Podcast Sejarah

Apa Kampanye Presiden terlama yang dijalankan di Amerika Serikat?

Apa Kampanye Presiden terlama yang dijalankan di Amerika Serikat?

Melihat kembali ke 2008 sepertinya Mitt Romney telah mencalonkan diri sebagai Presiden sejak dia berada di pemilihan pendahuluan Partai Republik 2008 di mana dia kalah dari John McCain. Mempertimbangkan penghentian singkat sementara McCain adalah kandidat Partai Republik, dan seandainya Mitt Romney memulai kampanyenya lagi segera setelah Obama menang, saya tahu itu segera setelah itu tetapi tidak memiliki tanggal, itu akan menjadikannya salah satu kandidat terlama - sekitar 4 tahun.

Apakah ada kasus lain di mana kampanye Presiden di AS telah berlangsung lama, atau lebih lama, atau sekitar 4 tahun paling lama dalam catatan? Ini harus menjadi individu yang berjalan tanpa henti dalam satu partai politik, dalam upaya untuk menjadi calon mereka untuk Presiden.


Siapa pun dapat menyatakan bahwa dia mencalonkan diri sebagai presiden Amerika Serikat. Itu pada dasarnya tidak terkait, bagaimanapun, apakah dia akan ditempatkan di surat suara, apalagi memiliki peluang untuk menang.

Untuk menjadi presiden, seseorang harus memenangkan mayoritas di Electoral College, dan kecuali pertarungan luar biasa dari ketidaksetiaan perguruan tinggi, itu berarti Anda perlu mendapatkan pemilih yang mendukung Anda dipilih. Pemilihan pemilih sebagian besar merupakan masalah negara bagian, bukan hukum federal, tetapi setidaknya, Anda harus memenuhi syarat untuk pemungutan suara di setiap negara bagian dan Distrik Columbia. Jika Anda mewakili sebuah partai, Anda harus disertifikasi sebagai kandidat partai tersebut, sebuah proses yang juga bergantung pada undang-undang negara bagian dan peraturan partai.

Jadi, menentukan kampanye yang berjalan paling lama memiliki banyak jawaban tergantung pada bagaimana Anda mendefinisikan seorang kandidat: Siapa saja yang menyatakan? Siapa saja yang memenangkan delegasi? Siapa saja yang mendapat akses surat suara? Adakah yang dicalonkan oleh partai dengan akses surat suara di XX% negara bagian? Siapa saja yang menerima di atas XX% dari suara populer di primer atau umum? Siapa saja yang memenangkan suara elektoral? Siapa saja yang memiliki peluang nyata untuk menang?

Beberapa kemungkinan antara lain sebagai berikut:

Kandidat partai besar

  • Theodore Roosevelt 1904 dan 1908 (calon Partai Republik), 1912 (calon Bull Moose)
  • William Jennings Bryan 1896, 1900 dan 1908 (calon Demokrat)
  • Adlai Stevenson II 1952 dan 1956 (calon Demokrat), 1960 (Demokrat primer)

Kandidat yang mencapai akses suara untuk setidaknya satu negara bagian dalam pemilihan umum (sebagai calon partai atau independen)

  • Eugene V. Debs (Sosialis) mencalonkan diri pada tahun 1904, 1908, 1912, dan 1920
  • Ralph Nader (Hijau) pada tahun 1996 dan 2000, independen 2004 dan 2008
  • Gus Hall (Komunis) mencalonkan diri pada tahun 1972, 1976, 1980, dan 1984

Kandidat yang mencapai akses suara untuk setidaknya satu sekolah dasar negara bagian

  • Gubernur Harold Strassen pada tahun 1944, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, dan 2000
  • Senator Eugene McCarthy pada tahun 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, dan 1992
  • Jack Fellure pelarangan pada tahun 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, dan 2012
  • Lyndon LaRouche pada tahun 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, dan 2004

Kandidat lelucon

  • Tokoh TV Pat Paulsen mencalonkan diri pada tahun 1968, 1972, 1980, 1988, 1992, dan 1996 dan ditempatkan pada pemungutan suara utama beberapa kali

Kampanye politik AS cukup banyak terus menerus akhir-akhir ini.

Banyak orang menyalahkan ini pada munculnya outlet media massa partisan. Saya akan berpendapat mereka cukup benar untuk melakukannya. Namun, jika Anda melihat kembali ke dalam sejarah ini benar-benar hanya kembali ke cara historis.

Pada abad ke-18 dan 19 setiap kota besar memiliki surat kabar yang secara editorial terkait dengan partai politik (itulah sebabnya sebagian besar kota dulu memiliki setidaknya dua surat kabar besar). Kertas-kertas ini akan terus-menerus brutal terhadap pihak lain. Misalnya, seorang editor di surat kabar anti-Fedralis menulis yang berikut pada tahun 1796 setelah pidato perpisahan presiden pertama kita yang tercinta (hampir 4 tahun sebelum pemilihan Presiden berikutnya):

Jika suatu bangsa pernah dirusak oleh seorang pria, bangsa Amerika telah dirusak oleh Washington. Jika suatu bangsa ditipu oleh seorang pria, bangsa Amerika telah ditipu oleh Washington

Objective Journalisim, gagasan bahwa media harus melaporkan berita dengan cara yang netral secara politik, adalah konsep abad ke-20. Orang-orang sinis mengklaim perubahan ini didorong oleh kebutuhan untuk meningkatkan pendapatan melalui iklan. Tidak ada pengiklan yang menginginkan produk mereka ditempatkan di sebelah artikel yang menarik perhatian banyak pelanggan mereka. Propaganda partisan selama periode ini seharusnya terbatas pada halaman editorial, dan upaya langsung dari kampanye itu sendiri. Tentu saja menyebarkan propaganda Anda sendiri itu mahal, jadi politisi biasanya hanya repot-repot melakukannya tepat sebelum pemilihan. Itu membuat mereka memiliki keseimbangan waktu untuk melakukan hal-hal seperti menjalankan negara (jika mereka mau).

Namun, sekarang adalah tanggal 21 abad. Model media cetak yang diiklankan sedang sekarat, dan outlet TV online dan kabel baru menemukan bahwa cara terbaik untuk mendapatkan kader bola mata yang setia adalah dengan menjadi partisan. Jadi sekarang, baik atau buruk, kita kembali ke masa lalu media yang didominasi oleh outlet propaganda partisan penuh waktu.


Mitt Romney bukan calon presiden yang diumumkan. Lamanya setelah deklarasi kepresidenan selalu kira-kira 18 bulan, tetapi porsi kampanye setelah deklarasi telah berlangsung beberapa bulan lebih lama baru-baru ini juga. Pencalonan yang paling awal dinyatakan dalam memori baru-baru ini adalah Hillary Clinton dalam kampanye 2008. Dia menyatakan pada akhir Januari 2007, jadi jika dia memenangkan primer, dia akan dideklarasikan untuk total sekitar 21 bulan.

Untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini, mengenai kampanye berkelanjutan, saya akan menggunakan buku teks perguruan tinggi tentang bagaimana menyusun dan menjalankan kampanye politik. Mirip dengan Econ 101 atau Kebijakan Publik 101 yang diterapkan pada studi strategi kampanye. Buku berjudul Komunikasi Kampanye Politik: Prinsip dan Praktik oleh Judith S. Trent dan tidak memerlukan latar belakang untuk membacanya. (Saya sangat merekomendasikan :))

Ada empat tahapan kampanye politik: 1. Permukaan 2. Pemilihan pendahuluan 3. Konvensi Pencalonan 4. Pemilihan Umum

Seorang calon presiden dapat keluar pada salah satu tahap ini dan mencalonkan diri sebagai presiden selama tahap Permukaan, meskipun mereka belum "menyatakan" bahwa mereka mencalonkan diri. Mendeklarasikan adalah bagian dari tahap Permukaan tetapi itu bukan satu-satunya hal yang terjadi di panggung. Dia akan memulai kembali proses tahapan ini setelah keluar dan kembali ke tahap Permukaan jika dia masih memiliki keinginan untuk mencalonkan diri sebagai presiden. Surface sangat membingungkan, jadi berikut penjelasan lebih lengkapnya: "rangkaian transaksi yang dapat diprediksi dan berjangka waktu khusus yang melayani fungsi pelengkap dan instrumental selama fase pra-utama kampanye." (Oleh karena itu tidak termasuk "perawatan" kandidat untuk kantor)

Kegiatan Surfacing yang dapat diprediksi ini meliputi: membangun organisasi politik, penggalangan dana, berbagai jenis pengaturan berbicara, peningkatan kesadaran kandidat, terutama dalam upaya untuk menarik perhatian media, melakukan jajak pendapat untuk menilai visibilitas dan membantu merancang posisi kandidat pada isu-isu dan platform, dan membuat cetak biru kampanye. Pada tahap ini, kandidat melakukan jajak pendapat dan mengumpulkan dana untuk mencoba mengetahui apakah mereka memiliki kemungkinan untuk menang. Dalam berita, Anda akan sering melihat seseorang seperti Mitt Romney mengatakan dia tidak pernah mempertimbangkan untuk berlari suatu hari dan hari berikutnya mengatakan dia mungkin akan berlari. Ini adalah alasannya. Tahap Surface sering digunakan dalam pemilihan kecil atau lokal, tetapi karena biaya dan waktu kampanye terus menerus yang terbatas hanya pada jabatan yang lebih tinggi. Dengan kata lain, walikota setempat tidak selalu berkampanye, meski menggunakan strategi yang sama.

Strategi terus-menerus ini menjadi norma pada 1980-an, jadi secara umum saya pikir semua calon presiden setelah sekitar tahun 1985 menggunakan strategi kampanye "berkelanjutan", tetapi pada awal 1980-an. Alasan historisnya adalah reformasi aturan kaukus Partai Demokrat dan Republik untuk meningkatkan partisipasi yang lebih demokratis, yang dimulai pada tahun 1976. Dengan kata lain, bukannya calon presiden dipilih oleh segelintir orang dalam partai, calon mulai dipilih oleh para delegasi konvensi. Oleh karena itu, para calon harus populer untuk lebih banyak orang untuk memenangkan partai primer. Juga, reformasi ini melemahkan kekuatan partai dan meninggalkan kekosongan kekuasaan yang diisi oleh lembaga survei, PAC, dan kelompok kepentingan khusus. Kelompok kepentingan khusus terdiri dari warga negara yang tertarik pada suatu masalah tetapi tidak mendukung suatu partai secara langsung, sehingga partai tersebut harus menawarkan dukungan kepada mereka untuk mengamankan pendanaan mereka.

Saya pikir mungkin Ron Paul? Dia mulai mencalonkan diri sebagai presiden pada tahun 1988. Ada banyak contoh kandidat pihak ketiga yang memiliki sejarah panjang upaya pencalonan presiden, tetapi Ron Paul mendapatkan perhatian media nasional dan akses suara nasional lebih sering. Dia juga merupakan persilangan ke primer Partai Republik. Pertanyaan ini sebenarnya tidak dapat dijawab karena kami tidak memiliki akses ke catatan politisi individu mengenai kampanye mereka. Mereka mungkin tidak ingin kita tahu apakah mereka telah mencalonkan diri untuk Gedung Putih selama 15 tahun, tetapi Mitt Romney jelas bukan yang pertama memiliki kampanye yang panjang. Awal resmi periode kemunculan John McCain (kandidat Republik 2008) dapat ditempatkan pada tahun 1998 selama pemilihan ulang keduanya ke Senat ketika ia menyatakan minat publik untuk mencalonkan diri sebagai presiden, tetapi tanggal awal sebenarnya dari Surface-nya tidak diketahui.

Referensi: Judith S. Trent. Komunikasi Kampanye Politik. Prinsip dan Praktek. Edisi ke-5.

"Ron Paul." Wikipedia.


Pemilihan Presiden Amerika Serikat tahun 2008

Editor kami akan meninjau apa yang Anda kirimkan dan menentukan apakah artikel tersebut akan direvisi atau tidak.

Pada tanggal 4 November 2008, setelah kampanye yang berlangsung hampir dua tahun, orang Amerika memilih senator Illinois Barack Obama sebagai presiden ke-44 mereka. Hasilnya bersejarah, karena Obama, seorang senator AS masa jabatan pertama, menjadi, ketika ia dilantik pada 20 Januari 2009, presiden Afrika-Amerika pertama di negara itu. Dia juga adalah senator AS pertama yang memenangkan pemilihan presiden sejak John F. Kennedy pada tahun 1960. Dengan tingkat partisipasi pemilih tertinggi dalam empat dekade, Obama dan senator Delaware Joe Biden mengalahkan kandidat Partai Republik dari senator Arizona John McCain, yang mencari menjadi orang tertua yang terpilih sebagai presiden untuk masa jabatan pertama dalam sejarah AS, dan Gubernur Alaska Sarah Palin, yang berusaha menjadi wakil presiden wanita pertama dalam sejarah negara itu, memenangkan hampir 53 persen suara.

Siklus berita 24/7 dan proliferasi blog sebagai sarana penyebaran informasi (baik faktual dan salah) membingkai kontes karena kedua kampanye berusaha untuk mengendalikan narasi. Kampanye McCain mencoba melukis Obama sebagai politik ringan yang naif dan tidak berpengalaman yang akan duduk dengan para pemimpin rezim anti-Amerika di Kuba, Iran, dan Venezuela tanpa prasyarat, mengklaim bahwa dia hanyalah seorang selebriti dengan sedikit substansi (menayangan iklan yang membandingkan Obama ke Britney Spears dan Paris Hilton), melabeli ide-idenya sosialis (memukul kebijakan pajak Obama khususnya dan menerkam komentar Obama untuk "Joe the Plumber" bahwa dia akan mencari "menyebarkan kekayaan"), dan menyerang hubungannya dengan Bill Ayers, yang mendirikan Weathermen, sebuah kelompok yang melakukan pengeboman pada 1960-an. Ayers, pada tahun 2008 seorang profesor di University of Illinois di Chicago—dan terus-menerus disebut sebagai “teroris domestik yang tidak bertobat” oleh kampanye McCain—tinggal beberapa blok dari Obama di Chicago, berkontribusi pada kampanye pemilihannya kembali untuk Senat Illinois, dan bertugas di dewan anti-kemiskinan dengan Obama 1999-2002. Obama meremehkan kenalannya dengan Ayers dan mencela kegiatan Ayers sebagai "menjijikkan" tapi cepat untuk dicatat bahwa kegiatan ini telah terjadi 40 tahun yang lalu ketika kandidat berusia delapan tahun. Selain itu, berdasarkan e-mail dan pernyataan lainnya tidak pernah terbukti, sebagian kecil tapi masih signifikan dari publik secara keliru percaya Obama (seorang Kristen yang taat) sebagai seorang Muslim. Untuk mempertahankan diri dari serangan, kampanye Obama mengambil langkah yang belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya dengan mendirikan situs Web, "Fight the Smears," untuk "melawan balik 'kebencian', 'kejam', dan robocall dan mailer 'putus asa'. Pada gilirannya, kampanye Obama berusaha untuk meragukan persona maverick McCain dan mengurangi daya tariknya kepada pemilih independen dengan mengikatnya pada setiap kesempatan untuk Pres. George W. Bush, yang popularitasnya termasuk di antara presiden modern mana pun, dan menyiarkan iklan yang menunjukkan keduanya berpelukan dan sering mengulangi bahwa McCain memilih 90 persen dalam pemerintahan Bush. Kampanye Obama juga berusaha untuk membingkai McCain sebagai "tidak menentu," tuduhan yang sering diulang dan bahwa beberapa dugaan adalah referensi miring ke usia McCain, karena ia akan menjadi orang tertua yang pernah dilantik untuk masa jabatan pertama sebagai presiden.

Kampanye musim gugur juga dilakukan dengan latar belakang krisis keuangan yang mencengkeram negara itu pada bulan September, ketika pasar dunia menderita kerugian besar, sangat memukul tabungan pensiun banyak orang Amerika dan mendorong ekonomi ke puncak kekhawatiran pemilih, jauh melampaui perang di Irak dan perang melawan terorisme. Dari 19 September hingga 10 Oktober, Dow Jones Industrial Average turun 26 persen, dari 11.388 menjadi 8.451. Pada saat yang sama, terjadi kontraksi parah likuiditas di pasar kredit di seluruh dunia, sebagian disebabkan oleh krisis subprime mortgage, yang mengakibatkan pemerintah AS memberikan pinjaman darurat kepada beberapa perusahaan Amerika dan kebangkrutan atau penjualan beberapa lembaga keuangan utama. Lembaga ekonomi dan politik AS bereaksi dengan mengesahkan (setelah upaya pertama yang gagal) Undang-Undang Stabilisasi Ekonomi Darurat, yang berusaha mencegah keruntuhan lebih lanjut dan untuk menyelamatkan ekonomi.

Efek dari krisis ekonomi sangat dramatis, mengubah keunggulan kecil McCain-Palin dalam jajak pendapat pada awal September menjadi keunggulan stabil Obama-Biden. Keunggulan Obama lebih lanjut didukung oleh penampilannya dalam tiga debat presiden, dengan jajak pendapat menunjukkan bahwa dia adalah pemenang dari ketiga debat tersebut. Baik dalam debat dan tanggapannya terhadap krisis keuangan, Obama mencetak poin dengan publik untuk kemantapan dan kesejukan (dicirikan sebagai sikap acuh tak acuh oleh para kritikusnya). Sementara McCain mengumumkan penangguhan kampanyenya selama beberapa hari pada bulan September untuk kembali ke Washington, DC, untuk mengatasi krisis keuangan dan menyarankan agar debat pertama ditunda, Obama memainkan lebih banyak peran di belakang layar dan bersikeras bahwa perdebatan berlangsung, mengatakan "Ini akan menjadi bagian dari tugas presiden untuk menangani lebih dari satu hal sekaligus." Obama juga dibantu oleh keputusannya untuk memilih keluar dari sistem pembiayaan federal, yang akan membatasi kampanyenya hingga $84 juta dalam pengeluaran. Kampanye McCain mengkritik keputusan ini, mengutip kuesioner yang diisi Obama pada tahun 2007 di mana dia berjanji untuk tetap berada dalam sistem pembiayaan publik, namun Obama membela keputusan tersebut, dengan alasan bahwa dalam dokumen yang sama dia menyerukan sebuah rencana yang akan membutuhkan "keduanya kandidat partai untuk menyetujui gencatan senjata penggalangan dana, mengembalikan kelebihan uang dari donor, dan tetap berada dalam sistem pembiayaan publik untuk pemilihan umum" dan bahwa jika dia memenangkan nominasi Demokrat dia akan "secara agresif mengejar kesepakatan dengan calon Partai Republik untuk mempertahankan publik membiayai pemilihan umum.” Keputusan kampanye Obama terbayar, karena menarik lebih dari tiga juta donor dan mengumpulkan $150 juta yang mencengangkan di bulan September saja, memungkinkan kampanye untuk mengalahkan kampanye McCain dengan margin yang signifikan di negara-negara medan pertempuran dan untuk membeli 30 menit prime -waktu televisi enam hari sebelum pemilihan (lebih dari 33 juta orang Amerika menonton infomersial Obama).

Kampanye tersebut menghasilkan antusiasme yang sangat besar, dengan jutaan pendaftar baru bergabung dalam pemungutan suara (meskipun kampanye McCain menuduh bahwa banyak dari mereka terdaftar secara ilegal, setelah muncul tuduhan bahwa beberapa karyawan yang dipekerjakan oleh ACORN, sebuah kelompok kepentingan yang melobi atas nama berpenghasilan rendah keluarga, telah menyerahkan pendaftaran palsu). McCain menyelenggarakan banyak pertemuan balai kota (sebuah format di mana dia unggul) di seluruh negeri, di mana para peserta dapat menanyai kandidat tersebut, namun beberapa dari pertemuan ini berada di bawah pengawasan media ketika beberapa anggota audiens menjadi panas dalam kritik mereka terhadap Obama. Demonstrasi Obama secara konsisten menarik banyak orang—termasuk sekitar 100.000 orang pada rapat umum di St. Louis, Mo., pada pertengahan Oktober—dan puluhan ribu sering keluar untuk melihat Palin di tunggul (kampanye hanya menyediakan akses terbatas ke Palin untuk media). Meskipun beberapa komentator, termasuk yang konservatif, mempertanyakan kesiapannya untuk wakil presiden dan kepresidenan, dia terbukti sangat populer: rekor 70 juta orang Amerika yang mengikuti debat wakil presiden, dan penampilannya di Live Sabtu Malam, yang Tina Fey telah mencercanya beberapa kali sebelumnya, menarik peringkat tertinggi acara itu selama 14 tahun.

Kampanye utama 2008 juga bersejarah. Di pihak Demokrat, bidangnya menyempit dengan cepat untuk mengadu Barack Obama melawan Hillary Clinton. Kedua kandidat berusaha menjadi presiden "yang pertama"—Obama presiden Afrika-Amerika pertama dan Clinton presiden wanita pertama. Sebuah kontes terkadang pahit antara Obama dan Clinton menghasilkan kemenangan tersempit untuk Obama. Kampanye Partai Republik menghasilkan pemenang yang mengejutkan, John McCain. Banyak pakar telah mencoret McCain selama musim panas 2007, karena kampanyenya goyah, sementara banyak lainnya menunjuk Rudy Giuliani sebagai yang terdepan. Tapi Giuliani gagal merebut satu negara bagian di pemilihan pendahuluan, dan McCain melanjutkan untuk mengalahkan tantangan kuat dari Mitt Romney dan Mike Huckabee dengan mudah.


Kampanye

Clinton telah memenangkan masa jabatan pertamanya pada tahun 1992 melawan petahana George Bush dari Partai Republik dengan hanya 43 persen suara, sementara independen Ross Perot telah memenangkan hampir 19 persen. Dua tahun setelah masa jabatan Clinton, Partai Demokrat kehilangan mayoritas mereka di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat untuk pertama kalinya sejak 1950-an, dan banyak pakar percaya bahwa Clinton, yang dukungan publiknya telah berkurang karena beberapa kesalahan langkah awal—terutama pada perawatan kesehatan dan proposalnya untuk mengizinkan laki-laki gay dan lesbian untuk melayani secara terbuka di militer (kompromi “Jangan Tanya, Jangan Katakan” akhirnya dijamin)—akan menjadi presiden satu periode.

Namun, Partai Republik di Kongres, yang dipimpin oleh Ketua DPR Newt Gingrich, sering menerapkan kebijakan tanpa kompromi dan konfrontatif. Secara khusus, setelah kebuntuan anggaran antara Partai Republik dan Clinton pada tahun 1995 dan 1996—yang memaksa dua penutupan sebagian pemerintah, termasuk satu selama 22 hari (penutupan operasi pemerintah terlama hingga saat itu, dilampaui oleh penutupan 34 hari pada 2018–19)—Clinton mendapat dukungan publik yang cukup besar untuk pendekatannya yang lebih moderat.


1888: Penyuapan blok lima

Pada tahun 1888, Presiden Demokrat Grover Cleveland dari New York mencalonkan diri kembali melawan mantan Senator AS Benjamin Harrison dari Indiana.

Saat itu, surat suara pemilu di sebagian besar negara bagian dicetak, didistribusikan oleh partai politik, dan diberikan kepada publik. Pemilih tertentu, yang dikenal sebagai “floaters”, diketahui menjual suara mereka kepada pembeli yang bersedia.

Harrison telah menunjuk seorang pengacara Indiana, William Wade Dudley, sebagai bendahara Komite Nasional Partai Republik. Sesaat sebelum pemilihan, Dudley mengirim surat kepada para pemimpin lokal Partai Republik di Indiana dengan dana dan instruksi yang dijanjikan tentang bagaimana membagi pemilih yang mau menerima menjadi “suara rakyat nasional dengan hampir 100.000 suara. Tapi dia kehilangan negara bagian asalnya, New York, dengan sekitar 1 persen suara, menempatkan Harrison di posisi teratas di Electoral College. Kerugian Cleveland di New York mungkin juga terkait dengan skema pembelian suara.

Cleveland tidak mengikuti hasil Electoral College dan memenangkan pertandingan ulang melawan Harrison empat tahun kemudian, menjadi satu-satunya presiden yang menjabat secara tidak berurutan. Sementara itu, skandal blok-of-lima menyebabkan adopsi nasional dari surat suara rahasia untuk pemungutan suara.


6. John F. Kennedy mengalahkan Richard Nixon, 1960 (margin 0,17%)

Pemilihan Presiden AS tahun 1960 mengadu John F. Kennedy melawan Richard Nixon. Kedua pria itu berusia 40-an. Untuk mendapatkan nominasi Demokrat, Kennedy terlebih dahulu mengalahkan Hubert Humphrey, dari Minnesota, selama 13 pemilihan pendahuluan. Kennedy kemudian mengalahkan Lyndon Johnson, Pemimpin Mayoritas Senat, di Konvensi Nasional Demokrat di Los Angeles pada pemungutan suara pertama untuk meraih nominasi. Nixon, saat itu Wakil Presiden Eisenhower, dinominasikan oleh Partai Republik untuk melawan Kennedy. Perlombaan untuk Gedung Putih berlangsung ketat, dan Jajak Pendapat Gallup membuat kedua kandidat terikat pada 47 persen, dengan 6 persen pemilih ragu-ragu. Serangkaian 4 debat televisi mendorong profil Kennedy dengan mengorbankan Nixon. Pada Hari Pemilihan, Kennedy memenangkan suara rakyat dengan selisih kecil 120.000 suara, dari 68,8 juta suara yang diberikan, menurut Miller Center. Dalam suara Electoral College, ia menerima 303 suara berbanding 219 suara Nixon untuk menjadi Presiden ke-35 negara itu.


Presiden Terburuk dalam Sejarah

Tiga kegagalan tertentu mengamankan status Trump sebagai kepala eksekutif terburuk yang pernah menjabat.

Tentang penulis: Tim Naftali adalah profesor sejarah klinis di NYU. Dia adalah direktur pertama Perpustakaan dan Museum Kepresidenan Richard Nixon.

Presiden Donald Trump telah lama bersukacita dalam superlatif. Pertama. Terbaik. Yang paling. Terbesar. “Tidak ada presiden yang pernah melakukan apa yang telah saya lakukan,” dia menyombongkan diri. “Tidak ada presiden yang pernah mendekati,” katanya. Tetapi ketika empat tahun masa jabatannya akan berakhir, hanya ada satu gelar yang dapat dia klaim: Donald Trump adalah presiden terburuk yang pernah dimiliki Amerika.

Pada Desember 2019, ia menjadi presiden ketiga yang dimakzulkan. Pekan lalu, Trump memasuki kategorinya sendiri, menjadi presiden pertama yang dimakzulkan dua kali. Tetapi pemakzulan, yang sebagian bergantung pada susunan Kongres, bukanlah standar yang paling objektif. Apa sebenarnya arti menjadi presiden terburuk? Dan apakah ada nilai, di akhir pahit dari kepresidenan yang buruk, dalam menghabiskan energi untuk menilai kontes kepresidenan yang gagal?

Akan sangat membantu untuk memikirkan tanggung jawab seorang presiden dalam kaitannya dengan dua elemen sumpah jabatan yang ditetapkan dalam Konstitusi. Pada bagian pertama, presiden bersumpah untuk “dengan setia menjalankan Kantor Presiden Amerika Serikat.” Ini adalah janji untuk melakukan tiga pekerjaan dengan benar yang digabungkan kepresidenan menjadi satu: kepala negara, kepala pemerintahan, dan panglima tertinggi. Di bagian kedua, mereka berjanji untuk “melestarikan, melindungi dan membela Konstitusi Amerika Serikat.”

Trump adalah pelanggar berantai sumpahnya—sebagaimana dibuktikan dengan terus-menerus menggunakan kantornya untuk keuntungan finansial pribadi—tetapi berfokus pada tiga cara penting di mana dia mengkhianatinya membantu memperjelas status historisnya yang tunggal. Pertama, ia gagal menempatkan kepentingan keamanan nasional Amerika Serikat di atas kebutuhan politiknya sendiri. Kedua, dalam menghadapi pandemi yang menghancurkan, dia sangat terlantar, tidak mampu atau tidak mau mengumpulkan sumber daya yang diperlukan untuk menyelamatkan nyawa sambil secara aktif mendorong perilaku publik yang menyebarkan penyakit. Dan ketiga, dimintai pertanggungjawaban oleh pemilih atas kegagalannya, dia menolak untuk mengakui kekalahan dan malah menghasut pemberontakan, mengaduk massa yang menyerbu Capitol.

Banyak kepala eksekutif telah gagal, dalam satu atau lain cara, untuk memenuhi tuntutan pekerjaan, atau untuk memecat mereka secara kompeten. Tetapi para sejarawan sekarang cenderung setuju bahwa presiden terburuk kita adalah mereka yang gagal memenuhi bagian kedua dari janji mereka, dalam beberapa hal membahayakan Konstitusi. Dan jika Anda ingin memahami mengapa tiga kegagalan ini membuat Trump menjadi yang terburuk dari semua presiden kita, tempat untuk memulai adalah di ruang bawah peringkat kepresidenan, tempat tinggal para pesaingnya untuk aib tunggal itu.

Selama beberapa dekade di abad ke-20, banyak sejarawan setuju bahwa gelar yang baru-baru ini diperoleh Trump adalah milik Warren G. Harding, seorang presiden yang mereka ingat. Wartawan H. L. Mencken, master asam bon mot, mendengarkan pidato pelantikan Harding dan putus asa. "Tidak ada nitwit lengkap dan mengerikan lainnya yang dapat ditemukan di halaman-halaman sejarah Amerika," tulisnya.

Harding yang malang. Presiden ke-29 kami mempopulerkan kata normal dan mencela diri sendiri menggambarkan dirinya sebagai "bloviator," sebelum meninggal di kantor penyebab alami pada tahun 1923. Meskipun berduka oleh seluruh bangsa-9 juta orang dikatakan telah melihat kereta pemakamannya, banyak menyanyikan himne favoritnya, "Lebih dekat, My God, to Thee”—dia tidak pernah dihormati oleh para sastrawan ketika dia masih hidup. Longsoran wahyu anumerta tentang korupsi dalam pemerintahannya membuatnya menjadi objek cemoohan di antara sebagian besar sejarawan. Pada tahun 1948, Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. memulai tradisi secara teratur memeringkat presiden kita, yang diteruskan putranya, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.—selama beberapa dekade Harding secara konsisten berada di urutan terakhir, mendominasi kategori yang berjudul “kegagalan.”

Skandal yang mendorong Harding turun ke neraka kepresidenan melibatkan penyewaan hak pengeboran swasta di tanah federal di California dan di bawah batu Wyoming yang menyerupai teko. kubah teko akan berfungsi sebagai singkatan untuk skandal presiden yang mengerikan sampai digantikan oleh pintu air. Pada April 1922, Senat yang dikuasai Partai Republik memulai penyelidikan terhadap pemerintahan Republik, dengan kerjasama yang menjanjikan dari Harding. Audiensi publik dimulai hanya setelah kematian Harding tahun berikutnya. Sekretaris dalam negeri akhirnya dinyatakan bersalah atas penyuapan, menjadi orang pertama yang pergi dari Kabinet ke penjara. Skandal lain melanda direktur Biro Veteran dan jaksa agung.

Meskipun Harding memiliki beberapa peringatan tentang korupsi dalam pemerintahannya, tidak ada bukti yang menunjukkan bahwa dia secara pribadi mendapat untung darinya, atau bahwa dia bersalah lebih dari sekadar ketidakmampuan. John W. Dean, mantan penasihat Gedung Putih yang mengaku bersalah atas tuduhan federal atas perannya di Watergate, kemudian menyimpulkan bahwa reputasi Harding tercemar secara tidak adil: “Fakta bahwa Harding tidak melakukan kesalahan apa pun dan tidak terlibat dalam kegiatan kriminal apa pun menjadi tidak relevan.” Dan, terlepas dari peran Harding dalam korupsi yang meluas di pemerintahannya, dia tidak pernah mengancam sistem konstitusional kita.

Di sisi lain buku besar, Harding memiliki sejumlah prestasi positif: Konferensi Angkatan Laut Washington untuk membahas perlucutan senjata, pelaksanaan wewenang presiden atas penganggaran cabang eksekutif, pengurangan hukuman Eugene V. Debs. Ini, dikombinasikan dengan kurangnya keterlibatan langsungnya dalam skandal pemerintahannya dan tidak adanya serangan apa pun terhadap republik kita (yang tidak dapat diseimbangkan oleh pencapaian administratif yang positif), seharusnya membuatnya dengan senang hati dilupakan sebagai presiden yang biasa-biasa saja.

Reputasi Harding hampir tidak meningkat, tetapi dalam survei presiden baru-baru ini yang diselenggarakan oleh C-SPAN, masa jabatannya telah dikalahkan oleh kegagalan tiga orang yang terlibat dalam bubarnya Serikat atau yang menghalangi upaya berliku untuk merekonstruksinya.

Dua yang pertama adalah Franklin Pierce dan James Buchanan. Pierce, seorang Demokrat New Hampshire, dan Buchanan, seorang Demokrat dari Pennsylvania, bersekongkol dan kadang-kadang memperkuat kekuatan yang membuat Union tercerai-berai. Meskipun tidak ada yang berasal dari Selatan, keduanya bersimpati dengan pemilik budak selatan. Mereka menganggap gelombang pasang abolisionisme sebagai kekejian, dan mencari cara untuk meningkatkan kekuatan pemilik budak.

Pierce dan Buchanan menentang Kompromi Missouri 1820, yang telah meredakan ketegangan politik dengan melarang perbudakan di atas garis tertentu di Wilayah Louisiana. Sebagai presiden, Pierce membantu membatalkannya, menambahkan hukuman yang merusak ke Undang-Undang Kansas-Nebraska 1854 yang menyatakan Kompromi “tidak berlaku dan batal.” Undang-Undang Kansas-Nebraska tidak hanya mengizinkan orang-orang di wilayah Kansas dan Nebraska untuk menentukan sendiri apakah negara bagian mereka masing-masing akan menjadi budak atau bebas, tetapi juga membuka semua wilayah yang tidak terorganisir untuk perbudakan.

Buchanan kemudian menggunakan kekuasaan federal di Kansas untuk memastikan bahwa pemilik budak dan pendukung mereka, meskipun minoritas, akan menang. Dia mengizinkan pemberian kontrak $80.000 kepada editor pro-perbudakan di wilayah tersebut dan “kontrak, komisi, dan dalam beberapa kasus uang tunai” kepada Demokrat utara di Dewan Perwakilan untuk menekan mereka agar mengakui Kansas sebagai negara budak.

Ketika Abraham Lincoln terpilih untuk menggantikannya pada November 1860, dan negara bagian mulai memisahkan diri, Buchanan secara efektif melepaskan tanggung jawabnya sebagai presiden Amerika Serikat. Dia menyalahkan Partai Republik Lincoln karena menyebabkan semua masalah yang dia hadapi, dan menjanjikan orang selatan amandemen konstitusi yang melindungi perbudakan selamanya jika mereka kembali. Ketika separatis di Carolina Selatan mengepung benteng federal, Buchanan runtuh. “Seperti … Nixon pada musim panas 1974 sebelum pengunduran dirinya,” tulis penulis biografi Buchanan Jean H. Baker, “Buchanan memberikan setiap indikasi ketegangan mental yang parah yang mempengaruhi kesehatan dan penilaiannya.”

Selama Pemberontakan Wiski tahun 1794, Presiden George Washington telah memimpin milisi melawan pemberontak Pennsylvania. Kabinet Buchanan tidak mengharapkan dia untuk secara pribadi memimpin pasukan AS untuk melindungi benteng federal dan rumah adat yang direbut oleh separatis selatan, tetapi dia mengejutkan mereka dengan tidak melakukan apa-apa. Ketika pejabat federal mengundurkan diri di Selatan, Buchanan tidak menggunakan wewenangnya untuk menggantikan mereka. Dia bahkan harus dihalangi oleh Kabinetnya untuk hanya menyerahkan Fort Sumter di Pelabuhan Charleston, dan akhirnya hanya melakukan upaya lemah untuk mempertahankan benteng, mengirim kapal dagang tak bersenjata sebagai bantuan. Sementara itu, mantan Presiden Pierce, yang telah diminta untuk berbicara di Alabama, malah menulis dalam sebuah surat publik, “Jika kita tidak dapat hidup bersama dalam damai, maka dalam damai dan dengan syarat yang adil mari kita berpisah.” Setelah Perang Saudara berakhir, Pierce menawarkan jasanya sebagai pengacara pembela kepada temannya Jefferson Davis. (Pierce mungkin bukan presiden terburuk kita, tetapi dia bersaing dengan John Tyler, yang meninggalkan kantor pada tahun 1845 dan 16 tahun kemudian bergabung dengan Konfederasi, karena memimpin pasca-presiden terburuk.)

Kegagalan presiden besar berikutnya dalam sejarah AS melibatkan pengelolaan kemenangan atas Selatan. Masukkan yang ketiga dari tiga pria yang melampaui Harding: Andrew Johnson. Lincoln telah memilih Johnson sebagai pasangannya pada tahun 1864 untuk menempa tiket persatuan untuk apa yang dia harapkan sebagai tawaran pemilihan ulang yang sulit. 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 memegang 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.

Bagian 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? - Sejarah

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.

List of site sources >>>


Tonton videonya: kampanye presiden1 (Januari 2022).