Showing papers on "Nomination published in 1977"
TL;DR: In the U.S. Senate, Johnson was one of the first candidates to run for re-election after being removed from office in 1868 by the House of Representatives as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Is there life after the presidency? That is the question with which Andrew Johnson wrestled after his return to Tennessee in March 1869 until his death in the summer of 1875. He answered that question with a resounding yes and revitalized his political ambitions. For his six post-presidential years, Johnson relentlessly pursued a vindication of earlier setbacks and embarrassments. He had hardly arrived back in Greenville before he began mapping his strategy to recapture public acclaim. Johnson eschewed the opportunity to compete for the governor s chair and opted instead to set his sights on the prospects of going back to the nation s capital, preferably as a U. S. senator. Johnson engaged in three separate campaigns, one in 1869, one in 1872, and the final one is 1874-75. In the first, he sought election to the U. S. Senate. At the very last minute the tide went against him in the legislature, and Johnson thereby lost a wonderful opportunity to return to Washington only a few months after the end of his presidency. In 1872, Tennessee stipulated that its new congressional seat would be an at-large one. This suited Johnson, who favored a statewide, rather than a district, race. When he could not secure the formal nomination of the state s Democratic part, he boldly declared himself an independent candidate. Although he knew full well that his actual chances of election over either a Republican or a Democratic rival were slim, Johnson stayed in the fray. Confederates exerted one the Democratic party, and he succeeded. The Republican contender emerged victorious, much as Johnson had calculated, and therefore in a somewhat perverse this strengthened Johnson s political clout for another day. The day came in 1874, when he launched his campaign for the U.S. Senate. Johnson labored mightily throughout the state in this cause: by the time the legislature convened, he was the major contender for the post. But Democratic party successes in the gubernatorial and legislative elections had encouraged a number of other hopefuls. Eventually, the legislature staged fifty-five ballots before Johnson carried the day in late January 1875. As fate would have it, President Grant summoned a special session if the U. S. Senate to meet in March, enabling Johnson to claim his seat well ahead of the normal schedule. The ex-president strode confidently into the Senate chamber, the scene of his impeachment embarrassment in 1868, and took the oath of office. Many well-wishers, as well as old foes, greeted the battle-scarred political veteran whose vindication had been achieved at last. After lingering in Washington after the close of the Senate session, Johnson returned to Tennessee, where he lived out the short remainder of his days. With the exception of serious financial reverses and a nearly fatal battle with cholera in 1873, Johnson s sole focus had been his political rehabilitation. Considering his return to the Senate, albeit brief, the argument could be made that he succeeded. But, considering the verdict of most historians, it remains debatable whether he achieved his aims. The Editor: Paul H. Bergeron is professor of history at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. "
42 citations
TL;DR: Hedlund et al. as discussed by the authors studied how much cross-over voting took place in the 1976 presidential primary, the degree to which the crossover vote was a mischief one, and the social backgrounds of crossover and consistent voters.
Abstract: Using data collected from a polling place survey with 1,279 voters in the fourcounty metropolitan Milwaukee area, this report considers how much cross-over voting took place in the 1976 presidential primary, the degree to which the cross-over vote was a mischief one, the social backgrounds of cross-over and consistent voters, and the reasons cited for the candidate choice of cross-over and consistent voters. Ronald D. Hedlund is Professor in the Department of Political Science and a Scientist in the Urban Research Center, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The author wishes to thank several individuals and institutions for their contributions in completing this report: The Milwaukee Sentinel -especially Laurie Van Dyke, Keith Spore, and John Blexrudcollected the data and generously made it available for secondary analysis. William Schneider of Harvard University served as a consultant in preparing the questionnaire and in interpreting the results, and my colleagues Meredith Watts, Keith Hamm, and Robert Stein made numerous comments and suggestions. Significant financial support for analysis and computer time was provided by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Graduate School, Urban Research Center, and Social Science Research Facility. POQ 41(1977-78) 498-514 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.133 on Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:26:32 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CROSS-OVER VOTING 499 maries is viewed by some as a strictly party matter. By permitting nonparty as well as party members to vote in a primary, partisan control over the nomination of its candidates, and thus party discipline, is diluted. Open primaries and the resultant cross-over voting are argued to be counterproductive to the building of a strong and responsible two-party
41 citations
TL;DR: The author was employed for the Summer of 1976 by the White House as a speech writer to President Ford as discussed by the authors and was responsible for many presidential utterances, including several of the President's Bicentennial speeches and significant portions of his acceptance of the Republican nomination.
Abstract: After completion of the study, “Contemporary Political Speech Writing” the author was employed for the Summer of 1976 by the White House as a speech writer to President Ford. As one of five writers, the author was responsible for many presidential utterances, including several of the President's Bicentennial speeches and significant portions of his acceptance of the Republican nomination. This “addendum” is based on that experience.
7 citations
TL;DR: The differences between the Democratic and Republican platform-writing processes were pronounced in 1976 as discussed by the authors, and some of those differences reflected events peculiar to that particular election year, such as the fact that by the time the Democrats held their convention, Jimmy Carter had the Democratic presidential nomination locked up.
Abstract: The Preamble of the 1976 Republican platform begins: "You are about to read the 1976 Republican platform. We hope you will also find time to read the Democratic platform. Compare. You will see basic differences in how the two parties propose to represent you." Comparison of the two platforms yields interesting evidence of the differences between the two major political parties. Though party platforms seldom deal explicitly or in great detail with some of the more salient issues facing the American electorate, they do often point up basic philosophical and ideological differences between the parties. In addition, studying the process by which the parties arrive at their platforms often provides keys to understanding the parties themselves-their composition, their rules and norms, and their leadership and leadership strategies. The differences between the Democratic and Republican platform-writing processes were pronounced in 1976. Some of those differences reflected events peculiar to that particular election year. For example, by the time the Democrats held their convention, Jimmy Carter had the Democratic presidential nomination locked up. In contrast, the Republican nomination was still closely contested when the Republicans held their convention in August. As a result, it was a clear possibility that the platform might become a battleground between President Ford and Governor Reagan, two candidates of somewhat different ideological bent. At the same time, since it was not clear which candidate would be the nominee, neither candidate's organization wanted to go far out on a limb to battle for specific issues in the platform at the risk of alienating the party or the electorate.
7 citations
Dissertation•
1 Dec 1977
TL;DR: In this article, the evolution of the candidacies of Webster and Clay for the presidency from the early 1830's through the four presidential elections from 1836 to 1848 is described.
Abstract: American politics from 1832 to 1848 underwent a profound transformation. Whereas in the early years of the republic politics had been based on deference and elitism, by the early 1830's a definite change in the political arena had occurred. With the coming of the "Age of Jackson, " the political rules and styles of the older era began to change. The politics of deference began to give way to the politics of "availability." Because this study is a discussion, examination, and analysis of Webster's and Clay's "appeal to reason, " the sources most heavily consulted were the published and microfilmed correspondence, speeches, and papers of these two statesmen. Other personal papers, correspondence, memoirs, and biographies of other central personalities of the middle period, both protagonists and antagonists, were used in order to place Webster and Clay in proper historical perspective. This dissertation is organized chronologically, and it traces and analyzes the evolution of the candidacies of Webster and Clay for the presidency from the early 1830's through the four presidential elections from 1836 to 1848. Each chapter includes an examination of Clay's and Webster's attempts to secure the Whig nomination and gain the presidency through forceful appeals to the voters' sense of logic and reason. Each chapter also includes a discussion and analysis of why these two men always failed.
1 citations
1 Jan 1977
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the types of buildings that can be acquired in the process of public acquisition in process, being considered N/A, and present use agriculture commercial educational entertainment government industrial military museum park x private residence religious scientific transportation other:
Abstract: Category district _A_ building(s) "* structure site object Ownership public X private both Public Acquisition in process, being considered N/A. Status x occupied unoccupied work in progress Accessible yes: restricted yes: unrestricted x no Present Use agriculture commercial educational entertainment government industrial military museum park x private residence religious scientific transportation other:
TL;DR: Darcy and Schramm as mentioned in this paper examined the electorate's reactions to women congressional candidates using both election returns and survey data and found that candidate sex alone had little or no effect on election outcomes.
Abstract: The electorate's reactions to women congressional candidates are examined using both election returns and survey data. When party and incumbency are controlled candidate sex alone is found to have little or no effect on election outcomes. A curious interaction is found between candidate sex and party, however. This is attributed to nomination patterns. R. Darcy is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Sarah Slavin Schramm is a Graduate Fellow in Political Science at George Washington University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association in Nashville, November 6-8, 1975. The authors are grateful to Janice Damato, who made useful suggestions and helped prepare the data for analysis. Mike Hamilton and the George Washington University Computing Center provided essential help. POQ 41 (1977) 1-12 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.172 on Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:21:11 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms