Best US President to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college

Quincy b/c the first corrupt bargain was pretty charmingly corrupt and AJ was allegedly a murdering asshole

little known fact, I cut several electro tracks under the name Rutherford B. Haze

as far as brain power Adams is waaaay ahead but he was a rather shitty president.

Hayes is tied for worst with Bush. He's responsible for agreeing to end Reconstruction and telling newly emancipated slaves to go fuck themselves.

Definitely not much to look at here with these four. Hayes and Bush are at the bottom, Harrison and JQA are at the "top".

Henry Adams wrote that Harrison was the best president of his lifetime – maybe because the Senate ran the country.

if we ever created a "Best Post-Presidency Career" JQA would def head it.

J.Q. Adams portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in "Amistad," GWB portrayed by Josh Brolin in "W" and by Timothy Bottoms in "That's My Bush." (The other two don't rate.) Gotta go with Hopkins.

Wait, shit, what's the poll about?

So both sons of former presidents beat the popular vote. And Benji was a grandson.

Dunno why Grover isn't revered these days as a conservative icon.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/media/2009/10/grover-sesame-street-israel-425ds101909-1256668685.jpg

did not vote for any of these 8 candidates

JQA was also played by William Daniels and David Birney (!) in the long-unseen PBS mini "The Adams Chronicles."

could have fleshed this out with all those who won but didn't get over 50%

...whoa which is a hell of a lot of them now that i look!

I always figured Morbs was an Alson Streeter supporter

w/out looking, that'd be quite a lot xxp

off top of my head, Clinton '92, Carter, Nixon '68, Taft...

Obama broke the streak of every Dem since LBJ getting less than 50 percent.

more history!

Electoral votes:

James Monroe's 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams's 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.2% margin)
Franklin D. Roosevelt's 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon's 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin)
Ronald Reagan's 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale's 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin)
Richard Nixon's 520 electoral votes to George McGovern's 17 electoral votes and John Hospers's 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin)

The greatest modern landslides in the United States Presidential elections:

1920 - the greatest percentage point margin in the popular vote (Harding 60.3% to Cox 34.1%).
1936 - the greatest electoral votes difference between winner and opponent (Roosevelt 523 to Landon 8).
1964 - the highest percentage for winner (Lyndon Johnson 61.1%).
1984 - the highest number of electoral votes (Reagan 525).

I voted Harrison because I know the least about him.

Did Carter not get over 50%?

no, that was a hairsbreadth election.

damn i forgot Perot still pulled over 8% in '96.

no, that was a hairsbreadth election.

No – electorally it was a landslide. Popular was closer. Carter got 41.0, according to Wiki.

50.08% xp

look at us busy little jaymcs.

Nixon pardon and "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" cost Ford the election.

Not an electoral landslide... wiki on '76 (they also show Carter w/ 50.1%):

The states that ultimately secured Carter's victory were Wisconsin (1.68% margin) and Ohio (.27% margin). Had Ford won these states and all other states he carried, he would have won the presidency. The 27 states Ford won were and remain the most states ever carried by a losing candidate.

Damn, these are scary.

http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html

1964 - the highest percentage for winner (Lyndon Johnson 61.1%).

damn

oof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1980prescountymap2.PNG

Damn, these are scary.

MONDALE WINS is a good lol though

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1984/1101840618_400.jpg

Jesus wept.

over a sacrificial lamb?

how did anyone expect him to win? Every time he smiled he turned into a ghoul.

shut up, I lived in Minnesota and I was 11

waaaaaaaar's the beef?

oof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1980prescountymap2.PNG

Trying to imagine a world now where the panhandle's blue and the southern end is a red rocket.

yeah that really is the shriveled husk of the FDR coalition right there

i am a somewhat ideological voter so the idea of "carrying your state" seems really quaint and even creepy to me. who give a fuck where someone is from?? carter clearly helping blue up georgia for mondale just seems like the weirdest thing now.

little known fact, I cut several electro tracks under the name Rutherford B. Haze

Lol

did anybody win the popular vote OR the election while losing their home state besides Gore?

I think FDR lost New York in 1932!

No, I'm way off on that one.

what's the real effect there anyway, that supporters of a pol who are familiar with him/her from way back are extra motivated/easier to sell? (ie a base turnout issue). because it just seems impossible to me that home-state party-opponents would be more willing to pull a lever for their "enemy" in a national contest just because he's from where they are. but i guess dumber stuff happens.

xp yeah gore seems to mark the decline of this pattern, maybe? like, who cares homeboy, you're a democrat and you're not winning tennessee anymore

Wilson lost NJ in 1916.

Wilson probably did lose that election, period: voter fraud in California.

as far as weird things american voters do, 'carrying the state' isn't even that weird I think. a pres from your state kinda has something personal invested in it not being screwed over in the resource allocation game.

Mondale did a live phone-in to the Jerry Lewis Telethon in '84 a few hours after Reagan did.

Right after the call, Jerry turns to Ed McMahon and says, "I'm votin' for Alf Landon."

but overall the trend is prob more 'popular politician from state x wins state x because they were a popular politician in state x' than anything particularly interesting

oof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1980prescountymap2.PNG

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, April 18, 2012 10:34 AM (26 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the south was still democratic in 1980? even with mondale as the nominee?

Carter in '80.

The whole home state thing: Arkansas was one of the few states that had fewer votes for Obama than Kerry. And had Hillary been the nominee, I'm pretty convinced that she would have carried all six of its electoral votes.

Same thing likely for West Virginia, so, you know, feel free to draw your own conclusions about THAT.

damn i forgot Perot still pulled over 8% in '96.

jesus christ this fact has been the source of SO MANY ARGUMENTS here

the south was still democratic in 1980? even with mondale as the nominee?

the Reagan elections ended the Dem hold on the South.

iirc south went red when iatee was born and people heard about this baby who was always talking shit about the south and they were like "fuck that kid, I'm going to vote against my interests and see how he likes it"

JQA was clearly the best person/politician of all of these choices, and he was quite visionary when he was President. unfortunately, he wasn't a very good President (intellect, good character and vision notwithstanding). but i still voted for him b/c he's a giant compared to the 3 others (Benjamin Harrison would be 2nd only b/c he was a mediocre non-entity as opposed to being an active evildoer like the other 2 candidates).

if you're a history nerd JQA's voluminous (an understatement) diaries make for great reading: recipes, notations in Latin, confessing to his depression, attempts at sonnets, and political scuttlebutt of surprising viciousness.

i'm skimming through Benjamin Harrison's wikipedia entry and although i still stand by my contention that he was a mediocre President, he still appears to have been rather better than i originally (and lazily) assumed -- he was mildly pro-silver (the pre-Great Depression equivalent of being a Keynesian i suppose), he signed the Sherman Antitrust Act, and he was progressive on civil rights/race matters (e.g., he sponsored the last civil rights legislation to be considered until the 1920s, his Attorney General prosecuted voting rights violations in the Deep South, and Harrison endorsed a constitutional amendment that would've overturned a 1883 Supreme Court ruling that had invalidated the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act).

nobody ever votes against their interests. i'd argue it's not a possibility.

lol yes they actually do & of course it is

so if poor conservatives do then rich liberals do also, do you think?

"interest" includes sentiment, it's not just $$

there are different definitions of the word 'interest' so you guys are both correct

nobody ever votes against their interests. i'd argue it's not a possibility.

Cuban Americans are things of wonder, I assure you!

as for Benji Harrison: Henry Adams didn't often hand out endorsements!

I've read almost a dozen books about the events between 1865 and 1914 and still have trouble understanding the hoo-haw about silver, as in I have trouble following it.

mostly about debt relief and being pro-farmer, but yeah idgi either

isn't it just simply increasing the money supply which would result in inflation? deflation kills debtors.

as i understand it: since silver is more plentiful (and therefore less valuable) than gold, pegging the US dollar to silver as opposed to gold would've been an expansionary (and inflationary) economic policy (since a lot of the 1800s-era economic depressions were very nasty deflationary ones). a silver-pegged currency would've eased the debt burdens of heavily indebted farmers (most of whom were in the South and the West); banks were pro-gold b/c they didn't want the value of their assets inflated away. draw the lines for yerselves from there, i think.

this was all pre-Federal Reserve as well as decades before Keynes's General Theory, i should add.

OK that makes sense. It also makes the phenomenon of WJB more plausible too.

related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_Party

as i understand it: since silver is more plentiful (and therefore less valuable) than gold, pegging the US dollar to silver as opposed to gold would've been an expansionary (and inflationary) economic policy (since a lot of the 1800s-era economic depressions were very nasty deflationary ones). a silver-pegged currency would've eased the debt burdens of heavily indebted farmers (most of whom were in the South and the West); banks were pro-gold b/c they didn't want the value of their assets inflated away. draw the lines for yerselves from there, i think.

well it has nothing to do w/ how plentiful silver or gold is overall, it has to do w/ how much is being discovered. like, we could have a currency pegged to...idk, ferraris or cans of soup, and that alone wouldn't make us richer or poorer, the value of the currency would be changing w/r/t the creation of new ferraris or new cans of soup. so it's not really because gold is less plentiful.

(it's because the world supply of gold at that time wasn't growing fast enough)

whatever slave, peg currency to nothing but REALITY ITSELF. gold. GOLD.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SZFZ3Lg2JI

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

We've got three jokers in our deck.

lol

rip lemonade lucy

rip lemonade lucy

Dubya isn't dead yet!