The U.S. presidential election will be held a week from today, and if the polls are correct, the outcome will be extraordinarily close. Many say that the country has never been as deeply divided. In discussing the debates last week, I noted how this year's campaign is far from the most bitter and vitriolic. It might therefore be useful also to consider that while the electorate at the moment appears evenly and deeply divided, unlike what many say, that does not reveal deep divisions in our society -- unless our society has always been deeply divided. 

Since 1820, the last year an uncontested election was held, most presidential elections have been extremely close. Lyndon B. Johnson received the largest percentage of votes any president has ever had in 1964, taking 61.5 percent of the vote. Three other presidents broke the 60 percent mark: Warren G. Harding in 1920, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972.

Nine elections saw a candidate win between 55 and 60 percent of the vote: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Only Eisenhower broke 55 percent twice. Candidates who received less than 50 percent of the vote won 18 presidential elections. These included Lincoln in his first election, Woodrow Wilson in both elections, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Nixon in his first election and Bill Clinton in both his elections. 

From 1824 to 2008, 13 elections ended in someone obtaining more than 55 percent but never more than 61 percent of the vote. Eighteen elections ended with the president receiving less than 50 percent of the vote. The remaining 16 elections ended with the winner receiving between 50-55 percent of the vote, in many cases barely above 50 percent -- meaning almost half the country voted for someone else. The United States not only always has had deeply divided elections, but in many cases, minority presidents. Interestingly, of the four presidents who won more than 60 percent of the vote, three are not remembered favorably: Harding, Johnson and Nixon. 

1
George Friedman

George Friedman

George Friedman is the CEO and chief intelligence officer of Stratfor, a private intelligence company located in Austin, TX.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
31 Comments So Far
« Previous1Next »
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:47 PM
What is most frightening about Republican's long- running con game is the curious fact that the party's white, poorly- educated, low-income political base keeps falling for the same trick-when they are the primary victim of Republican economic policies which always favor the wealthy at the expense of other groups.. This can only be due to the party's massive propaganda apparatus with its constant use of fear-mongering,wedge politics, demonization of the poor, so-called "family values", guns, religion, immigration.and abortion politics. These are purely diversionary tactics developed long ago to dupe the gullible to vote against their own economic interests.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:37 PM
This Republican-controlled Congress voted to shore up the National Flood Insurance Program to the tune of 10 billion dollars. It's nothing but a redistribution of wealth from America's taxpayer's to millionaires with million dollar beachfront homes. This program is godless and immoral.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:37 PM
Here's a partial list of so called 'small government, free market' Republicans that voted to send taxpayer's monies to millionaires with million dollar beach front homes.

John Boehnor(R)
Eric Cantor(R)
Michele Bachmann(R)
Paul Ryan(R)
Allen West(R)
Daryl Issa(R)
Louis Gohmert(R)
Jeb Hensarling(R)
Dan Burton(R)
Michael Grimm(R)
Steve King(R)
Duncan Hunter(R)
Spencer Bachus(R)

Votes gleaned from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-562

If this country has oodles of money to send to millionaires with million dollar beach front properties, then why worry about the debt?
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:37 PM
Here's the typical Republican response about giving out flood insurance money to home-owners; "yeah, but not all of the money goes to millionaires with million dollar homes."

PRICELESS!!!!
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:33 PM
The Hoover administration and the Republican controlled Fed took their policy line from the so-called 'liquidationists' who regarded a depression as economic penance for the excesses of the 1920's. Hoover's Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, a lifetime Republican, advised him to:

"Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate...It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people."
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:27 PM
Scott Walker wants 'liberal-leaning' unions to be exposed to the free market by replacing their pension system with a 401k plan.

Scott Walker wants 'conservative-leaning' unions to retain their precious pension system.

Why don't Republicans ever want their own kind to be exposed to the values that they claim to represent?

Looks like they favor a two-tier system.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:15 PM
What about the Republican Party and Christian values. Let's take a walk down memory lane to the year 2000.

An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyer's, and audience plants. The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCain's dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.

Is gossip a sin? A lesson learned is that some people who proudly boast of their Christian values and wrap themselves in the flag are not what they appear to be.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:03 PM
"When would big government suit a Republican's needs?" many here have asked. Let me answer that question.

When the Republican Party added another layer of entitlement spending. (Medicare Prescription)

When the Republican Party ramped up pork barrel spending in a time of war.

When the Republican Party expanded farm subsidies and ethanol mandates.

When the Republican Party doubled the size of the Department of Education.

When the Republican Party wants to pay more for the defense of Europe than the Europeans do themselves.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:03 PM
Again, "When would big government suit a Republican's needs?" You and many here have asked. Let me answer that question.

When the Republican Party removed 'the evil Saddam Hussein who killed hundreds of thousands of his fellow Iraqis' and believe that it's the American people's responsibility, rather than the Iraqi people's responsibility to free themselves.

When the Republican Party promoted the 'ownership society' that helped bring on the housing bubble and all of its subsequent bailouts.

When the Republicans party creates new programs like their precious 'Faith Based Initiatives.'
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 10:49 PM
Yes, Republicans were ambivalent about effectively running the war in Iraq. Most important to them was their precious tax cut.

John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee said the USA could spend 100 years completing the social engineering project in Iraq.

Every Republican applauded, knowing that the precious tax cut came first, and dumping the entire bill for the war onto the national credit would be maintained forever.

In WWII, Americans on the home front were willing to sacrifice. People paid increased income taxes, victory taxes and had money deducted from their weekly paychecks to buy war bonds. And subjected themselves to food and fuel rationing.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 10:50 PM
Today's Republicans are not willing to sacrifice other than by getting their mouths on the teat of the government sow.

The 'Greatest' generation of the 1940's were tough; these odious and contemptible Republicans of the 21st century should be, henceforth, referred to as the 'Moronic' generation.
artdemeer Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 10:41 PM
Let's look at the Republican Party during the eight year George W. Bush 'Reign of Error.' The Republican Party led a powerful political machine built on a dazzling use of patronage and a belief that government was a weapon to be wielded in the interest of the moneyed class and on behalf of corporate interests.

At the end of the day, the Republican Party was very successful at redistributing wealth to its constituents.

Please just analyze this George Bush statement in October of 2008. "We need to recapitalize the American financial system."

What does it really mean?
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:30 PM
I am getting tired of reading things like "have you served?" or "you don't have a right to say anything unless..."

My RIGHTS come from God and are self-evident.

People who think they can take away MY God given rights are behaving like Nazis. Yes, specifically, they behave like the Nazi concentration camp commander in Schindler's List.

Remember him, the one, Amon Goeth who fancied himself saying "I bestow upon you!"
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:30 PM
Take a hike you Republican Nazi wannabees. You can't bestow anything upon me, for they have already been given to me, by a higher being!!
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:25 PM
It's time for Republicans to accept the responsibility for 9-11. During the eight year 'Reign of Error' of George W. Bush, Republicans never accepted blame for anything.

Here's a Republican storyline of why Al Qaeda was successful on 9-11; Jamie Gorelick made a 'wall' that prevented information to flow between the CIA and FBI.

If this is a story we all know about and the Republicans had been in charge for nine months in 2001, then how come they didn't do anything about that 'wall?'

George Bush(R) was President, Denny Hastert(R) was Speaker of the House and Trent Lott(R) was Senate Majority Leader in 2001. What did they do to overturn this most cumbersome and onerous law?

Nothing! NADA! Zilch!
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:23 PM
The Neo-Con wing of the Republican Party blundered us into 9-11.

Richard Clarke wrote "Against All Enemies," worked at the NSC and couldn't obtain face time with George W. Bush, Richard Cheney or Condi Rice before 911.

The Republican Party, in 2001, and the Neo-Con cabal were interested in ginning up remnants of the Cold War with Russia by wanting to scrap the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) treaty. This trio of Republican nin-com-poops couldn't care less about some terrorists in the Middle East who were plotting and scheming until 9-11.

Only after 9-11, did this triumvirate of Republicans tune to the threat of Islamic Fascism. Capiche?
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:23 PM
And now Willard Romney says Russia is America's number one enemy. Looks like he's following the Bush 2001 Neo-Conservative playbook all over again. Willard Mittens Romney - YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:15 PM
Let me tell a story about George W. Bush's motto of 'Let's go shopping!' as a battle cry to motivate Americans in the war against the Islamo-Fascists here in the 21st century.

I asked a Tea Party guy if he thought Bush's 'Let's go Shopping' motto reminded him of the WWII battle cry 'Remember Pearl Harbor!'

He said, "Why yes, my wife has forced me to go shopping in large malls many times. We walked and walked and walked and walked. My feet and back ached so bad! One time, if felt like the 'Bataan Death March.'

I asked incredulously, "Really?"

He said, "Well, yes, until I saw the Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream shop and we went in and ordered an extra large banana split for two."
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:09 PM
Ronald Wilson Reagan said we shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers. In fact, he did.

Remember the Iran-Contra fiasco? He traded arms to Iran for the release of hostages. Iran got some F-5 parts and TOW missiles and then told their fellow Shia buddies in Lebanon to grab some more hostages. Reagan then arranged for more arm shipments to Iran. This was utter lunacy! And that cycle repeated again, and again and again.

Reagan evidently thought the massive "Commie" base in Nicaragua was a bigger strategery threat than the Islamic Republic of Iran.
b0b_c Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:09 PM
Card-carrying Republicans will often respond with "at least Ronald Reagan's heart was in the right place!"

My only thought is "so was Neville Chamberlain's when he returned to England from Munich waving a piece of paper in his hand."
loadstar Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 12:25 PM

Obama deceptions REEK!

We have created 5 million new jobs (BUT, a REAL recovery would have created 10+ million more, and work force participation is DOWN since you slithered in)

We are producing more domestic energy (BUT in spite of, not because of, the Obamanators!)

Al Qaeda is on the run (REALLY?! Are you kidding!? And we got Osama because of Gitmo intel YOU opposed!)

You can keep your doctor if you like (but none will tolerate ObamaCare!)
geotay Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 2:39 PM
The so-called 'created' jobs by the Obama administration is a farce. That number does not factor in the simultaneously LOST jobs which would give a NET gained or lost figure. Guess what happens when that is done....
Blair31 Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 6:12 PM
Obama's Carteresque policies are coming home to roost. To paraphrase Rev. Wright, "Obama's chickens are coming home to roost."
birdfighter Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 11:10 AM
Compiling stastistics of our historical Presidential elections is a lot like comparing historical stastistics in football or baseball. Not fair, not relevant. The game and players have changed so much over the years, there is hardly anything comparable. For example, women never much voted in Presidential elections until the 1950's. Now women are the main electorate. There was no real black vote until the 1960's. For well over a hundred years the only media covering elections was a few newspapers. Now we have radio, tv, the internet. Then you have this rare 3rd party thing that mainly elected Lincoln and Clinton, and maybe even junior Bush.
johnm h Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:41 AM
Friedman is just a little bit too cool here. He is good at assessing foreign affairs for the simple reason that we can’t change much abroad so he can just observe, generalize and try to make sense of it. Here however we can change things and the next election is fundamental. Has he not noticed the replacement of Congress by the Bureaucracy, financial markets by the Fed, the medical and educational sectors by the Federal government, not to mention housing, business, church supported charities, hospitals and schools? He, being a student of history and power should be speculating about where a corporatist regime takes us next?
loadstar Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 8:35 AM
One of the best columns I have seen about the inescapable, intrinsic failures of the ObaMessiah and his perspectives...and why he will lose on Tuesday--->

http://townhall.com/columnists/emmetttyrrell/2012/11/01/au_revoir_mr_president/page/full/
loadstar Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 7:19 AM


America SAW in the debates that the months of $ millions spent by the Obamanators trying to assassinate Romney's character did not dovetail with the man they saw-- and they found Romney reasonable, thoughtful, and likable-- and HE has new ideas. Attacking Romney is NOT a vision or a plan. Obama is playing Small Ball...we need someone with a record of winning and succeeding when he engages, not someone trying to learn on his first EVER executive job.

We have been there, done that with the ObaMessiah. It is OK to admit our collective mistake and dump the socialist dissembler and excuse-maker who is clueless about leading.

Clint Eastwood is RIGHT-- on election day, "Make My Day!"

Take pride again in American exceptionalism-- vote ROMNEY!
New Jersy M Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 3:21 AM
Low voter turnout may also reflect voter rolls that have not been purged in decades of dead voters and voters who have moved out of district.
Jeffrey286 Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 3:12 AM
If Mr. Friedman is correct in his history, which I don't doubt, then Mitt Romney should win this election by somewhere between 55 and 60 percent. After all, only four times has a candidate gotten that high of a percentage and each time it's been at a time of crisis (the debt, the war on terror) and the opponent has always been an ideologue (Barack Obama).
Greg1084 Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 7:37 AM
I hope you are right. I've thought for months it would be 53-46 Romney.
« Previous1Next »