Podcasts de história

Qual é a campanha presidencial mais longa dos Estados Unidos?

Qual é a campanha presidencial mais longa dos Estados Unidos?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Olhando para 2008, parece que Mitt Romney está concorrendo à presidência desde que participou das primárias republicanas de 2008, onde perdeu para John McCain. Considerando uma breve paralisação enquanto McCain era o candidato republicano, e supondo que Mitt Romney reiniciou sua campanha logo após a vitória de Obama, sei que foi logo depois, mas não tenho a data, isso o tornaria um dos candidatos mais antigos - cerca de 4 anos.

Há algum outro caso em que uma campanha presidencial nos Estados Unidos tenha durado tanto ou mais, ou seja cerca de 4 anos a mais longa já registrada? Deve ser um indivíduo que corre sem parar dentro de um único partido político, em uma tentativa de ser seu indicado para presidente.


Qualquer pessoa pode declarar que está concorrendo à presidência dos Estados Unidos. Isso não está essencialmente relacionado, entretanto, a se ele ou ela será colocado na cédula, muito menos se ele terá uma chance de ganhar.

Para se tornar presidente, é preciso conquistar a maioria no Colégio Eleitoral e, salvo um ataque extraordinário de infidelidade colegiada, isso significa que você precisará obter eleitores que o apóiem. A seleção de eleitores é em grande parte uma questão de estado, não de lei federal, mas, pelo menos, você precisará se qualificar para votar em todos os estados e no distrito de Columbia. Se você estiver representando um partido, precisará ser certificado como candidato desse partido, um processo que também depende da lei estadual e das regras do partido.

Portanto, determinar a campanha de maior duração tem várias respostas, dependendo de como você define um candidato: Qualquer um que declara? Alguém que ganhou delegados? Alguém que tem acesso à cédula? Qualquer pessoa indicada por um partido com acesso às urnas em XX% dos estados? Alguém que recebeu acima de XX% do voto popular nas primárias ou no geral? Alguém que ganhou votos eleitorais? Alguém que teve uma chance real de ganhar?

Algumas possibilidades incluem o seguinte:

Candidatos do partido principal

  • Theodore Roosevelt 1904 e 1908 (indicado pelo republicano), 1912 (indicado por Bull Moose)
  • William Jennings Bryan 1896, 1900 e 1908 (candidato democrata)
  • Adlai Stevenson II 1952 e 1956 (candidato democrata), 1960 (preliminar democrata)

Candidatos que obtiveram acesso à cédula em pelo menos um estado na eleição geral (como candidato do partido ou independente)

  • Eugene V. Debs (socialista) concorreu em 1904, 1908, 1912 e 1920
  • Ralph Nader (Green) em 1996 e 2000, independente em 2004 e 2008
  • Gus Hall (comunista) concorreu em 1972, 1976, 1980 e 1984

Candidatos que obtiveram acesso à cédula para pelo menos uma primária estadual

  • Governador Harold Strassen em 1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996 e 2000
  • Sen. Eugene McCarthy em 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988 e 1992
  • Proibicionista Jack Fellure em 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 e 2012
  • Lyndon LaRouche em 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 e 2004

Candidatos a piada

  • A personalidade da TV Pat Paulsen concorreu em 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992 e 1996 e foi colocada na cédula primária várias vezes

As campanhas políticas dos EUA são praticamente contínuas atualmente.

Muitas pessoas culpam o aumento dos meios de comunicação de massa partidários. Vou argumentar que eles estão certos em fazer isso. No entanto, se você olhar para trás na história este é realmente apenas um retorno à maneira como as coisas têm sido historicamente.

Nos séculos 18 e 19, todas as grandes cidades tinham jornais editorialmente associados aos partidos políticos (é por isso que a maioria das cidades costumava ter pelo menos dois grandes jornais). Esses papéis estariam continuamente brutalizando a outra parte. Por exemplo, um editor de um jornal anti-Fedralist escreveu o seguinte em 1796 após o discurso de despedida do nosso amado primeiro presidente (quase 4 anos antes da próxima eleição presidencial):

Se alguma vez uma nação foi depravada por um homem, a nação americana foi depravada por Washington. Se alguma vez uma nação foi enganada por um homem, a nação americana foi enganada por Washington

O Objective Journalisim, a ideia de que um meio de comunicação deve relatar as notícias de uma forma politicamente neutra, é praticamente um conceito do século XX. Os cínicos afirmam que essa mudança foi impulsionada pela necessidade de aumentar a receita por meio de anúncios. Nenhum anunciante deseja que seu produto seja colocado próximo a um artigo que incomode muitos de seus clientes. A propaganda partidária durante esse período deveria se limitar às páginas editoriais e aos esforços diretos das próprias campanhas. É claro que espalhar sua própria propaganda é caro, então os políticos normalmente só se preocupam em fazê-lo um pouco antes das eleições. Isso lhes deixava com o restante de seu tempo para fazer coisas como governar o país (se assim desejassem).

No entanto, agora é o 21º século. O modelo de mídia impresso anunciado está morrendo, e os novos canais de TV a cabo e online descobrem que a melhor maneira de conseguir um quadro de olhos leais é ser partidário. Portanto, agora, para o bem ou para o mal, estamos de volta aos velhos tempos da mídia dominada por veículos de propaganda partidária em tempo integral.


Mitt Romney não é um candidato declarado à presidência. A duração após uma declaração à presidência é sempre de cerca de 18 meses, mas a parte das campanhas após a declaração vem acontecendo há alguns meses a mais recentemente também. A primeira candidatura declarada na memória recente é Hillary Clinton na campanha de 2008. Ela declarou no final de janeiro de 2007, portanto, se tivesse vencido as primárias, teria sido declarada por um total de cerca de 21 meses.

Para responder a essa pergunta, em relação às campanhas contínuas, vou usar um livro didático da faculdade sobre como estruturar e fazer uma campanha política. É semelhante ao Econ 101 ou Public Policy 101 aplicado ao estudo da estratégia de campanha. O livro é chamado de Comunicação de Campanha Política: Princípios e Prática, de Judith S. Trent e não requer nenhuma base para leitura. (Eu recomendo altamente :))

Existem quatro fases de campanhas políticas: 1. Aparecimento 2. Primárias 3. Convenções de nomeação 4. As Eleições Gerais

Um candidato a presidente pode desistir em qualquer um desses estágios e está concorrendo à presidência durante o estágio de Aparecimento, mesmo que não tenha "declarado" que está concorrendo. Declarar faz parte do estágio de Superfície, mas não é a única coisa que ocorre no estágio. Ele vai reiniciar o processo dessas etapas após a desistência e voltar para a etapa de Superfície se ela ainda tiver vontade de se candidatar à presidência. A superfície é muito confusa, então aqui está uma explicação mais completa: "a série de transações previsíveis e especificamente cronometradas que servem a funções consumatórias e instrumentais durante a fase pré-primária da campanha."(Portanto, não inclui" preparar "candidatos para cargos)

Essas previsíveis atividades de Superfície incluem: construção de organização política, arrecadação de fundos, muitos tipos de arranjos de palestras, conscientização do candidato, especialmente na tentativa de captar a atenção da mídia, realização de pesquisas de opinião para avaliar a visibilidade e ajudar a definir a posição do candidato sobre as questões e plataforma e criando planos de campanha. Nessa fase, o candidato faz pesquisas e arrecada fundos para tentar saber se tem chance de vencer. Nas notícias, você verá frequentemente alguém como Mitt Romney dizer que nunca pensa em correr um dia e no dia seguinte dizer que pode estar correndo. Esta é a razão. O estágio de Superfície é freqüentemente usado em eleições pequenas ou locais, mas devido aos custos e tempo de campanha contínua que é limitado apenas a cargos mais altos. Em outras palavras, o prefeito local nem sempre faz campanha, embora use a mesma estratégia.

Essa estratégia contínua se tornou a norma na década de 1980, de modo geral, acho que todos os candidatos à presidência depois de 1985 usaram uma estratégia de campanha "contínua", mas já em 1980. A razão histórica foram as reformas nas regras do caucus dos partidos Democrata e Republicano para aumentar a participação democrática, iniciada em 1976. Ou seja, em vez de os candidatos presidenciais serem escolhidos por um punhado de gente de dentro do partido, os candidatos passaram a ser eleitos pelos delegados às convenções. Portanto, os candidatos precisavam ser populares para mais pessoas para ganhar as primárias do partido. Além disso, essas reformas enfraqueceram o poder dos partidos e deixaram um vácuo de poder que foi preenchido por pesquisadores, PACs e grupos de interesses especiais. Grupos de interesses especiais são formados por cidadãos que estão interessados ​​em uma questão, mas não apóiam um partido diretamente, portanto, o partido deve oferecer apoio a eles para garantir seu financiamento.

Acho que talvez Ron Paul? Ele começou a concorrer à presidência em 1988. Há muitos exemplos de candidatos de terceiros partidos com longa história de tentativas de candidatura presidencial, mas Ron Paul conseguiu atenção da mídia nacional e acesso às cédulas nacionais com mais frequência. Ele também foi um crossover para as primárias do Partido Republicano. A pergunta não tem resposta, uma vez que não temos acesso aos registros individuais dos políticos a respeito de suas campanhas. Eles podem não querer que saibamos se estão concorrendo à Casa Branca há 15 anos, mas Mitt Romney certamente não é o primeiro a ter uma longa campanha. O início oficial do período de aparição de John McCain (candidato à República de 2008) pode ser colocado em 1998, durante sua segunda reeleição para o Senado, quando ele declarou interesse público em concorrer à presidência, mas a data real de início de sua aparição é desconhecida.

Referência: Judith S. Trent. Comunicação de campanha política. Princípios e prática. 5ª Edição.

"Ron Paul." Wikipedia.


Eleições presidenciais dos Estados Unidos de 2008

Nossos editores irão revisar o que você enviou e determinar se o artigo deve ser revisado.

Em 4 de novembro de 2008, após uma campanha que durou quase dois anos, os americanos elegeram o senador por Illinois Barack Obama seu 44º presidente. O resultado foi histórico, já que Obama, um senador em primeiro mandato dos EUA, tornou-se, ao tomar posse em 20 de janeiro de 2009, o primeiro presidente afro-americano do país. Ele também foi o primeiro senador dos EUA a ganhar a eleição para a presidência desde John F. Kennedy em 1960. Com a maior taxa de participação eleitoral em quatro décadas, Obama e o senador de Delaware, Joe Biden, derrotaram a chapa republicana do senador pelo Arizona John McCain, que buscava para se tornar a pessoa mais velha eleita presidente para um primeiro mandato na história dos Estados Unidos, e a governadora do Alasca, Sarah Palin, que tentou se tornar a primeira mulher vice-presidente na história do país, obtendo quase 53% dos votos.

O ciclo de notícias 24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana e a proliferação de blogs como meio de disseminação de informações (tanto factuais quanto errôneas) enquadraram o concurso, já que ambas as campanhas tentaram controlar a narrativa. A campanha de McCain tentou pintar Obama como um peso-leve político ingênuo e inexperiente que se sentaria com os líderes dos regimes antiamericanos em Cuba, Irã e Venezuela sem pré-condições, alegando que ele era apenas uma celebridade com pouca substância (exibindo um anúncio comparando Obama para Britney Spears e Paris Hilton), rotulou suas idéias de socialistas (martelando a política tributária de Obama em particular e atacando o comentário de Obama a "Joe, o Encanador" de que ele procuraria "espalhar a riqueza") e atacou sua associação com Bill Ayers, que havia fundado os Weathermen, um grupo que realizou bombardeios na década de 1960. Ayers, em 2008 um professor da Universidade de Illinois em Chicago - e constantemente chamado de "terrorista doméstico impenitente" pela campanha de McCain - morava a poucos quarteirões de Obama em Chicago, contribuiu para sua campanha de reeleição para o Senado de Illinois e serviu em um conselho antipobreza com Obama de 1999 a 2002. Obama minimizou seu conhecimento de Ayers e denunciou as atividades de Ayers como "detestáveis", mas foi rápido em notar que essas atividades ocorreram há 40 anos, quando o candidato tinha oito anos. Além disso, com base em e-mails e outras afirmações nunca provadas, uma pequena, mas ainda significativa porcentagem do público acreditava erroneamente que Obama (um cristão praticante) era um muçulmano. Para se defender contra os ataques, a campanha de Obama deu um passo sem precedentes ao estabelecer um site, "Fight the Smears", para "lutar contra as ligações automáticas" odiosas "," viciosas "e" desesperadas ".” Por sua vez, a campanha de Obama tentou lançar dúvidas sobre a personalidade independente de McCain e diminuir seu apelo aos eleitores independentes, vinculando-o em todas as oportunidades ao presidente. George W. Bush, cuja popularidade estava entre as mais baixas de qualquer presidente moderno, e exibia anúncios que mostravam os dois se abraçando e repetindo frequentemente que McCain votou com o governo Bush 90% das vezes. A campanha de Obama também procurou enquadrar McCain como "errático", uma acusação repetida com frequência e que alguns alegaram ser uma referência indireta à idade de McCain, já que ele seria a pessoa mais velha a tomar posse para um primeiro mandato como presidente.

A campanha de outono também foi conduzida contra o pano de fundo de uma crise financeira que atingiu o país em setembro, quando os mercados mundiais sofreram pesadas perdas, atingindo gravemente as economias de aposentadoria de muitos americanos e empurrando a economia para o topo das preocupações dos eleitores, superando em muito o guerra no Iraque e a guerra contra o terrorismo. De 19 de setembro a 10 de outubro, o Dow Jones Industrial Average caiu 26%, de 11.388 para 8.451. Ao mesmo tempo, houve uma forte contração da liquidez nos mercados de crédito em todo o mundo, causada em parte pela crise das hipotecas subprime, que resultou no governo dos EUA fornecendo empréstimos de emergência a várias empresas americanas e a falência ou venda de várias instituições financeiras importantes. O estabelecimento econômico e político dos EUA reagiu aprovando (após uma primeira tentativa malsucedida) a Lei de Estabilização Econômica de Emergência, que buscava evitar um colapso futuro e resgatar a economia.

O efeito da crise econômica foi dramático, transformando uma pequena vantagem de McCain-Palin nas pesquisas do início de setembro em uma vantagem constante de Obama-Biden. A liderança de Obama foi ainda apoiada por seu desempenho nos três debates presidenciais, com pesquisas indicando que ele foi o vencedor de todos os três. Tanto nos debates quanto em sua resposta à crise financeira, Obama marcou pontos com o público por sua firmeza e frieza (caracterizada como indiferença por seus críticos). Enquanto McCain anunciou a suspensão de sua campanha por alguns dias em setembro para retornar a Washington, DC, para lidar com a crise financeira e sugeriu que o primeiro debate fosse adiado, Obama desempenhou um papel mais nos bastidores e insistiu que o debate ocorrer, dizendo que "vai ser parte do trabalho do presidente lidar com mais de uma coisa ao mesmo tempo." Obama também foi ajudado por sua decisão de sair do sistema de financiamento federal, o que teria limitado sua campanha a US $ 84 milhões em gastos. A campanha de McCain criticou esta decisão, citando um questionário que Obama respondeu em 2007 no qual ele prometia permanecer dentro do sistema de financiamento público. No entanto, Obama defendeu a decisão, argumentando que no mesmo documento ele pedia um plano que exigiria “ambos os candidatos do partido concordassem em uma trégua de arrecadação de fundos, devolvessem o dinheiro excedente dos doadores e permanecessem dentro do sistema de financiamento público para as eleições gerais ”e que, se ganhasse a indicação democrata,“ buscaria agressivamente um acordo com o candidato republicano para preservar um financiou as eleições gerais. ” A decisão da campanha de Obama valeu a pena, pois atraiu mais de três milhões de doadores e levantou surpreendentes US $ 150 milhões apenas no mês de setembro, permitindo que a campanha ultrapassasse a de McCain por margens significativas nos estados do campo de batalha e adquirisse 30 minutos de primeira - hora da televisão seis dias antes da eleição (mais de 33 milhões de americanos assistiram ao infomercial de Obama).

A campanha gerou enorme entusiasmo, com milhões de novos registrantes ingressando nas listas de votação (embora a campanha de McCain alegasse que muitos deles foram registrados ilegalmente, depois que surgiram alegações de que vários funcionários contratados pela ACORN, um grupo de interesse que faz lobby em nome de pessoas de baixa renda famílias, apresentaram registros falsificados). McCain organizou várias reuniões municipais (um formato no qual ele se destacou) em todo o país, nas quais os participantes puderam questionar o candidato. No entanto, algumas dessas reuniões foram submetidas ao escrutínio da mídia quando alguns membros da audiência ficaram acalorados em suas críticas a Obama. Os comícios de Obama atraíram consistentemente grandes multidões - incluindo cerca de 100.000 em um comício em St. Louis, Missouri, em meados de outubro - e dezenas de milhares costumavam ver Palin no toco (a campanha havia fornecido apenas acesso limitado a Palin por a mídia). Embora alguns comentaristas, incluindo conservadores, questionassem sua prontidão para a vice-presidência e a presidência, ela se mostrou extremamente popular: um recorde de 70 milhões de americanos sintonizados no debate sobre o vice-presidente e sua participação no Saturday Night Live, cuja Tina Fey a ridicularizou várias vezes anteriormente, obteve as maiores avaliações do programa em 14 anos.

A campanha das primárias de 2008 também foi histórica. No lado democrata, o campo se estreitou rapidamente para colocar Barack Obama contra Hillary Clinton. Ambos os candidatos buscavam se tornar os “primeiros” presidenciais —Obama, o primeiro presidente afro-americano, e Clinton, a primeira mulher a ser presidente. Uma disputa às vezes acirrada entre Obama e Clinton produziu a mais estreita das vitórias para Obama. A campanha republicana produziu um vencedor surpreendente, John McCain. Muitos especialistas rejeitaram McCain durante o verão de 2007, quando sua campanha estava vacilando, enquanto muitos outros haviam apontado Rudy Giuliani como o favorito. Mas Giuliani falhou em capturar um único estado nas primárias, e McCain derrotou fortes desafios de Mitt Romney e Mike Huckabee facilmente.


A campanha

Clinton ganhou seu primeiro mandato em 1992 contra o republicano George Bush com apenas 43 por cento dos votos, enquanto o independente Ross Perot conquistou quase 19 por cento. Dois anos após o início do mandato de Clinton, os democratas perderam a maioria na Câmara dos Representantes pela primeira vez desde a década de 1950, e muitos especialistas acreditavam que Clinton, cujo apoio público havia diminuído por causa de alguns erros iniciais - particularmente no sistema de saúde e em sua proposta de permitir que gays e lésbicas servissem abertamente nas forças armadas (o acordo “Não pergunte, não diga” foi finalmente garantido) - seria um presidente por um único mandato.

No entanto, os republicanos no Congresso, liderados pelo presidente da Câmara, Newt Gingrich, freqüentemente buscavam políticas de maneira intransigente e confrontadora. Em particular, após um impasse orçamentário entre os republicanos e Clinton em 1995 e 1996, que forçou duas paralisações parciais do governo, incluindo uma por 22 dias (o mais longo fechamento de operações do governo até então, foi superado por uma paralisação de 34 dias em 2018–19) —Clinton ganhou um apoio público considerável para sua abordagem mais moderada.


1888: Suborno de blocos de cinco

Em 1888, o presidente democrata Grover Cleveland, de Nova York, concorreu à reeleição contra o ex-senador americano de Indiana Benjamin Harrison.

Naquela época, as cédulas eleitorais na maioria dos estados eram impressas, distribuídas por partidos políticos e lançadas publicamente. Certos eleitores, conhecidos como “flutuantes”, eram conhecidos por vender seus votos a compradores interessados.

Harrison havia nomeado um advogado de Indiana, William Wade Dudley, como tesoureiro do Comitê Nacional Republicano. Pouco antes da eleição, Dudley enviou uma carta aos líderes republicanos locais em Indiana com fundos prometidos e instruções sobre como dividir os eleitores receptivos em “voto popular nacional por quase 100.000 votos. Mas ele perdeu seu estado natal, Nova York, por cerca de 1% dos votos, colocando Harrison no topo do Colégio Eleitoral. A perda de Cleveland em Nova York também pode estar relacionada a esquemas de compra de votos.

Cleveland não contestou o resultado do Colégio Eleitoral e venceu uma revanche contra Harrison quatro anos depois, tornando-se o único presidente a cumprir mandatos não consecutivos. Enquanto isso, o escândalo de blocos de cinco levou à adoção de cédulas secretas para votação em todo o país.


6. John F. Kennedy derrota Richard Nixon, 1960 (margem de 0,17%)

As eleições presidenciais de 1960 nos Estados Unidos colocaram John F. Kennedy contra Richard Nixon. Ambos os homens estavam na casa dos 40 anos. Para obter a indicação democrata, Kennedy primeiro venceu Hubert Humphrey, de Minnesota, ao longo de 13 primárias. Kennedy então derrotou Lyndon Johnson, o líder da maioria no Senado, na Convenção Nacional Democrata em Los Angeles na primeira votação para obter a indicação. Nixon, então vice-presidente de Eisenhower, foi nomeado pelos republicanos para concorrer contra Kennedy. A disputa pela Casa Branca foi acirrada, e as pesquisas Gallup tiveram ambos os candidatos empatados em 47 por cento, com 6 por cento dos eleitores indecisos. Uma série de 4 debates televisionados impulsionou o perfil de Kennedy às custas de Nixon. No dia da eleição, Kennedy ganhou o voto popular por uma pequena margem de 120.000 votos, de 68,8 milhões de votos expressos, de acordo com o Centro Miller. Nas votações do Colégio Eleitoral, ele recebeu 303 votos contra 219 de Nixon para se tornar o 35º presidente da nação.


O pior presidente da história

Três falhas particulares garantem o status de Trump como o pior executivo-chefe a ocupar o cargo.

Sobre o autor: Tim Naftali é professor clínico associado de história na NYU. Ele foi o primeiro diretor da Biblioteca e Museu Presidencial Richard Nixon.

O presidente Donald Trump há muito exultava com superlativos. O primeiro. Ao melhor. A maioria. O melhor. “Nenhum presidente jamais fez o que eu fiz”, ele se gaba. “Nenhum presidente jamais chegou perto”, diz ele. Mas, à medida que seus quatro anos no cargo chegam ao fim, há apenas um título que ele pode reivindicar: Donald Trump é o pior presidente que a América já teve.

Em dezembro de 2019, ele se tornou o terceiro presidente a sofrer impeachment. Na semana passada, Trump entrou em uma categoria só sua, tornando-se o primeiro presidente a sofrer dois processos de impeachment. Mas o impeachment, que depende em parte da composição do Congresso, não é o padrão mais objetivo. O que realmente significa ser o pior presidente? E há algum valor, no amargo fim de uma má presidência, em gastar energia para julgar um desfile de presidências fracassadas?

É útil pensar nas responsabilidades de um presidente em termos dos dois elementos do juramento de mandato estabelecidos na Constituição. Na primeira parte, os presidentes juram “executar fielmente o Gabinete do Presidente dos Estados Unidos”. Esta é uma promessa de desempenhar adequadamente as três funções que a presidência combina em uma: chefe de estado, chefe de governo e comandante-chefe. Na segunda parte, eles prometem “preservar, proteger e defender a Constituição dos Estados Unidos”.

Trump foi um violador serial de seu juramento - como evidenciado por seu uso contínuo de seu cargo para ganhos financeiros pessoais - mas focar em três maneiras cruciais pelas quais ele traiu ajuda a esclarecer seu status histórico singular. Primeiro, ele falhou em colocar os interesses de segurança nacional dos Estados Unidos à frente de suas próprias necessidades políticas. Em segundo lugar, em face de uma pandemia devastadora, ele estava totalmente abandonado, incapaz ou não querendo reunir os recursos necessários para salvar vidas e, ao mesmo tempo, encorajar ativamente o comportamento público que propagasse a doença. E terceiro, responsabilizado pelos eleitores por seus fracassos, ele se recusou a admitir a derrota e, em vez disso, instigou uma insurreição, agitando uma multidão que invadiu o Capitólio.

Muitos executivos-chefes falharam, de uma forma ou de outra, em cumprir as exigências do cargo ou em dispensá-las com competência. Mas os historiadores agora tendem a concordar que nossos piores presidentes são aqueles que não cumprem a segunda parte de sua promessa, de alguma forma colocando em risco a Constituição. E se você quiser entender por que essas três falhas fazem de Trump o pior de todos os nossos presidentes, o lugar para começar é no porão do ranking presidencial, onde moram seus rivais por aquela desonra singular.

Por décadas no século 20, muitos historiadores concordaram que o título que Trump ganhou recentemente pertencia a Warren G. Harding, um presidente de que se lembravam. O jornalista H. L. Mencken, mestre do ácido bon mot, ouviu o discurso inaugural de Harding e se desesperou. “Nenhum outro idiota completo e terrível pode ser encontrado nas páginas da história americana”, escreveu ele.

Pobre Harding. Nosso 29º presidente popularizou a palavra normalidade e autodepreciativo descreveu-se como um "bloviator", antes de morrer no cargo de causas naturais em 1923. Embora lamentado por uma nação inteira, 9 milhões de pessoas teriam visto seu trem funeral, muitos cantando seu hino favorito, "Perto, Meu Deus, para Ti ”- ele nunca foi respeitado por pessoas de letras quando estava vivo. Uma avalanche de revelações póstumas sobre a corrupção em sua administração fez dele um objeto de desprezo entre a maioria dos historiadores. Em 1948, Arthur M. Schlesinger Sênior começou a tradição de classificar nossos presidentes regularmente, o que seu filho, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. continuou - por décadas Harding consistentemente ficou em último lugar, dominando uma categoria intitulada "fracasso".

O escândalo que levou Harding ao inferno presidencial envolveu o arrendamento de direitos privados de perfuração em terras federais na Califórnia e sob uma rocha em Wyoming que lembra um bule de chá Teapot Dome serviria de abreviatura para um terrível escândalo presidencial até que foi substituído por Watergate. Em abril de 1922, o Senado controlado pelos republicanos iniciou uma investigação da administração republicana, com Harding prometendo cooperação. As audiências públicas começaram apenas após a morte de Harding no ano seguinte. O secretário do Interior acabou sendo considerado culpado de suborno, tornando-se a primeira pessoa a ir do Gabinete para a prisão. Outros escândalos envolveram o diretor do Veterans ’Bureau e o procurador-geral.

Embora Harding tivesse algum alerta sobre a corrupção em sua administração, nenhuma evidência sugere que ele pessoalmente lucrou com isso, ou que ele era culpado de algo mais do que incompetência. John W. Dean, o ex-advogado da Casa Branca que se declarou culpado de acusações federais por seu papel em Watergate, concluiu mais tarde que a reputação de Harding estava injustamente manchada: “O fato de Harding não ter feito nada de errado e não ter se envolvido em nenhuma atividade criminosa tornou-se irrelevante." E, independentemente do papel de Harding na corrupção generalizada em sua administração, ele nunca ameaçou nosso sistema constitucional.

Do outro lado do livro-razão, Harding teve uma série de conquistas positivas: a Conferência Naval de Washington para discutir o desarmamento, a implementação da autoridade presidencial sobre o orçamento do poder executivo, a comutação da sentença de Eugene V. Debs. Isso, combinado com sua própria falta de envolvimento direto nos escândalos de seu governo e a ausência de qualquer ataque à nossa república (que nenhuma conquista administrativa positiva poderia jamais equilibrar), deveriam permitir que ele fosse esquecido felizmente como um presidente medíocre.

A reputação de Harding praticamente não melhorou, mas em pesquisas presidenciais recentes organizadas pela C-SPAN, seu mandato foi eclipsado pelos fracassos de três homens que estavam implicados na dissolução da União ou que atrapalharam o tortuoso esforço de reconstruí-la.

Os dois primeiros são Franklin Pierce e James Buchanan. Pierce, um democrata de New Hampshire, e Buchanan, um democrata da Pensilvânia, incitaram e, às vezes, ampliaram as forças que separaram a União. Embora nenhum deles fosse do sul, os dois homens simpatizavam com os proprietários de escravos do sul. Eles consideraram a crescente onda de abolicionismo uma abominação e buscaram maneiras de aumentar o poder dos proprietários de escravos.

Pierce e Buchanan se opuseram ao Compromisso de Missouri de 1820, que acalmou as tensões políticas ao proibir a escravidão acima de uma certa linha no Território da Louisiana. Como presidente, Pierce ajudou a derrubá-lo, acrescentando a sentença perniciosa ao Ato Kansas-Nebraska de 1854 que declarou o Compromisso "inoperante e nulo". A Lei Kansas-Nebraska não apenas permitiu que o povo dos territórios do Kansas e do Nebraska determinassem se seus respectivos estados seriam escravos ou livres, mas abriu todo o território não organizado à escravidão.

Buchanan então usou o poder federal no Kansas para garantir que os proprietários de escravos e seus apoiadores, embora uma minoria, ganhassem. Ele autorizou a concessão de um contrato de US $ 80.000 a um editor pró-escravidão no território e "contratos, comissões e, em alguns casos, dinheiro frio" aos democratas do norte na Câmara dos Representantes para pressioná-los a admitir o Kansas como um estado escravista.

Quando Abraham Lincoln foi eleito para substituí-lo em novembro de 1860 e os estados começaram a se separar, Buchanan abdicou efetivamente de suas responsabilidades como presidente dos Estados Unidos. Ele culpou os republicanos de Lincoln por causar todos os problemas que ele enfrentou e prometeu aos sulistas uma emenda constitucional protegendo a escravidão para sempre se eles retornassem. Quando separatistas na Carolina do Sul sitiaram um forte federal, Buchanan entrou em colapso. “Como ... Nixon no verão de 1974, antes de sua renúncia”, escreveu o biógrafo de Buchanan, Jean H. Baker, “Buchanan deu todas as indicações de grave tensão mental que afetou sua saúde e seu julgamento.”

Durante a rebelião do uísque de 1794, o presidente George Washington liderou a milícia contra os rebeldes da Pensilvânia. O gabinete de Buchanan não esperava que ele liderasse pessoalmente as tropas dos EUA para proteger os fortes federais e alfândegas que estavam sendo apreendidos por separatistas do sul, mas ele os chocou ao não fazer nada efetivamente. Quando os detentores de cargos federais renunciaram no Sul, Buchanan não usou sua autoridade para substituí-los. Ele ainda teve que ser dissuadido por seu gabinete de simplesmente render o Forte Sumter no porto de Charleston e, no final das contas, fez apenas um esforço débil para defender o forte, enviando um navio mercante desarmado como alívio. Enquanto isso, o ex-presidente Pierce, que havia sido convidado a falar no Alabama, escreveu em uma carta pública: “Se não podemos viver juntos em paz, então em paz e em termos justos, vamos nos separar”. Após o fim da Guerra Civil, Pierce ofereceu seus serviços como advogado de defesa a seu amigo Jefferson Davis. (Pierce pode não ter sido nosso pior presidente, mas ele está concorrendo contra John Tyler, que deixou o cargo em 1845 e 16 anos depois ingressou na Confederação, por liderar a pior pós-presidência.)

O próximo grande fracasso presidencial na história dos EUA envolveu a gestão da vitória sobre o sul. Digite o terceiro dos três homens que eclipsaram Harding: Andrew Johnson. Lincoln escolheu Johnson como seu companheiro de chapa em 1864 para forjar um bilhete de unidade para o que ele esperava ser uma difícil candidatura à reeleição. A pro-Union Democrat, Johnson had been the sole southern senator in 1861 not to leave Congress when his state seceded.

But Johnson’s fidelity to Lincoln and to the nation ended with Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865. While Lincoln had not left detailed plans for how to “bind up the nation’s wounds” after the war, Johnson certainly violated the spirit of what Lincoln had envisioned. An unrepentant white supremacist, he opposed efforts to give freedmen the vote, and when Congress did so over his objections, Johnson impeded their enjoyment of that right. He wanted slavery by another name in the South, undermining the broad consensus in the victorious North. “What he had in mind all along for the south,” as his biographer Annette Gordon-Reed wrote, “was a restoration rather than reconstruction.”

Johnson used his pulpit to bully those who believed in equal rights for formerly enslaved people and to encourage a culture of grievance in the South, spreading myths about why the Civil War had occurred in the first place. Many people are responsible for the toxic views and policies that have so long denied Black Americans basic human rights, but Andrew Johnson was the first to use the office of the presidency to give that project national legitimacy and federal support. Having inherited Lincoln’s Cabinet, Johnson was forced to maneuver around Lincoln’s men to impose his own mean-spirited and racist vision of how to reintegrate the South. That got him impeached by the House. A Republican Senate then fell one vote short of removing him from office.

All three of these 19th-century presidents compiled awful records, but Buchanan stands apart because—besides undermining the Union, using his office to promote white supremacy, and demonstrating dereliction of duty in the decisive crisis of secession—he led an outrageously corrupt administration. He violated not just the second part of his oath, betraying the Constitution, but also the first part. Buchanan managed to be more corrupt than the low standard set by his contemporaries in Congress, which is saying something.

In 1858, members of Congress tried to curtail a routine source of graft, described by the historian Michael Holt as the “public printing rake-off.” At the time, there was no Government Printing Office, so contracts for printing the reams of congressional and executive-branch proceedings and statements went to private printers. In the 1820s, President Andrew Jackson had started steering these lucrative contracts to friends. By the 1850s, congressional investigators found that bribes were being extorted from would-be government printers, and that those who won contracts were kicking back a portion of their profits to the Democratic Party. Buchanan directly benefited from this system in the 1856 election. Although he signed reforms into law in 1858, he swiftly subverted them by permitting a subterfuge that allowed his key contributor—who owned a prominent pro-administration newspaper—to continue profiting from government printing.

Does Trump have any modern competitors for the title of worst president? Like Harding, a number of presidents were poor executors of the office. President Woodrow Wilson was an awful man who presided over an apartheid system in the nation’s capital, largely confined his support for democracy abroad to white nations, and then mishandled a pandemic. President Herbert Hoover helped drive the U.S. economy into the ground during the Great Depression, because the economics he learned as a young man proved fundamentally wrong.

President George W. Bush’s impulse after 9/11 to weaken American civil liberties in the name of protecting them, and his blanket approval of interrogation techniques universally considered torture, left Americans disillusioned and impeded the struggle to deradicalize Islamists. His invasion of Iraq in 2003, like Thomas Jefferson’s embargo on foreign trade during the Napoleonic Wars, had disastrous consequences for American power, and undermined unity at home and abroad.

These presidents were each deeply flawed, but not in the same league as their predecessors who steered the country into Civil War or did their utmost to deprive formerly enslaved people of their hard-won rights while rewarding those who betrayed their country.

And then there’s Richard Nixon.

Before Trump, Nixon set the standard for modern presidential failure as the first president forced from office, who resigned ahead of impeachment. And in many ways, their presidencies have been eerily parallel. But the comparison to Nixon reveals the ways in which Trump’s presidency has been not merely bad, but the very worst we have ever seen.

Like the 45th president, Nixon ascended to office by committing an original sin. As the Republican presidential nominee, Nixon intervened indirectly to scuttle peace negotiations in Paris over the Vietnam War. He was worried that a diplomatic breakthrough in the 11th hour of the campaign would help his Democratic rival, Hubert Humphrey. For Nixon, it set the pattern for future presidential lies and cover-ups.

Trump, too, put his political prospects ahead of any sense of duty. As a candidate, Trump openly appealed to Russia to steal his opponent’s emails. Then, as Russia dumped hacked emails from her campaign chair, he seized on the pilfered materials to suggest wrongdoing and amplified Russian disinformation efforts. Extensive investigations during his administration by then–Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee didn’t produce any evidence suggesting that he directly abetted Russian hacking, but those investigations were impeded by a pattern of obstructive conduct that Mueller carefully outlined in his report.

Trump’s heartless and incompetent approach to immigration, his use of tax policy to punish states that didn’t vote for him, his diversion of public funds to properties owned by him and his family, his impulsive and self-defeating approach to trade, and his petulance toward traditional allies assured on their own that he would not be seen as a successful modern president. But those failures have more to do with the first part of his oath. The case that Trump is not just the worst of our modern presidents but the worst of them all rests on three other pillars, not all of which have a Nixonian parallel.

Trump is the first president since America became a superpower to subordinate national-security interests to his political needs. Nixon’s mishandling of renewed peace negotiations with Hanoi in the 1972 election campaign led to the commission of a war crime, the unnecessary “Christmas bombing” at the end of that year. But it cannot compare, in terms of the harm to U.S. national interests, to Trump’s serial subservience to foreign strongmen such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, Kim Jong Un of North Korea, and, of course, Russia’s Vladimir Putin—none of whom act out of a sense of shared interests with the United States. Trump’s effort to squeeze the Ukrainians to get dirt on his likely opponent in 2020, the cause of his first impeachment, was just the best-documented instance of a form of corruption that characterized his entire foreign policy.

The second pillar is Trump’s dereliction of duty during the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have killed at least 400,000 Americans by the time he leaves office. In his inaugural address, Trump vowed an end to “American carnage,” but in office, he presided over needless death and suffering. Trump’s failure to anticipate and then respond to the pandemic has no equivalent in Nixon’s tenure when Nixon wasn’t plotting political subversion and revenge against his perceived enemies, he could be a good administrator.

Trump, of course, is not the first president to have been surprised by a threat to our country. Franklin D. Roosevelt was caught off guard by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Trump, like FDR, could have tried to redeem himself by his management of the response. But Trump lacked FDR’s intellectual and leadership skills. Instead of adapting, he dug in, denying the severity of the challenge and the importance of mask wearing and social distancing while bemoaning the likely damage to his beloved economy.

Trump continued to insist that he was in charge of America’s coronavirus response, but when being in charge required him to actively oversee plans—or at least to read and approve them—he punted on the tough issues of ramping up testing, and was painfully slow to secure sufficient protective equipment and ventilators. FDR didn’t directly manage the Liberty ship program, but he grasped its necessity and understood how to empower subordinates. Trump, instead, ignored his own experts and advisers, searching constantly for some silver bullet that would relieve him of the necessity of making hard choices. He threw money at pharmaceutical and biotech firms to accelerate work on vaccines, with good results, but went AWOL on the massive logistical effort administering those vaccines requires.

In doubling down on his opposition to basic public-health measures, the president crossed a new line of awfulness. Three of Trump’s tweets on April 17, 2020—“LIBERATE VIRGINIA,” “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!,” and “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!”—moved him into Pierce and Buchanan territory for the first time: The president was promoting disunity. The “liberation” he was advocating was civil disobedience against stay-at-home rules put in place by governors who were listening to public-health experts. Trump then organized a series of in-person rallies that sickened audience members and encouraged a wider public to put themselves at risk.

Trump channeled the same divisive spirit that Pierce and Buchanan had tapped by turning requests from the governors of the states that had been the hardest hit by the coronavirus into opportunities for partisan and sectarian attack.

Fifty-eight thousand Americans had already died of the virus when Trump signaled that ignoring or actively violating public-health mandates was a patriotic act. Over the summer, even as the death toll from COVID mounted, Trump never stopped bullying civic leaders who promoted mask wearing, and continued to hold large in-person rallies, despite the risk of spreading the virus. When the president himself became sick in the fall, rather than being sobered by his personal brush with serious illness, the president chose to turn a potential teachable moment for many Americans into a grotesque carnival. He used his presidential access to experimental treatment to argue that ordinary Americans need not fear the disease. He even took a joyride around Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in his closed, armored SUV to bask in the glow of his supporters’ adulation while endangering the health of his Secret Service detail.

American presidents have a mixed record with epidemics. For every Barack Obama, whose administration professionally managed the threats from Ebola and the H1N1 virus, or George W. Bush, who tackled AIDS in Africa, there’s been a Woodrow Wilson, who mishandled the influenza pandemic, or a Ronald Reagan, who was derelict in the face of AIDS. But neither Reagan nor Wilson actively promoted risky behavior for political purposes, nor did they personally obstruct federal-state partnerships that had been intended to control the spread of disease. On those points, Trump stands alone.

The third pillar of the case against Trump is his role as the chief instigator of the attempted insurrection of January 6. Although racism and violent nativism preceded Trump, the seeds of what happened on January 6 were planted by his use of the presidential bully pulpit. No president since Andrew Johnson had so publicly sympathized with the sense of victimhood among racists. In important ways, Nixon prefigured Trump by conspiring with his top lieutenants to use race, covertly, to bring about a realignment in U.S. politics. Nixon’s goal was to lure racists away from the Democratic Party and so transform the Republican Party into a governing majority. Trump has gone much further. From his remarks after the neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to his effort to set the U.S. military against the Black Lives Matter movement, Trump has openly used race in an effort to transform the Republican Party into an agitated, cult-like, white-supremacist minority movement that could win elections only through fear, disenfranchisement, and disinformation.

Both Trump and Nixon sought to subvert any serious efforts to deny them reelection. Nixon approved a dirty-tricks campaign, and his chief of staff Bob Haldeman approved the details of an illegal espionage program against the eventual Democratic nominee. Nixon won his election but ultimately left office in the middle of his second term because the press, the Department of Justice, and Congress uncovered his efforts to hide his role in this subversion. They were helped in large part by Nixon’s absentminded taping of his own conversations.

Trump never won reelection. Instead, he mounted the first effort by a defeated incumbent to use the power of his office to overturn a presidential election. Both men looked for weaknesses in the system to retain power. But Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election put him in a class of awfulness all by himself.

Holding a national election during a pandemic was a test of the resilience of American democracy. State and local election officials looked for ways to boost participation without boosting the virus’s spread. In practical terms, this meant taking the pressure off same-day voting—limiting crowds at booths—by encouraging voting by mail and advance voting. Every candidate in the 2020 elections understood that tallying ballots would be slow in states that started counting only on Election Day. Even before voting began, Trump planted poisonous seeds of doubt about the fairness of this COVID-19 election. When the numbers didn’t go his way, Trump accelerated his disinformation campaign, alleging fraud in states that he had won in 2016 but lost four years later. The campaign was vigorous and widespread. Trump’s allies sought court injunctions and relief from Republican state officials. Lacking any actual evidence of widespread fraud, they lost in the courts. Despite having exploited every constitutional option, Trump refused to give up.

It was at this point that Trump went far beyond Nixon, or any of his other predecessors. In 1974, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in U.S. v. Nixon that Nixon had to turn over his White House tapes to a special prosecutor, Nixon also ran out of constitutional options. He knew that the tapes proved his guilt, and would likely lead to his impeachment and then to his conviction in the Senate. On July 24, Nixon said he would comply with the order from a coequal branch of our government, and ultimately accepted his political fate. In the end, even our most awful presidents before 2017 believed in the continuation of the system they had taken an oath to defend.

But not Trump. Heading into January 6, 2021, when Congress would ritually certify the election, Trump knew that he lacked the Electoral College votes to win or the congressional votes to prevent certification. He had only two cards left to play—neither one of which was consistent with his oath. He pushed Vice President Mike Pence to use his formal constitutional role as the play-by-play announcer of the count to unconstitutionally obstruct it, sending it back to the states for recertification. Meanwhile, to maintain pressure on Pence and Republicans in Congress, he gathered some of his most radicalized followers on the Mall and pointed the way to the Capitol, where the electoral count was about to begin. When Pence refused to exceed his constitutional authority, Trump unleashed his mob. He clearly wanted the count to be disrupted.

On January 6, Trump’s legacy was on a knife’s edge. Trump likely knew Pence’s intentions when he began to speak to the mob. He knew that the vice president would disappoint his hopes. In riling up the mob and sending it down Pennsylvania Avenue, he was imperiling the safety of his vice president and members of Congress. If there was any doubt that he was willing to countenance violence to get his way, it disappeared in the face of the president’s long inaction, as he sat in the White House watching live footage of the spreading assault.

And he may do still more damage before he departs.

Andrew Johnson left a political time bomb behind him in the nation’s capital. After the Democratic Party refused to nominate Johnson for a second term and Ulysses S. Grant won the election as a Republican, Johnson issued a broad political amnesty for many Confederates, including leaders who were under indictment such as the former president of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis.

So much of the pain and suffering this country experienced in the Trump years started with that amnesty. Had Davis and top Confederate generals been tried and convicted, polite society in the South could not have viewed these traitors as heroes. Now Trump is hinting that he wishes to pardon those who aided and abetted him in office, and perhaps even pardon himself—similarly attempting to escape accountability, and to delay a reckoning.

As Trump prepares to leave Washington, the capital is more agitated than during any previous presidential transition since 1861, with thousands of National Guard troops deployed around the city. There have been serious threats to previous inaugurations. But for the first time in the modern era, those threats are internal. An incumbent president is being asked to discourage terrorism by supporters acting in his name.

There are many verdicts on Donald Trump still to come, from the Senate, from juries of private citizens, from scholars and historians. But as a result of his subversion of national security, his reckless endangerment of every American in the pandemic, and his failed insurrection on January 6, one thing seems abundantly clear: Trump is the worst president in the 232-year history of the United States.

So, why does this matter? If we have experienced an unprecedented political trauma, we should be prepared to act to prevent any recurrence. Nixon’s fall introduced an era of government reform—expanded privacy rights, overhauled campaign-finance rules, presidential-records preservation, and enhanced congressional oversight of covert operations.

Managing the pandemic must be the incoming Biden administration’s principal focus, but it needn’t be its only focus. Steps can be taken to ensure that the worst president ever is held to account, and to forestall a man like Trump ever abusing his power in this way again.

The first is to ensure that we preserve the record of what has taken place. As was done after the Nixon administration, Congress should pass a law establishing guidelines for the preservation of and access to the materials of the Trump presidency. Those guidelines should also protect nonpartisan public history at any public facility associated with the Trump era. The Presidential Records Act already puts those documents under the control of the archivist of the United States, but Congress should mandate that they be held in the D.C. area and that the National Archives should not partner with the Trump Foundation in any public-history efforts. Disentangling the federal Nixon Presidential Library from Nixon’s poisonous myths about Watergate took an enormous effort. The pressure on the National Archives to, in some way, enable and legitimate Trump’s own Lost Cause is likely to be even greater.

Trump’s documented relationship with the truth also ensures that his presidential records will necessarily be incomplete. His presidency has revealed gaping loopholes in the process of public disclosure, which the president deftly exploited. Congress should mandate that future candidates and presidents release their tax returns. Congress should also seek to tightly constrict the definition of privacy regarding presidential medical records. It should also require presidents to fully disclose their own business activities, and those of members of their immediate family, conducted while in office. Congress should also claim, as public records, the transition materials of 2016–17 and 2020–21 and those of future transitions.

Finally, Congress must tend to American memory. It should establish a Joint Congressional Committee to study January 6 and the events and activities leading up to it, have public hearings, and issue a report. And it should bar the naming of federal buildings, installations, and vessels after Trump his presidency should be remembered, but not commemorated.

Because this, ultimately, is the point of this entire exercise. If Trump is now the worst president we have ever had, it’s up to every American to ensure that no future chief executive ever exceeds him.


The President of the United States is elected to have that position for a period, or "term", that lasts for four years. The Constitution had no limit on how many times a person could be elected as president. The nation’s first president, George Washington chose not to try to be elected for a third term. This suggested that two terms were enough for any president. Washington’s two-term limit became the unwritten rule for all Presidents until 1940.

In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt won a third term. He also won a fourth term in 1944. Roosevelt was president through the Great Depression of the 1930s and almost all of World War II. He held approval ratings in the mid-50% to the low 60% ranges over his many years in office. Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage in April 1945, just months after the start of his fourth term. Soon after, Republicans in Congress began the work of creating Amendment XXII. Roosevelt was the first and only President to serve more than two terms.

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947, and was ratified by the states on 27 February 1951. The Twenty-Second Amendment says a person can only be elected to be president two times for a total of eight years. It does make it possible for a person to serve up to ten years as president. This can happen if a person (most likely the Vice-President) takes over for a president who can no longer serve their term. If this person serves two years or less of the preceding President’s term, they may serve for two more four-year terms. If they served more than two years of the last President's term, the new President can serve only one full four-year term. Under the language of the amendment, the President at the time of its ratification (Harry S. Truman) was exempt from the two-term limitation. Truman served nearly all of Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term and then was elected President once, serving his own four year term.

Since 1985, there have been many attempts to either change or remove this amendment. This began when Ronald Reagan was serving his second term as President. Since then, changes have been tried from both Democrats and Republicans. No changes have been made.

There is some debate about how this amendment works with the 12th Amendment. The 12th Amendment limits who can become Vice-President to only people who meet the requirements of being President. The central question in this debate is whether the 22nd Amendment is imposing requirements on eligibility for contenção the office of President or if it is merely imposing requirements on being elected to the office of President.

One side of the debate argues that the 22nd Amendment explicitly uses the language "No person shall be elected" and is therefore issuing guidance on elections. The existence of other means of assuming the office (as enumerated in the 20th Amendment, Section 3 and the 25th Amendment) lends support to this argument.

The other side of the debate argues that the 12th Amendment, in describing how elections are to be carried out, is enumerating additional requirement for holding the office of President. In support of this side of the argument is the fact that the requirements for holding the office of President are not restricted to Article 2 (where the main requirements like age and citizenship are listed). For example, impeachment is described in Article 1, Section 3 and upon impeachment, conviction, and removal from office a person becomes ineligible to hold the office in the future. Similarly, the 14th Amendment establishes a requirement that a President must not have fought against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies. These amendments suggest a pattern of enumerating additional requirements for the presidency and proponents of this side of the debate would argue that the 22nd Amendment was intended to add yet another requirement.

Since no president who has served two terms has ever tried to be vice-president, this situation has not yet been decided by the courts.

Harry S Truman became President because of the death of Roosevelt. He served most of Roosevelt's last term as President. This would have limited him to being elected only one time, but he was not affected since the amendment did not affect the person who was the current President when the amendment was originally proposed by Congress. Since this provision could only have applied to Truman, it was an obvious effort not to limit him. Truman did win the election in 1948 but ended his try to be President in 1952 before the election began.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected President in 1952 and won a second term in 1956. He therefore became the first President not allowed to run again because of the amendment.

Lyndon B. Johnson is the only president so far who could have served more than 8 years under this amendment. He became President in 1963 after John F. Kennedy was assassinated. He served the last 14 months of Kennedy's term. Because this was less than two years, he was allowed to be elected for two additional terms. He won the first term in 1964, but chose not to run for a second term before the elections in 1968.

Richard M. Nixon became the second person not allowed to run again for President when he won the elections in 1968 and 1972, but he was forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal 19 months into his second term. Gerald Ford became President in 1974 after Nixon left office. Ford served the last 29 months of Nixon's term. This meant he could only be elected as president once, but he lost the election to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and did not try to become President again.

Ronald Reagan became the third President to be not allowed to run again after he won the elections in 1980 and 1984.

Out of the U.S. Presidents that are still alive in 2021, [1] Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama could not be elected again because of this amendment. All of them were elected twice. Jimmy Carter, Donald Trump and Joe Biden can be elected president again as they have been elected only once.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.


What is the single longest Presidential Campaign run in the United States? - History

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (Explanation). It has been enacted into law by 15 states and DC with 195 electoral votes (Map of states). It needs an additional 75 electoral votes to go into effect.

In 6 Elections, 2 Near-Misses (2020, 2004) and 2 Second-Place Presidents (2016, 2000)

In 6 Elections, 2 Near-Misses (2020, 2004) and 2 Second-Place Presidents (2016, 2000)

National Popular Vote Has Been Enacted into Law in 16 Jurisdictions with 195 Electoral Votes

Just 12 Closely Divided Battleground States Got 96% of 2020 Campaign Events

Colorado Voters Approve National Popular Vote at Ballot Box

5 of 46 Presidents Came into Office Without Winning the National Popular Vote

Virginia House Passes National Popular Vote

270-by-2024 Virtual Conference on Nov 19 hosted by National Popular Vote, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Equal Citizens

Read or Download Every Vote Equal Book for FREE

3-Million Lead Only Gives Biden a 46% Chance of Winning

Small States Do Not Benefit from Current System

America's 100 Biggest Cities Are Home to 19% of Population -- Same Percentage as Rural America

12 Closely Divided Battleground States Got 94% of 2016 Campaign Events

Rural States Are Almost Entirely Ignored Under Current State-by-State System

California Can't and Won't Dominate a National Popular Vote for President

One Delayed Mail Truck Can Decide the Presidency

The Electoral College Is a National Security Threat

Small States Are Evenly Divided in Presidential Elections

How the Electoral College Works

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules that States May Require Presidential Electors to be Faithful

How A Nationwide Campaign for President Would Be Run

Voter Turnout Is Substantially Higher in Battleground States than Spectator States

Equal Citizens Asks Supreme Court to Declare Winner-Take-All Unconstitutional

Analysis of the Fractional Proportional (Lodge-Gossett) Method of Awarding Electoral Votes

Analysis of the Whole-Number Proportional Method of Awarding Electoral Votes

Analysis of the Congressional-District Method of Awarding Electoral Votes

Analysis of Voter Choice Ballot (Unilateral Awarding of Electoral Votes)

Out of 1,164 General-Election Campaign Events in Past 4 Presidential Elections, 22 States Received 0 Visits and 9 More States Received Just 1


A History of Third Party and Independent Presidential Candidates

While third party presidential candidates typically only win small portions of the overall vote, they are often blamed for altering the outcome of elections. This perception could be solved very easily with ranked choice voting (RCV) , either in states today by statute or for the national popular vote through national action.

Even before the defined establishment of the modern Democratic and Republican parties, there have been many third party candidates who have run outside of the typical party structure. These third party candidates typically receive a small portion of the popular vote and no votes from the Electoral College, though there are numerous exceptions.

In July of presidential election years, the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention convene to select their nominees. However, many lesser-known parties also meet and nominate a candidate. Today, the Libertarian and Green parties are the most notable to do so, but, historically, a handful of other parties including the Constitution, Prohibition, States Rights, Populist, and Socialist parties have held conventions to send a presidential and vice-presidential nominee to the ballot.

Since the dominant two-party system has solidified, no third party candidates has won a presidential election. Nonetheless, historically they have played a critical role in forcing major parties to cater to the issues that people care about the most. Had ranked choice voting been implemented during our previous 58 American presidential elections, our history of presidents would likely look different. We will examine our diverse history of third party candidates who, while not winning the presidency themselves, often affected the outcome.

In the last presidential election, a whopping 32 candidates vied for the presidency, with the least competitive of them receiving just 332 votes nationwide.

Libertarian Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, garnered 3.3 percent of the vote. While that may not seem significant, he did accrue nearly 4.4 million votes, more than a million more than the total by which Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Likewise, Jill Stein of the Green Party got 1.1 percent of the vote, making her the first fourth-place finisher to breach the one-million-vote mark since 1948.

14 states were won with less than half the votes, with half of those states won by Clinton and half by Trump -- including such battlegrounds as Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvnia and Wisconsin. While, at first glance, it might appear that, if Johnson and Stein votes had gone to Clinton, she would be president, we must remember that t not all such n voters would have all voted for Clinton. Many Johnson voters may have voted for Donald Trump instead given the ideological closeness of libertarianism and conservative economic stances and Johnson’s two terms as a Republican governor of New Mexico.

A more likely scenario would have been some combination of Stein’s and Johnson’s voters voting for Clinton, though we will never be able to draw a definite conclusion of that potential outcome because RCV was not in place. What we can say is that the election results could potentially could have been different, as neither candidate reached 50 percent of the vote.

Similar to the 2016 election, the candidate who won the popular vote did not win the election. Because Republican George W. Bush won in the Electoral College by only four votes and won the key battleground of Florida by only 537 votes, third parties did play a role in the outcome. In total, third party candidates garnered 138,063 votes in Florida, with the Green Party’s Ralph Nader accruing over 97,488 of those votes. Had Florida voters had the opportunity to rank their vote, the final results in the state may have looked quite different.

Bill Clinton won the 1996 and 1992 elections with less than fifty percent of the vote, which RCV is designed to prevent. In these election years, the Reform Party’s Ross Perot ran successful campaigns, garnering 18.7 percent and 9.2 percent, respectively. Though Reform Party ideals align more closely with the Republican platform, independent analyses indicate that Perot drew equally from Republicans and Democrats. Therefore, we cannot say definitely that the election results would have been different had RCV been implemented -- but we can say that in 1992, only a single state (Clinton’s home state of Arkansas) was won with more than half the votes.

Perot passed away on Tuesday, July 9, and is the most successful third party candidate in modern American history.

FairVote’s co-founder John B. Anderson started the year as a Republican candidate who had served in Congress for 20 years. After Ronald Reagan gained the upper hand in the nomination, Anderson left the party to run as an independent to uphold his tradition as a “Rockefeller Republican.” Early on he polled over 20 percent and secured a role in one debate, but ultimately won 6.6 percent - more than six times the total for the Libertarian Party ticket that included David Koch, one of the two Koch brothers who have played a major role in Republican politics in recent years. Reagan won more than 50 percent nationally, but only 26 states were won with more than half the votes.

This election was unlike any previously seen in the country. George Wallace, widely known for his quote, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," ran with the American Independent Party because his pro-segregation policies had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

Wallace, with 12.9 percent of the popular vote, ended up winning five southern states, accruing 46 electoral college votes. Republican Richard Nixon won 43.2 percent of the popular vote but 56.1 percent of the electoral college Democrat Hubert Humphrey won 42.6 percent of the popular vote but only 35.5 percent of the electoral college.

It should be noted that Wallace did not expect to win the election his strategy was to prevent either major party candidate from winning a preliminary majority in the Electoral College. He had his electors pledge to vote not necessarily for him but for whomever he directed them to support. His objective was not to move the election into the U.S. House of Representatives, but rather to give himself the bargaining power to determine the winner. Though he was ultimately unsuccessful, he managed to prevent either party from winning a popular vote majority. A shift of just 1.55 percent in California would have given Wallace the swing power in the Electoral College he sought.

After the election, Republican President Richard Nixon pushed Congress to abolish the Electoral College--with Hubert Humphrey’s support-- because Wallace had attempted to do something the founding fathers would not have anticipated.

Republican Theodore Roosevelt had served as president from 1901 to 1909, and William Howard Taft had won the 1908 Republican presidential nomination with Roosevelt's support. Displeased with Taft's actions as president, Roosevelt challenged Taft in 1912.

After being denied the Republican nomination in an era before presidential primaries, Roosevelt rallied his progressive supporters and launched a third party bid. Roosevelt's Progressive Party, nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party,” lost the election but marked the most successful third party bid in history, winning 27.4 percent of the vote. Taft, the incumbent president, did not perform as well, winning 23.7 percent. The Socialist Party also had a successful race this year, as Socialist nominee Eugene V. Debs secured 6 percent.

Four candidates made significant waves this election. In one potential scenario with RCV, Debs would have been eliminated and his second choice votes would have gone to Roosevelt or Wilson. Then Taft would’ve been eliminated, and his second choice votes probably would not have gone to Woodrow Wilson (who ultimately won), but to Roosevelt instead. Evidently, the results could have been drastically different.

Notably, talk of second choice voting grew markedly after this election, with the Nebraska Bull Moose Party actually endorsing it in its official platform (See page 139 of the link).

In 1891, the American Farmers' Alliances met with delegates from labor and reform groups in Cincinnati, Ohio, to discuss the formation of a new political party. They formed the People's Party, commonly known as the Populists. James B. Weaver of the Populist Party carried five states, accruing 8.5 percent of the popular vote, while winner Grover Cleveland earned 46 percent. If RCV had been implemented, this election would have had a winner with majority support.

In the 1860 election, no candidate reached 40 percent of the vote. At a time when the nation was so divided, the vote matched the political climate. Republican Abraham Lincoln won the election however, Democratic voters were divided between Northern Democrat Stephen A. Douglas and Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge. Together they accrued 47.6 percent of the vote, significantly more than Lincoln. John Bell of Constitution Union got 12.6 percent. While Lincoln won only 39.7 percent of the national popular vote, he did win more than half the votes in northern states that together had more than half of the Electoral College.

While ranked choice voting within the Electoral College system would not have prevented Lincoln’s victory and the resulting civil war, it could have provided a clearer picture of the fault lines dividing the country.

Former Whig President Millard Fillmore, running on the American Party platform, won 21.5 percent of the vote in this election, winning only Maryland. Second choice votes could have either pushed the winner, James Buchanan who earned 45.3 percent, or runner-up John Fremont, who won 33.11 percent, over the 50 percent majority margin.

Democrat Martin Van Buren was president from 1837-1841. After getting booted out of office, he ran a failed campaign in 1848 as a candidate for the anti-slavery Free Soil Party. Van Buren won over ten percent of the vote, preventing the Whig candidate (eventual winner Zachary Taylor) or Democratic candidate Lewis Cass from earning support from half the country’s electorate.

In 1844, pro-slavery candidate James K. Polk ran against soft abolitionist Henry Clay and hard-line abolitionist James Birney. While Polk ended up winning the election, Clay and Birney did split votes. Most notably, this occurred in New York, where Birney received 15,812 votes but Polk beat Clay by only 5,106 votes. If ranked choice voting had been implemented in this election, it is quite possible the country would have elected a different president and, most importantly, taken a different tack in regards to slavery. This piece, by professor Lawrence Lessig, does a great job of describing this election and others in the context of ranked choice voting. Polk beat Clay in New York by 5,106 votes, yet Birney received 15,812 votes.

Sixty-nine Electoral College votes unanimously elected George Washington as president of the United States in 1788. Since then, candidates, political parties, electors, and the very fabric of our country have evolved significantly. As early as 1824, John Quincy Adams was chosen by the House of Representatives as president after earning only 31 percent of popular votes compared to Andrew Jackson’s 41 percent.


How does voting work with stay-home orders?

Some states have moved forward with primaries despite ongoing lockdown measures to curb the spread of the coronavirus.

Wisconsin was criticised for holding an in-person vote on 7 April despite health concerns related to the virus, while other states like Wyoming, Ohio and Kansas, held their contests by mail.

A total of 15 others, including Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have postponed their primary elections as late as August.


Assista o vídeo: Moje początki w Stanach Zjednoczonych! (Pode 2022).


Comentários:

  1. Coinleain

    Eu não duvido disso.

  2. Mazukinos

    Hoje eu estava especialmente registrado em um fórum para participar da discussão sobre essa pergunta.



Escreve uma mensagem