My History Can Beat Up Your Politics

What a shock, Ohio is the key to the 2012 election. Is it 1844 again? Or 1912? It seems that way, as Romney and Obama make frequent visits there and all attention is on Ohio. This is not new at all, as competition between parties for Ohio's votes goes all the way back to 1912, where Wilson knocked it out of the Safe GOP coalition and the state became the swinger we know and love. Some of this goes way back: In early American history, it had a bit of a Swing State history too, as a Sometimes Clay, Sometimes Jackson state. What states though, are the LEAST like Ohio, that is to say the states that often do NOT pick the winner. We look at the top 'Non-Ohio' states and their errant votes. And in addition to a few other topics, why do we have an Electoral College at all? And what would it take to get rid of it.

With a movie on the way, a look at an 1880's attempt to portray a "realistic Lincoln" in one of the first and controversial biographies: the result of a painstaking investigation by his own law partner to find out the parts of Abe he didn't know. In the course of doing so, we look at how much the Lincoln image has eclipsed the Lincoln man at times, and how much the man has eclipsed other parts of history. Lincoln is without doubt a top American historical figure and a successful President, but with a high-profile movie coming out soon, we ask - is there a bit too much focus on one, admittedly important, man? I suggest a few other points of the Civil War that could be examined more in historical discussion and education. We also look at one state's capital that didn't want to use Lincoln's name but did. It's a chock-full episode so go for a jog with this one! We also discuss second terms and Teddy Roosevelt's progressive-ness.

Is the cultural influence of the Scots-Irish, one of America's oldest immigrant groups, on the ballot in 2012? Partially, perhaps. We discuss this sometimes misunderstood nationality that is essential to understanding American history, a group that I suggest may be essential to understanding today's politics.

and potential veeps defend, and vice versa. A look at Vice presidential TV Debates. Presidential debates have a rich, if solely modern, history but it is the debates between potential veeps that have brought us some of the most memorable moments of political debating. How did they come about? Why should they continue?

Notes of 1979 in some recent events? Embassy breaches and the tragic death of a US ambassador in a terrorist attack had politicos and pundits for at least a week comparing 2012 to 1979. With consequences for both people in the race. So, well...let's look at 1979 and the US hostage situation in Iran, how it impacted 1980 and see what it might say about 2012 [if we get the mixture of contrast and comparison right], shall we?

is what we look at in this cast what appear to be spontaneous TV events are anything but. And that's not new from the very first TV debate there have been pre-debate negotiations and some amount of pre-game prep. We look at this. Everything from the time, who asks the questions, how candidates sit and where things are on the set is all subject to give and take. Sometimes campaigns are overjoyed with what they get, sometimes they settle. Even Lincoln didn't love the deal he got, but he took it.

Clint arguing with a chair, that's nothing, compared to the icon of a party being heckled and booed...a host city mayor cursing at a speaker, or a future President getting the bum's-rush off the podium We talk about these strange convention moments, and about the strange possibility that is not so improbable at all: that of an electoral college tie.

Since its not 1832 Anymore, are Conventions of any use? We look into that. This is a quick hodge-podcast with a couple other topics including The total Congress Approval rating, now lower than telemarketers and tied with car salesmen. And what the heck that number is in the title?

In 2012 Republicans showcase first, then Democrats follow. Why? It wasn't always this way. In this slightly edited re-run from 2008, we look at why the party's have their convention in the order they do. It's not the Constitution or law at all, nor is a complete American tradition that the Republicans will have their convention first this year, and the Democrats last. It is a mix of gamesmanship, media needs and a few decades of precedent that determined what is now taken for granted.

There's a few benefits reaped by Mitt Romney's VP nominee pick and a couple of open questions that will have to be answered. But We now know the answer to the open question of the 2012 campaign, Paul Ryan (R-WI) will be Mitt Romney's nominee. In seeing it as a party unity pick, I talk about some examples in history of those. and we talk about the advantages of the Ryan pick and some of the challenges.

One of the hardest ways to get the White House is to beat the sitting President.  Only 10 have done it, 1 was a former President coming back after having been defeated himself. In this episode we look at those cases, five in great detail, and examine the role of the Sitting President and the role of the Challenger.   Incumbent defeats can be classified in two main categories: severe economic turmoil and loss of their own party's unqualified support.  Either one seems to sink Presidents, and one of those two explains all incumbent defeats including 1800, 1840, 1884, 1892, 1912, 1932, 1976, 1980, 1992 (with 1828 being slightly different since JQA lost the '24 election to Jackson previously and obtained the Presidency in a House vote, then lost again).  Since incumbent defeats have such a common ring to them, is the challenger important?  Should a challenger simply remain passive and let the President mess up?  Does it matter who a part chooses?  What actions did these 10 challengers take and what can it tell the Romney campaign about how a challenger should act?  We'll address all these questions and go some way to answering them.

Many of the factors that might influence Mitt Romney's choice of Vice President are the same as they have been for most of American history - regional considerations, party considerations, adding a public relations splash, shoring up a weakness in the ticket. We look at these factors and running mate decisions in history.

A seemingly dry Court decision is loaded with history and stories of the activities of Americans over time. A review of the Supreme Court of the United State's decision on President Obama's healthcare reform legislation. We look at the precedents cited in the case by all sides, and some of the history of how the Supreme Court got to be the decider of such things. In doing so, we breathe life into the old cases and take a look at the human side of commerce power.

We look at Presidential communications, old and new and the use of the movies and radio. The first President to do a 'Talkie,' a sound movie, and George Washington's 'talk' which was not spoken at all, his Farewell Address. Also Churchill and Carter. Based on listener questions, which I do my best to both answer and not answer.

Will president Obama take a page from the playbook of Harry Truman, attacking the 'Do Nothing' Congress? If so will it work? As we discuss, there are a lot of differences between Harry Truman's situation and President Obama's. Truman had the freedom of desperation due to his poor political situation. He could show no control over the legislative branch, and the Congress handed him a useful rhetorical talking point. We talk about these differences in this cast of listener questions. And we discuss if there isn't too much shine on the 1948 legend in any case. Also the role of Vice President "Rufus Cornpone", and other people who were Vice Presidents of the United States. And Napoleon's simultaneous American praise and American plunder which almost meant the War of 1812 would have been a three-way war.