A McConnell Center Survey

University of Louisville February 17, 2012

Louisville, Kentucky

Presidential Elections that
Shaped America
Presidents' Day provides an opportunity to honor those individuals who
have held the highest political offce in the United States. Determining who
will serve as the Chief Executive is one of the most important decisions that
citizens of this nation get to make. Today, it is our pleasure to release these
results of our recent survey on the most consequential" presidential elec-
tions in American history. Similar surveys over the past seven decades have
asked: Who were the greatest presidents?" The goal of our study, however,
was to identify and survey a panel of experts to determine which presidential
elections were the most consequential in history.
Survey respondents were selected based on their specifc authority in the
feld(sj of the American presidency, campaigns, elections and political par-
ties. The 53 experts who participated in our survey comprise our panel of
experts" (see pp. 24-25j.
We conducted the survey in two parts. ln Phase One, we asked respon-
dents to identify the 10 presidential elections (1789-2008j they believed were
most important and to identify the criteria they used to make their decision.
From these results, we identifed a list of the 16 most important election cy-
cles and six unique criteria that our respondents commonly used to make
their decisions (see p. 3j.
ln Phase Two, we asked respondents to identify their Top 10" most im-
portant election cycles from the list of 16. ln addition, we asked respondents
to identify the most important election cycle with respect to each of the six
unique criteria identifed by respondents in Phase One. ln each round, we en-
couraged respondents to provide comments elaborating upon their choices.
The following pages provide, in rank order, a list of the most consequen-
tial elections in U.S. history, along with evidence regarding what makes that
election cycle of such great importance.
We wish to express our deepest appreciation to GlyptusAnn Grider Jones,
Project Director, and Elizabeth O'Connor for her research assistance. Thanks
also to Malana Salyer, Sarah Stovall and Meghan Waters for their assistance.
We hope you will enjoy this report as much as we enjoyed writing it.
2 3
e views represented here are not necessarily those of the McConnell Center, the University of
Louisville, the University of Nebraska at Omaha or any of their aliates.
Gary L. Gregg, II, Ph.D.
Mitch McConnell Chair in Leadership
Director, McConnell Center
University of Louisville
Randa|| E. Adk|ns, Ph.D. - /ead A0t|o|
Ralph Wardle Diamond Professor of Arts & Sciences
Chair, Department of Political Science
University of Nebraska at Omaha
About the Project
Top 10 Most Consequential Presidential Elections
Survey Highlights
CRITERIA ELECTION
Which of the election cycles was the most compet|t|ve and/or
controvers|a|?
2000
Which of the election cycles was associated with the most h|stor-
|c pattern of campa|gn act|v|ty? Among other things, this could
include changes to the rules by which candidates were nominated
or elected, changes in campaign strategy or specifc develop-
ments or innovations in how campaigns were conducted.
1968
Which of the election cycles was associated with the most h|stor-
|ca||y s|gn|cant pattern of behav|or |n the vot|ng e|ectorate?
Among other things, this could include changes in suffrage or the
behavior of voters.
1932
Which of the election cycles was associated with the most h|s-
tor|ca||y s|gn|cant pattern of part|san act|v|ty |n Wash|ngton?
Among other things, this could include the relationship between
Congress and the president leading to or resulting from the elec-
tion results.
1932
Which of the election cycles was associated with the most s|g-
n|cant po||t|ca| and/or soc|a| change? Among other things,
this could include the infuence of race or religion on the election
results or the infuence of the election results on race or religion
politically.
1860
Which of the election cycles was associated with the most s|gn|-
cant change |n pub||c po||cy?
1932
Top-Ranked Elections Based on Common Criteria
* Indicates election winner
1860: John Bell, John Breckinridge, Stephen Douglas, Ao|a|am /|nco|n
1932: Herbert Hoover, F|an|||n D. Rooseve|t
1800: John Adams, 7|omas Jeffe|son
1980: John Anderson, Jimmy Carter, Rona|d Reagan
1828: John Q. Adams, And|ew Jac|son
2000: Geo|ge W. B0s|, Albert Gore, Ralph Nader
1896: William J. Bryan, W||||am McK|n|ey
1964: Barry Goldwater, /yndon B. Jo|nson
1912: Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft, Wood|ow W||son
1789: Geo|ge Was||ngton
1968: Hubert H. Humphrey, R|c|a|d M. N|xon, George C. Wallace
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(t|e| 10
(t|e| 10
W
hile the country can be deeply
divided by a presidential elec-
tion, the divide that culminated in the
election of 1860 was probably the
deepest. ln 1857, the Supreme Court
decided in D|ed Scott v. Sandfo|d that
Congress did not have the power to
prohibit slavery in new territories. Before the Supreme Court's decision,
the country was split over the issues of slavery, federalism and expan-
sionism. After the decision, the split was even deeper and the major po-
litical parties were split as well. When asked which presidential election
represented the greatest political and social change, survey respondents
rated the election of 1860 as the most important. According to David
Crockett of Trinity University, Clearly the issue of secession and eventu-
ally the abolition of slavery have to go down as the most signifcant con-
stitutional and cultural 'decisions' in American history."
As the Second Party System began to crumble in the 1850s, a Third
Party System emerged. ln 1860, Abraham Lincoln won the presidential
election with less than 40 percent of the popular vote, but almost 60
percent of the Electoral College vote. Lincoln did so by winning large
majorities in states in the Northeast and Midwest, which included the
85 Electoral College votes in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Lincoln
beneftted from the fact that the Democratic Party was divided (offering
both Stephen A. Douglas of lllinois and John C. Breckinridge from Ken-
tuckyj. Although Douglas fnished second in the national popular vote,
he only won the Electoral College vote of two states - New Jersey and
Missouri - by a fraction of the vote in each. Breckinridge handily won
the Deep South and narrowly defeated John Bell of the Constitutional
Union Party in Delaware and Maryland. Bell only won three states, but
claimed 39 Electoral College votes by narrowly defeating Breckinridge in
Kentucky, Tennessee and virginia. A number of Southern states seceded
from the Union soon after the election. On Feb. 7, 1861, these states
formally adopted the constitution of the Confederate States of America.
After the start of the attack on Fort Sumter in April, Arkansas, North Caro-
lina, Tennessee and virginia joined as well. The election of 1860 marked
the beginning of the Civil War, while the end of the Civil War marked the
dominance of Republican Party for the next 30 years.
4 5
1'
;/, ' ' '
,?7,9;:+,*0+,
Th|s e|ect|on cyc|e was
assoc|ated w|th the most
s|gn|fcant po||t|ca| and/or
soc|a| change.
John Be||
Constitutional Union
John C. Breck|nr|dge
Southern Democrat
Stephen A. Doug|as
Democrat
Abraham L|nco|n
Republican
Hands down, I think the 1860 election of
Lincoln is the most consequential in our
history. Not only did [it] trigger the Civil
War, the subordination of the once eco-
nomically dominant South and the end
of slavery, but it centralized federal pow-
er, redened citizenship and established
the economic policy regime that support-
ed the emergence of corporate capitalism
in the nal decades of the 19th century.
Peri Arnold, Notre Dame University
Electoral maps are listed in the public domain and were retrieved from http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/elections.html.
O
n Oct. 29, 1929, also known as
Black Tuesday, the U.S. stock
market crashed. This triggered the Great
Depression, the effects of which were felt
world-wide for more than a decade. While
President Herbert Hoover initiated a num-
ber of government programs to reverse
the downward economic spiral, the lack
of success led Hoover and the Republican
Congress to become increasingly unpop-
ular. ln the 1930 congressional elections,
Republicans lost 52 seats in the House
and eight seats in the Senate.
The Depression led to a bitter political
atmosphere, which resulted in a landslide
presidential victory for Democrat Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. The New York gover-
nor won 57.4 percent of the popular vote
and 472 of the 531 electoral votes. Roosevelt's coattails extended to his col-
leagues in the Congress, where Democrats picked up 97 seats in the House
and 12 in the Senate. Widely considered a critical election" in American his-
tory, the 1932 election marked the end of the Fourth Party System dominated
by Republicans since the mid-1890s. The Democrats displaced the Repub-
licans as the majority party in the Fifth Party System. Roosevelt's New Deal
Coalition included white Southerners, urban blue-collar workers and racial
and religious minorities (African Americans, Catholics and Jewsj.
Scholars surveyed recognized the 1932 election as ushering in the great-
est electoral change. Laura Olson of Clemson University stated, The assem-
bly of the New Deal Coalition in 1932 remains the most impressive example
of group mobilization American politics has ever seen." The coalition had a
lasting effect on national politics, electing Democratic presidential candidates
in all but two elections from 1932 to 1964.
With a sweeping mandate, Roosevelt passed a series of New Deal eco-
nomic reforms. Scholars surveyed also recognized this election as having the
greatest policy impact. The rise of an American-style 'welfare state' has to
be considered the most consequential period of public policy in the history of
the country," stated Sean Kelly of California State University Channel lslands.
6 7
Herbert Hoover
Republican
Frank||n D. Rooseve|t
Democrat
e enduring eects of the 1932 election may have the deep-
est roots. e 1932 election stands out for its foreshadowed
presidential-centeredness and the permanent re-ordering of
the relationship between individuals, corporations, states and
the federal government. Unlike 1932, other consequential elec-
tions, even 1860, le much of the agenda and next moves in the
hands of players other than the president.
Jasmine Farrier,
University of Louisville
,?7,9;:+,*0+,
fTh|s e|ect|on cyc|e was
assoc|ated w|th the most
h|stor|ca||y s|gn|fcant
pattern of behav|or |n the
vot|ng e|ectorate.
fTh|s e|ect|on cyc|e was
assoc|ated w|th the most
h|stor|ca||y s|gn|fcant pat-
tern of part|san act|v|ty |n
Wash|ngton.
fTh|s e|ect|on cyc|e was
assoc|ated w|th the most
s|gn|fcant change |n pub-
||c po||cy.
2' .
:,*65+ ' ' '
8
With Jeersons election, we saw our rst peaceful tran-
sition of power from one party to another and struck an
exceptional model not just for future elections, but for the
rest of the world.
Michael Korzi, Towson University
John Adams
Federalist
Thomas Jefferson
Democratic-Republican
9
3'
;/09+ ' ' '
A
fter George Washington decided not to return for a third term, the par-
tisan factions in the Congress nominated candidates to succeed him,
leading to the frst contested presidential election. The Federalists nominat-
ed vice President John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans nominated
Thomas Jefferson, the former Secretary of State. Adams defeated Jefferson
in 1796 by a mere three electoral votes. At the time, the Constitution provid-
ed for the runner-up to serve as vice president. As vice President, Jefferson
took every opportunity to oppose the administration of John Adams.
Jefferson challenged Adams for the presidency again in what history has
declared the Revolution of 1800." Jefferson emerged victorious by winning
the same states that he won in 1796 and adding the electors from Maryland
and New York to his previous total.
The constitutional procedure for selecting the president, however, pro-
duced an unanticipated consequence. While the Framers anticipated that
the candidate with more Electoral College votes would become president,
they did not anticipate the emergence of strong political parties that could
affect presidential election out-
comes. The Constitution called for
electors to cast two votes for presi-
dent. Loyal Democratic-Republi-
can electors cast their ballots for
Jefferson and Aaron Burr, his vice
Presidential running mate. Surpris-
ingly, both received all 73 Electoral
College votes, and the House of
Representatives was called upon
to decide the outcome.
The House debate turned out to
be almost as acrimonious as the
election because Federalists con-
trolled the lame duck Congress.
Many Federalist-controlled state delegations cast votes for Burr in the hope
of denying Jefferson the presidency. After 36 ballots over seven days, Jeffer-
son achieved a majority and became president. The Federalists then peace-
fully surrendered the reins of government to the Democratic-Republicans. As
a result, the precedent for a peaceful transition of government from one par-
ty to another was established. Given the bitterness of the election of 1800,
many political observers were surprised that Jefferson's victory did not spark
a civil war. The Twelfth Amendment, which requires electors to cast d|st|nct
ballots for president and vice president, was ratifed on June 15, 1804. When
asked which presidential election was most competitive, Peter Francia of
East Carolina University stated, lt's hard not to pick an election that was so
controversial that it led to a revision in the U.S. Constitution."
e election of 1800 was im-
portant because it represented
the rst peaceful transition of
power at the national level. It
also played an important role
in strengthening how national
parties coordinate aairs be-
cause of the tie between omas
Jeerson and Aaron Burr.
Andrew Dowdle,
University of Arkansas
l
n the years preceding the election of 1980 the United States faced
serious challenges at home and abroad. At home, the country faced
high infation, high unemployment, high interest rates, low economic
growth and an energy crisis that had lingered throughout the decade of
the 1970s. Abroad, the country was faced with the challenge of the lran
Hostage Crisis, as 52 U.S. citizens were held for more than 400 days
following the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. President Jimmy
Carter's approval rating suffered, and Senator Ted Kennedy challenged
him for the Democratic Party's nomination. Kennedy won a number of
primaries, but was unable to wrestle the nomination from the president.
After posing a serious threat to President Gerald Ford's nomination
in 1976, former actor and Governor of California, Ronald Reagan, was
the favorite to win the Republican Party nomination in 1980. While Rea-
gan lost a handful of primaries and caucuses to George H. W. Bush, he
wrapped up the Republican nomination relatively quickly. Rep. John An-
derson, who had also challenged Reagan for the Republican Party nomi-
nation, decided to run as an independent, moderate alternative to Rea-
gan's brand of conservatism.
Reagan won a majority of the popular vote in the 1980 election, defeat-
ing Carter in 44 states and winning a commanding 489 Electoral College
votes. Anderson, the lndependent candidate, took almost seven percent
of the vote. Reagan's coattails extended to the Senate where the Demo-
crats lost 12 seats and control of the chamber to the Republicans. The
Democrats lost 34 seats in the House, but still maintained a 243-192
majority.
Reagan's presidency, often referred to as the Reagan Revolution,"
fundamentally altered both the direction of the Republican Party and pub-
lic policy in the decades that followed. Reagan favored cutting taxes to
stimulate economic growth, reducing federal domestic spending and dra-
matically increasing the U.S. defense budget. Although the federal bud-
get defcit grew during Reagan's presidency, the economy turned around
in time for his reelection in 1984, and the Cold War ended soon thereafter.
Ronald Reagan's election fundamentally changed the direction
of American politics (taxes, budgets, individual contributions to public
goodj, and continues to defne political debates today," stated Meena
Bose of Hofstra University.
10
e implications of the 1980 election have not been fully re-
alized. ough the seeds of conservative Republican politics
were sown 20 years prior to that election, the ascension of
President Reagan was an historical marker. It was not only
the culmination of conservative activists eorts but also a
launching pad for contemporary conservatism.
Rebecca Deen,
University of Texas at Arlington
John Anderson
lndependent
J|mmy Carter
Democrat
Rona|d Reagan
Republican
11
4'
-6<9;/ ' ' '
T
he Democratic-Republicans dominated the First Party System in the
years preceding the 1824 election. The party's congressional nominat-
ing caucus, or King Caucus," chose James Madison and James Monroe to
succeed Thomas Jefferson, and both were easily elected. ln 1824, the party
nominated William H. Crawford of Georgia, but the party lacked their previ-
ous unity. As a result, other regional" Republicans ran for president including
Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Speaker of the House Henry Clay and
General Andrew Jackson.
While Jackson garnered more popular and Electoral College votes, he failed
to gain a majority of either. Since the Constitution requires an electoral vote
majority to win the presidency, the House of Representatives decided the out-
come from among the top three fnishers. Under these circumstances, each
state delegation cast one vote. Adams won a majority of electoral votes in sev-
en states, Jackson - seven, Clay - three, and Crawford - one. Clay, who came in
fourth in the electoral vote, could not be considered. As Speaker, however, he
was infuential in shifting support to Adams because of alignment in their policy
preferences and because he was not on friendly terms with Jackson. Thus,
states won by Clay during the election (Kentucky, Missouri and Ohioj voted for
Adams in the House. ln addition, lllinois, Louisiana and Maryland shifted their
support from Jackson to Adams. ln the fnal tally, Adams won 13 states, a bare
majority. Adams soon named Clay as his Secretary of State, which led Jack-
son's supporters to label the appointment as a corrupt bargain."
The election of 1828 featured a rematch between Adams and Jackson and
marked the start of the Second Party System, a competitive two-party system
that lasted until the 1850s. Adams' campaign criticized Jackson for marry-
ing his wife before her divorce papers were fnalized, questioned his military
credentials by drawing attention to his treatment of Native Americans and mili-
tary deserters, and publicized his willingness to engage in duels. The Jackson
campaign dismissed Adams as elitist and intellectual, charges that were spe-
cifcally aimed at alienating him from the common man in an election where
all but one state selected electors by popular vote. Jackson, with the help of
Martin van Buren of New York, solidifed his base of support in the South and
captured all or a portion of the electors in larger states like New York and Ohio.
As a result, Jackson won very comfortable majorities in both the popular and
electoral vote. The impact of Jackson's election resulted in a new style of poli-
tics and a new public policy agenda. Jackson and the rise of the 'common
man' make a good case for the most socially and culturally signifcant election
in our history," stated Peri Arnold of the University of Notre Dame.
12 13
John Qu|ncy Adams
National Republican
Andrew Jackson
Democratic-Republican
is was the rst election of mass white male surage
(the electorate quadrupled between 1824 and 1828).
It was the election in which all states (except South
Carolina) chose electors to the Electoral College by
popular vote. It was the rst election in which the win-
ner could claim plebiscitary legitimacy.
Richard Pious,
Barnard College
5' .
-0-;/ ' ' '
A
s President Bill Clinton prepared to
leave offce in 2000 at the end of
his second term, vice President Al Gore
of Tennessee won the Democratic presi-
dential nomination with ease over former
Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey. After
a brief challenge by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who had won the
New Hampshire primary, the Republicans nominated George W. Bush, the
Governor of Texas and son of former President George H. W. Bush.
While Gore won the popular vote by about one-half of one percent, Bush
narrowly won the Electoral College vote, 271-266. Gore won the North-
east, Great Lakes and West Coast. Bush won the South, Great Plains and
Mountain West states. ln addition, Bush peeled away from the Democrats
a number of smaller states in the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers,
including Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee and
West virginia.
The election, however, hinged on the outcome in the swing" state of
Florida and the poor design of a number of ballot systems, including a
punch card system referred to as the butterfy ballot." Just before 8 p.m.
on election night, a number of news networks declared Al Gore the winner
in Florida based on the predictions of exit polls. By 10 p.m., however, those
same news networks rescinded their earlier declarations and labeled the
election 'too close to call' because Bush was, in reality, leading in the vote
count in Florida. By 2:30 a.m., Bush led Gore by almost 100,000 votes in
Florida and the networks declared Bush the winner of the state. By the time
that all the votes were counted a few hours later, Bush's lead had narrowed
to approximately 2,000 votes, triggering an automatic recount of the vote
in the entire state. Poor ballot design made it diffcult to ascertain the intent
of many voters, but Bush was eventually certifed the winner by 537 votes.
The Gore campaign quickly challenged the certifed results. The Florida
courts ordered a recount of 70,000 ballots previously rejected by those
conducting hand recounts. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the decision of the Florida Supreme Court mandating a recount was
unconstitutional, and ended the crisis. Reviews of the ballots in Florida
by the major news networks later revealed that Bush would have won the
election anyway under most scenarios for recounting votes.
14 15
George W. Bush
Republican
A|bert Gore
Democrat
Ra|ph Nader
Green
e 2000 election was the most competitive. Perhaps the
best measure of closeness is the minimum vote shi, or
the percentage of the national vote needed to change the
outcome. In 2000, this means a vote shi of 269 votes in
Florida or 0.000003 percent of the national vote. In com-
parison, the election of 1960 would have required 16,682
votes in four states or 0.024 percent of the national vote.
Paul-Henri Gurian,
University of Georgia
,?7,9;:+,*0+,
Th|s e|ect|on cyc|e was the
most compet|t|ve and/or
controvers|a|.
6' .
:0?;/ ' ' '
E
conomic issues were front and center in 1896. The Panic of 1893" had
triggered an economic depression that lasted most of the decade. Rail-
roads were struggling, farmers suffered from low crop prices and mines intro-
duced new silver into the market. Since the U.S. used a bimetal standard for
currency, those with silver notes rushed to redeem them for gold. As a result,
unemployment reached almost 20 percent within industrial cities, and farmers
were hit hard.
Though divided, Democrats settled on William Jennings Bryan as the nomi-
nee. He was a former member of the House of Representatives from Nebraska
and a dark horse candidate. At the Democratic National Convention, Bryan
electrifed delegates with his Cross of Gold" speech. He spoke eloquently of
the struggle of factory workers and farmers. He attacked big business for its
role in the depression. Most importantly, however, Bryan called for an end to
the use of gold as the standard for U.S. currency and promised government
relief for those families hurt most by the depression. He concluded the speech
with the cry, You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Between the
convention and Election Day, Bryan barnstormed the country, reportedly mak-
ing more than 500 speeches and logging more than 15,000 miles.
The Republicans nominated Governor William McKinley of Ohio. Mark
Hanna, a businessman from Ohio and Chairman of the Republican National
Committee, managed his campaign. Hanna's principal responsibility was to
raise the funds necessary to defeat the Democrats. The business commu-
nity was concerned about Bryan's campaign promise to shift the currency to
the silver standard, so Hanna found little diffculty convincing business leaders
to support McKinley. While Bryan took his message to the people, McKinley
chose to conduct a more traditional front porch" campaign where he accept-
ed visitors and reporters at his home in Ohio. Given the difference in campaign
strategies, Hanna's fund-raising for McKinley provided for the most innovative
presidential marketing campaign to date.
McKinley won the election with 51 percent of the popular vote (271-176
electoral votej. While the issues surrounding the election were important
enough to signal the end of what is called the Third Party System and the
formation of the Fourth Party System, the Republicans remained the majority
party. The 1896 election is the most consequential in U.S. history because it
so frmly established the now-long standing link between the Republican Party
and the business community," stated Laura Olson of Clemson University. Re-
publicans went on to win seven of the next nine presidential elections.
16 17
W||||am J. Bryan
Democrat/Populist
W||||am McK|n|ey
Republican
It was not the most competitive, but it was the most polar-
izing. e victory for the Republican Party and McKinley
over the Democrats and Bryan set the course for the 20th
century: capitalism reigned triumphant and the popu-
list movement petered out, gradually being replaced by
Wilsonian progressivism and later, Roosevelt liberalism.
Richard Pious,
Barnard College
7'
:,=,5;/ ' ' '
F
ollowing President John F. Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963,
vice President Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded in offce. Speaking to a
joint session of Congress the following week, Johnson pledged to continue
the policies of the Kennedy Administration and pass his unfnished agenda
on both civil rights and tax issues. After the Johnson Administration success-
fully passed such major legislation in 1964, the Democrats quickly settled on
Johnson as their nominee.
The Republicans, on the other hand, were deeply divided in 1964. Rich-
ard Nixon, their nominee in 1960, had appealed to both the moderate and
conservative wings of the party. Nixon, however, chose not to run in 1964,
and there was no other candidate to unite the two factions. The party's mod-
erate wing, based primarily in the Northeast, was led by Governor Nelson
Rockefeller of New York. The party's conservative wing, traditionally from the
Midwest, was gaining a substantial following in both the South and West.
This faction, led by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, was fercely anti-
communist, favored lower taxes and generally opposed new spending on
social programs. The result of this division was that no Republican pulled
away from the feld during the primary season. Goldwater, however, won
important primaries in California, lllinois, lndiana and Texas, and led the del-
egate count heading into a raucous Republican Convention where he won
the nomination on the frst ballot.
Johnson defeated Goldwater in a landslide. He gained more than 60 percent
of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 486-52. Goldwater won only fve
states in the Deep South plus his home state of Arizona. More importantly, Gold-
water's vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became an important cue for white
Southerners who opposed desegregation. As a result, Goldwater won states in
the Deep South that a Republican had not won since Reconstruction - but his
vote also alienated many moderate Republicans in other regions of the coun-
try. The election marked the rise of the conservative movement to infuence the
Republican Party. Johnson concentrated his campaign on the issue of poverty
and promised to create a Great Society" in America that focused on promoting
civil rights, providing adequate health care, expanding education and creating
jobs. With Johnson's election came a dramatic liberalization of American poli-
tics (particularly with regard to race and povertyj, but also we see the beginnings
of the Republican opposition that would emerge over the years and culminate in
Reagan's election. The later 'culture wars' were in many ways an offshoot of this
election," stated Towson University's Michael Korzi.
18
8'
19
Page 11 in a set of 15.
Electoral vote maps reproduced from the National Atlas map Numbers within states reflect electoral vote by candidate.
Presidential Elections 17892008, published 2009. States are shown proportionately divided if electoral vote was split.
Please consult the nationalatlas.gov
TM
Web site for ordering information. 17961968 maps compiled by Hammond, Inc., 1969.
08_elect11.eps/pdf: INTERIORGEOLOGICAL SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIAAUG2009
Barry M. Go|dwater
Republican
Lyndon B. Johnson
Democrat
e 1964 election cycle shows the breakdown of the Demo-
cratic South and the beginning of the modern conservative
dominance of the Republican Party. e accompanying
election of numerous northern liberal Democrats to Con-
gress also allowed for the passage of civil rights legislation.
Barbara Norrander,
University of Arizona
,0./;/ ' ' '
l
n 1908, after President Theodore Roosevelt chose not to seek reelection,
the Republicans nominated Roosevelt's Secretary of War, William Howard
Taft. Taft handily defeated the Democrats' nominee, William Jennings Bryan.
Although Roosevelt and Taft were close friends, deep divisions quickly grew
between the two over public policy, and they became leaders of opposing
wings of the Republican Party. Roosevelt led the progressive wing of the party
that opposed higher tariffs on imported goods and took a position more favor-
able to labor unions (relative to businessj. Taft led the conservative wing of the
party that favored higher tariffs on imported goods and took a position more
favorable to business (relative to labor unionsj.
For the frst time, 12 states held presidential preference primaries to select
party delegates to the 1912 national convention. Progressive Republicans
fought for this reform in order to limit the power of political bosses." While
Roosevelt won most of the primaries, Taft was supported by the party orga-
nizations in most of the remaining states. This schism between progressives
and conservatives at the convention led Roosevelt and his supporters to walk
out. When progressives reconvened, they voted to form the Progressive or
Bull Moose" Party and nominated Roosevelt as their presidential candidate.
The third candidate, Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic Governor of New
Jersey, had previously served as the president of Princeton University, and,
prior to that, as a professor of political science. Wilson emerged as the nomi-
nee after Bryan threw his support to him at the convention.
Wilson easily won the election. While he only garnered 42 percent of the
popular vote, he won 40 states and 435 electoral votes. Roosevelt took 27 per-
cent of the popular vote (88 electoral votesj. Taft fnished with 23 percent of the
popular vote (8 electoral votesj. With a split Republican vote, Wilson was able
to win numerous electoral votes by achieving just a plurality of the popular vote
in many states. ln addition, the Democrats picked up more than 60 seats in the
House and won control of the Senate. (A number of states selected their sena-
tors by direct election prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913.j
The 1912 election affected policy for decades. Roosevelt campaigned on
the New Nationalism platform, which argued for economic, political and social
reforms. Wilson campaigned on the New Freedom platform, which argued for
banking, business and tariff reform. The 1932 election would not be possible
without the progressive effort in 1912 - a type of proto-New Deal effort that
set the philosophical foundations for more vigorous state activity, the legacy of
which remains with us today," stated David Crockett of Trinity University.
20 21
Theodore Rooseve|t
Progressive
W||||am H. Taft
Republican
Woodrow W||son
Democrat
is is a key election in the emergence of the modern
presidency. Although Woodrow Wilson would be elected
... eodore Roosevelts messianic campaign helped to
form the modern assumptions of the oce.
Michael Korzi,
Towson University
9' .
505;/ ' ' '
l
n 1789, each of the 69 electors chose George Washington to be the
frst President of the United States, and a majority of the electors chose
John Adams to be the frst vice President. ln creating the offce, many of
the Framers of the Constitution envisioned Washington as the nation's frst
chief executive, and he consented to end his retirement at Mt. vernon to
take the position.
Three states were unable to participate in the election. The New York
legislature was split over how to choose their electors, and North Carolina
and Rhode lsland had yet to ratify the Constitution.
22
T
he year 1968 represented one of
the greatest times of unrest in
U.S. history. Conditions were worsening
in vietnam, college students were pro-
testing and riots were breaking out over
race relations in American cities. Presi-
dent Lyndon Johnson's approval ratings
suffered and he decided not to seek re-
election. The frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Robert F.
Kennedy, was assassinated shortly after winning the California primary.
ln order to bring stability to the political situation, Democrats nominated
vice President Hubert Humphrey. His opponent, former vice President
Richard Nixon, ran on a platform that stressed law and order" and bring-
ing an end to the confict in vietnam honorably."
Nixon and Alabama's Governor George Wallace, the candidate of the Amer-
ican lndependent Party, denied the Democrats the sweeping victory to which
they were accustomed in the South. As a result, Nixon won a narrow plurality
of the national popular vote but a decisive victory in the Electoral College.
Survey participants recognized that the 1968 election had the biggest im-
pact on how presidential campaigns are conducted. Following a tumultuous
nominating convention, the Democrats created the Commission on Party
Structure and Delegate Selection headed by Sen. George McGovern and
Rep. Donald Fraser. The report from that group entitled, Mandate fo| Refo|m,
led to the creation of the presidential primary system that we know today. As
Audrey Haynes of the University of Georgia observed, There were a few ear-
lier campaigns that were important in this respect as well, but 1968 brought
the resultant presidential primary system, which has had large implications
for the types of candidates we choose, the process and the parties."
23
George Washington founded the American Republic
through his decisions that developed vitally important
precedents that shaped the future of our great nation. He
gave life to the Constitution because he understood the
fragile nature of our regime and that he was setting an ex-
ample for posterity. All later elections, regardless of their
specic impact on politics or policies, seem minor com-
pared to the legacy established by George Washington.
Raymond Tatalovich,
Loyola University of Chicago
George Wash|ngton
Hubert H. Humphrey
Democrat
R|chard M. N|xon
Republican
George C. Wa||ace
American lndependent
,?7,9;:+,*0+,
Th|s e|ect|on cyc|e was
assoc|ated w|th the
most h|stor|ca| pattern of
campa|gn act|v|ty.
10'
;,5;/ ' ' ' ,'
10'
;,5;/ ' ' ' ,'
24
Burdett Loomis University of Kansas Professor of Political Science
Sandy Maisel Colby College Kenan Professor of Government; Direc-
tor Goldfarb Center for Public Aairs
Seth Masket University of Denver Associate Professor of Political Science
William G. Mayer Northeastern University Professor of Political Science
David R. Mayhew Yale University Sterling Professor of Political Science
Michael Nelson Rhodes College/Miller Center
of Public Aairs, University of
Virginia
Fulmer Professor of Political Science,
Senior Fellow
Bruce Newman Western Oklahoma State College Political Science Instructor
Barbara Norrander University of Arizona Professor
Laura Olson Clemson University Professor of Political Science
omas Patterson Harvard University Bradlee Professor of Government & the
Press
James P. Pner George Mason University Professor
Richard M. Pious Barnard College Adolph and Ee Ochs Professor
Gerald Pomper Rutgers University Board of Governors, Professor of Politi-
cal Science (Emeritus)
Ronald B. Rapoport College of William and Mary John Marshall Professor
Andrew Rudalevige Dickinson College Associate Professor
Steven Schier Carteton College Congdon Professor of Political Science
Byron Shafer University of Wisconsin Hawkins Chair of Political Science
Dan Shea Allegheny College Professor
Andrew E. Smith University of New Hampshire Associate Professor of Political Sci-
ence, Director of UNH Survey Center
Robert Spitzer SUNY Cortland Distinguished Service Professor of
Political Science
Peverill Squire University of Missouri Hicks and Martha Griths Chair in
American Political Institutions
Je Stonecash Syracuse University Professor
Matt Streb Northern Illinois University Associate Professor
Raymond Tatalovich Loyola University Chicago Professor of Political Science
Adam Warber Clemson University Assistant Professor of Political Science
Stephen J. Wayne Georgetown University Professor
Nancy H. Zingale University of St. omas
(Minnesota)
Professor Emerita of Political Science
25
John H. Aldrich Duke University Pzer-Pratt University Professor
Peri E. Arnold University of Notre Dame Professor of Political Science
Paul Beck Ohio State University Professor
Meena Bose Hofstra University Director, Peter S. Kalikow Center for the
Study of the American Presidency
Charles Bullock University of Georgia Richard Russell Professor of Political
Science
James E. Campbell University at Bualo, SUNY UB Distinguished Professor
Martin Cohen James Madison University Assistant Professor
Stephen C. Craig University of Florida Professor
David Crockett Trinity University Professor
Rebecca Deen University of Texas at Arlington Associate Professor/Chair
Matthew J. Dickinson Middlebury College Professor
Andrew Dowdle University of Arkansas Associate Professor
Diana Dwyre California State University, Chico Professor of Political Science
Matthew Eshbaugh-
Soha
University of North Texas Associate Professor
Jasmine Farrier University of Louisville Associate Professor of Political Science
Peter Francia East Carolina University Associate Professor
Michael A. Genovese Loyola Marymount University Loyola Chair of Leadership
John Green University of Akron Distinguished Professor
Paul-Henri Gurian University of Georgia Professor
Audrey Haynes University of Georgia Associate Professor
Marjorie Hershey Indiana University Professor
Gary Jacobson University of California, San
Diego
Professor
Sean Kelly California State University
Channel Islands
Professor
Robin Kolodny Temple University Associate Professor
Michael J. Korzi Towson University Professor
Brad Lockerbie Eastern Carolina University Professor
The following 53 survey respondents were selected because of their specifc authority
in the feld(sj of the American presidency, campaigns, elections and political parties.
Panel of Experts
About the McConnell Center
e McConnell Center was established in 1991 by U.S. Senator Mitch McCo-
nnell and the University of Louisville. McConnell, a 1964 graduate of the univer-
sity, founded the Center based on his belief that Kentuckys future depends on
inspiring talented, motivated leaders.
e McConnell Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-prot department at the
University of Louisville dedicated to providing a well-rounded education and to
facilitating public discussion on the major challenges of our time while encour-
aging an understanding of our shared past.
McConnell Scholarships for Young Leaders
e McConnell Center is home to one of the most competitive and prestigious
scholarship programs in Kentucky. Each year, the program attracts outstanding high
school seniors from around the Commonwealth. Finalists take part in a two-day in-
terview process, and ten students are then selected to become McConnell Scholars at
the University of Louisville.
McConnell Scholars receive four-year, renewable tuition scholarships, meet to-
days most inuential leaders, interact with experts in a variety of elds from across
the nation, intern in elds of their choice and travel the world. In its rst 20 years, the
Center has given more than 150 students nearly $2.5 million in scholarship money,
helped mentor them to compete for elite national scholarships for graduate school
and helped them travel from the Scottish Highlands to the most rural Chinese village.
Graduates of the program have gone on to further study at institutions such
as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Oxford and Cambridge universities, among others.
McConnell Scholars have a diversity of professional interests ranging from medi-
cine to legal studies. Former students have also taken top positions in politics in-
cluding posts in the Governors Mansion and the White House.
Applications are due Jan. 15. Visit www.mcconnellcenter.org for more details.
20 years of educat|ona| exce||ence
Publications and Scholarship
e McConnell Center believes in the continuing importance of the printed word
and the ecacy of rst-rate academic scholarship. To enhance our dialogue on peren-
nial topics, as well as the concerns of the moment, the Center publishes a variety of
studies and research on topics ranging from the history of the Senate to the relevance
of the Electoral College.
Leadership, Government and History
Institutes for Future Leaders
e McConnell Center sponsors seminars, institutes and academies for young
leaders in Kentucky. ese programs bring high school students to Louisville, Ky., to
interact with top scholars and explore contemporary issues and perennial concerns.
e Centers signature Young Leaders Academy is a summer residential program
for top students interested in deepening their understanding of American politics, the
challenges of citizenship and the foundational ideas of the constitutional order.
Professional Development for Teachers
e McConnell Center believes that Americas future depends on educating our
young people about our history and political institutions. Realizing our shared citi-
zenship, the Center is dedicated to helping teachers impact the future by teaching our
past. e Center regularly runs professional development programs for teachers in a
variety of formats, from small seminars to week-long institutes.
Public Education Program
e McConnell Centers Distinguished Lecture Series has brought some of todays
most important leaders to Louisville, Ky., to interact with students and speak to our
community. ese have included more than a dozen U.S. Senators, two Supreme Court
Justices, ve sitting or former Secretaries of State, three sitting or former Secretaries of
Defense, two heads of foreign states, several ambassadors and Pulitzer Prize winning
authors. e Center also regularly brings to campus some of todays most interesting
authors, academics and experts from a variety of elds ranging from poetry to public
policy. Conferences have been held on topics ranging from Our Founding Fathers
to Henry Clay: Kentuckys Great Statesman to important moments in presidential
history. Most programs are open to the public.
e Senator Mitch McConnell and
Secretary Elaine L. Chao Archives
Built around the careers of U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and former U.S.
Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao, the Civic Education Gallery of the McConnell-Chao
Archives oers award-winning lms, cutting-edge computer interactives and displays
designed to educate visitors about American government, history and politics.
'_
McConnell Center
Ekstrom Library
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40292
(502) 852-8811
www.mcconnellcenter.org
Past McConne|| Center Conferences and Surveys
Leadership in the U.S. Senate (2011)
Americas Forgotten Founders (2008)
e Life and Legacy of Henry Clay (2007)
Presidential Moments/Presidential Mistakes (2006)
Electing the President in the 21st Century:
A Survey on the Future of the Electoral College (2001)
Winston Churchill: Statesman of the Century? (2001)