How American Politics Went Insane (Long and very serious)

The Atlantic ^ | July/August Issue | Jonathan Rauch

[Gulf War One]

The bottom line, so take it from there whether or not you want to invest further:

In March, a Trump supporter told The New York Times, “I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party.” Another said, “We know who Donald Trump is, and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.” That kind of anti-establishment nihilism deserves no respect or accommodation in American public life. Populism, individualism, and a skeptical attitude toward politics are all healthy up to a point, but America has passed that point. Political professionals and parties have many shortcomings to answer for—including, primarily on the Republican side, their self-mutilating embrace of anti-establishment rhetoric—but relentlessly bashing them is no solution. You haven’t heard anyone say this, but it’s time someone did: Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the establishment, not the other way around.

[Robert DeLong]

Can't you read the headline? It says Dewey won.

You are joking right? The headline was a mistake because everyone was so sure that Dewey was going to win. That was Truman's first elected term.

Actually Truman chose not to run for a second elected term:

At the end of March, Truman announced that he would not seek re-election to a third term. He would be the last chief executive eligible to run for more than two terms. Five years earlier, Republican majorities in the House and the Senate had passed a constitutional amendment that stipulated "no person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice" or more than once if a president had served for more than two years of an unexpired term.

Lyndon Johnson gave several reasons for his decision not to run for re-election. Among them were his desire to spend more time with his family and the fear that he would not live until the end of his term if re-elected. Though the reasons behind Johnson's decision not to seek re-election have been often debated, his appointment secretary -- a position similar to today's chief of staff -- firmly believes there was only one reason Johnson chose to step down: Vietnam.

So I am not sure why you keep insisting that the last time that happened was 1880 with Rutherford B. Hayes. Unless you mean the last President to have only served the one term they were elected, and not a partial previous term where they succeeded a President that died in office. Then I would have to agree, but Truman & Johnson, both were eligible to serve another term, and chose not to do so.

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, I was joking. I know that Thomas Dewey was never President of the United States. Even his running mate (Earl Warren) couldn't stand the guy.

Not only did everything think Dewey would win, the Chicago Tribune at that time was a Republican paper...so they jumped the gun before enough returns were in. My dad's theory was that people felt sorry for Truman and knew he would lose, so voted for him, and that was what gave him the votes he needed.

In both cases, 1952 and 1968, the incumbent President, had he been the nominee, probably would have lost.

The article was talking about a hypothetical President elected this year, who would be starting his first term next January (since neither of the living one-term Presidents, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, are likely to be nominated). So Truman and LBJ, who won their first elections while already in the White House, would not be perfectly analogous.

Truman was very unpopular because of the Korean War, so I doubt he could have beaten Ike. I can remember hearing LBJ's speech in 1968 when he announced he would not seek re-election...he coupled that with saying he would try to end the war. If he had chosen to run he probably would have been able to secure the nomination but I doubt he would have been re-elected. Humphrey didn't lose by much but LBJ might have gotten fewer votes.