Democrat-MA) Lost to W. Bush-2004

In 2004, George W. Bush was wildly unpopular. In the few years since 9/11, Bush’s overly aggressive foreign policy turned almost universal support for the War on Terror into world-wide backlash against American imperialism. Before the election, it had become public knowledge that the administration outright lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction in order to manipulate the country into war with Iraq. For a moment, it seemed like a trained monkey would beat “Dubya” this go ‘round.

So why’d he lose? One word, hyphenated: flip-flop. In his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry had, through deep thought and measured consideration, changed his position on several issues. This would seem like the behavior of an intelligent man, well worthy of the presidency. The Kerry campaign allowed Bush’s people to paint him as indecisive. When they attacked Kerry for saying he “voted for the war before he voted against it,” Kerry should have fired back with, “Yeah, jerk-face. I voted for a war you told us was justified, then when it came out that you fucking lied to us, I decided my duty as a leader in the Senate was to de-fund your illegal war and bring our boys home. Next question, fucker.” He didn’t.

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: Murder and Viagra

(part 11 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

Michael Stanley Dukakis (Governor, Democrat-MA) Lost to H.W. Bush-1988

Dukakis presided over an unlikely boom in MA’s economy. He beat out Democratic heavy hitters like Jesse Jackson, Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and Joe Biden for the nomination. His campaign capitalized on Bush’s greatest weakness, Dan Quayle. Dukakis’s running mate Lloyd Bentsen slammed Quayle with the now classic, “You’re no Jack Kennedy” line.

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: Election Fun Facts

Staring at all these election numbers, I couldn't help but notice a few patterns. Maybe someone will find these interesting.

-- The Democratic-Republican Party held the White House for 28 straight years (1800-1825). The Democratic Party held the White House for 20 straight years during just the FDR and Truman presidencies.

-- In the first 75 years of the modern popular election (1824-1899), only three incumbents won re-election: Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant (all three are now on money).

-- In the next 75 years (1900-1975), only two presidents LOST re-election: Taft (trampled by Teddy Roosevelt) and Hoover (blamed for the Great Depression).

-- In the last 30 years, the incumbent has failed to win only once. From 1936 to 1972 (36 years), the incumbent won every time he ran.

-- Since the Civil War, only two Democrats have failed to win re-election: Cleveland and Carter. Cleveland would eventually win a second term. Each were followed by back-to-back-to-back Republican wins.

-- Since 1900, when a non-incumbent Republican gets elected president immediately following another Republican, he is assured to lose re-election (Taft, Hoover, and Bush Sr.).

-- When a Republican follows a Democratic president, defeats a Democratic incumbent, or ascends from the Vice Presidency following a death (not resignation), he is guaranteed to win re-election.

-- In contrast, after 1900 we have no idea what happens when a Democrat follows another Democrat because (not including deaths) it hasn't happened since 1856, and that guy started the Civil War.

-- A Republican ticket has not won an election without a Nixon or a Bush on it since 1928, and that guy caused the Great Depression.

Losers in Brief: The Age of the Blowout

(part 10 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

Adlai Ewing Stevenson II (Governor, Democrat-IL) Lost to Eisenhower-1952, 1956

Stevenson was Truman’s hand-picked successor. His friends dragged him kicking and screaming into the race, but everyone knew he was the man to carry the New Deal torch.

So why’d he lose? He was kind of a dork. Compared to the charismatic and popular Eisenhower, he didn’t have a chance. In 1956, no one could beat Eisenhower, so he just ran to make sure the smartest, most articulate Democrat was the one out there getting the message across.

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: Nothing Stops FDR (Except Polio)

(part 9 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

Alfred Mossman “Alf” Landon (Governor, Republican-KS) Lost to FDR-1936

In 1934 every Republican Gubernatorial candidate lost, except for Alf Landon. He was a rare Progressive Republican. His platform was almost unrealistically practical: the New Deal rocks but I can do it without the wasteful spending and wide-spread repression of personal liberty. History likes to white-wash how totalitarian Roosevelt was, and Landon wasn’t even trying to take him down. He was just trying to pull it back a little.

So why’d he lose? Lose is an understatement. He got 6 electoral votes to FDR’s 532. That remains the largest loss in history. His personality was about as interesting as his policy platform and FDR was the fucking man. Landon never had a prayer.
Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: The Roaring Fuck Up

(part 8 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

John William Davis (Former Ambassador / Former Solicitor General, Democrat-WV) Lost to Coolidge-1924

Unlike the shallow minded commander-in-chief, Davis was a well-read, intelligent man who modeled his life after his idol, Thomas Jefferson. He wanted to be like Jefferson in every way, except for bedding slaves and writing about the smell of black people (click here, search for the word "glands"). Calvin Coolidge was famous for being quiet and stone-faced. When the original front runner, Al Smith, tried to take him on, the Democrats decided he was too radical. They needed someone who could out-Coolidge Coolidge. Davis was the only man in the country as well respected and as boring as the president.

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: Wilson Sucks

(part 7 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

Charles Evans Hughes (Supreme Court Justice, Republican-NY) Lost to Wilson-1916

Hughes blasted onto the scene, defeating none other than William Randolph Hearst to win the Governorship of New York, despite no other Republican winning a single other seat in the entire state. Another on TR’s short list of cool dudes, Hughes carried the Progressive banner onto the Supreme Court, and when it came time to take down Wilson, Hughes was the obvious choice.

Keep Reading >>

Losers in Brief: The Tragedy of Alton Parker

(part 6 of 12)

Since 1789, 112 men have won at least one electoral vote. Of that group, 65 never became President or Vice President. Of them, 30 were a bunch of ambitious losers who tried for the most powerful office in the country and failed. The other 35, you’ll have to read to find out. These are their stories.

William Jennings Bryan (Former Congressman, Democrat-IL) Lost to McKinley-1896, 1900; Taft-1908

Like a whirlwind, Bryan single-handedly re-molded the Democratic party in his image with fiery speeches that left the country entranced. Although he saw diminishing returns each time he ran, he would eventually become Secretary of State. And he was awful. You can read more here.

So why’d he lose? He was batshit crazy. Completely mad. The dude who fought AGAINST evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Yeah, that was him.

Keep Reading >>