Last Time a Democrat was Elected to succeed an Incumbent Democrat President was 1856 (John Kerry, voters)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by ChloeC

Any worse than the Dems running a candidate who should be in prison?

Any better?

BTW, in America we try to not put people in prison until they're actually tried and convicted of something, are you suggesting that should be changed and half-truths and innuendo replace the justice system?

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by banjomike

Your example came from a time when females weren't even allowed to vote, much less run for office. It's way too much of a stretch to be pertinent now.

But it did happen in 1856 so your logic fails.

i.e. It's pertinent until it's broken. So far there's a 170 year record since a Democrat was elected to replace an incumbent Democrat. History is against Hillary on this accord.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

But it did happen in 1856 so your logic fails.

i.e. It's pertinent until it's broken. So far there's a 170 year record since a Democrat was elected to replace an incumbent Democrat. History is against Hillary on this accord.

If history was on the ballot it might mean something, it's not and it doesn't.

[James1202]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

History is not on Hillary's side. Last time a Democrat was elected to succeed a Democrat President leaving office was apparently before the Civil War. 1856.

Based on this trend alone, Trump will be the next President of the USA.

History Is Not On The Democrats Side


Arf Arf

Other related statistics:

Last time someone, not white, was elected President, prior to the election of President Barack Obama....

Last time a female was nominated, by a major political party, for election to President of the U.S. ....

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by LIGuy1202

Other related statistics:

But this is no different than other things such Southerners, Catholics, Mormons, Women as VP, etc etc. None of that changed this 170 year streak.

[Bureaucat]

The OP shows her lack of knowledge of American History.

The first, and only, time that a Democrat has been elected to succeed another Democrat, excluding cases where the Vice President had already become President due to the incumbent's death in office was when Martin Van Buren was elected in 1836 succeeding Andrew Jackson.

It means absolutely nothing to the present campaign, but it is historically accurate. The article she was referencing was referring to 1856 since that was the date that the first Republican candidate, John C. Fremont (Free Land, Free Men, Fremont!) ran unsuccessfully for President against James Buchanan, who is considered by historians almost universally as the worst President of all time.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by Bureaucat

The OP shows her lack of knowledge of American History.

You didn't post anything that I said in the OP that proves it wrong.

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

But it did happen in 1856 so your logic fails.

i.e. It's pertinent until it's broken. So far there's a 170 year record since a Democrat was elected to replace an incumbent Democrat. History is against Hillary on this accord.

Logic can be twisted like a Gordeon knot. So can history, if one isn't careful with it.

I try to stick with Occum's Razor: "The simplest answer is usually the best answer."

There has not been a single election since 2000 that has not been radically different from those in the past. We are now engaged in the 21st century's 5th election, and this one is as unique as the other four that preceded it.

Now, we could both comb through 240 years of American history and kick this can around until it's flat, so let's agree that we see each other's logic differently and leave it at that. I promise not to gloat in November.

[James1202]

Originally Posted by LIGuy1202

Other related statistics:

Last time someone, not white, was elected President, prior to the election of President Barack Obama....

Last time a female was nominated, by a major political party, for election to President of the U.S. ....

[Edit:

Thread Title: "Last Time a Democrat was Elected to succeed an Incumbent Democrat President was 1856"
Oh, btw, in the 1850's the Democratic Party was predominately Southern Conservative (pro-Slavery) and the Party that opposed them were the (liberal) Whigs who'd be re-formed as the Republican Party.]

So, in effect, the thread title should be, "Last Time a Conservative was Elected to succeed an Incumbent Conservative President was 1856"

[James1202]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

But this is no different than other things such Southerners, Catholics, Mormons, Women as VP, etc etc. None of that changed this 170 year streak.

You kind of proved my point in discounting yours, thank you.
There's a first for everything and history does not determine the future.
Thank you, again.