Do Media Scandals Change The Minds Of People Voting for President Before 2016? Part 1:Six Times When Huge Scandals Did Not Stop the Electorate from Making Candidates President

 

So many times in the past decade when I was watching CNN or MSNBC or read any major newspaper online or in hard copy, I heard the word 'unprecedented' in regard to Donald Trump. Perhaps most often every time he ran for the Presidency that word was used into the way the media couldn't comprehend how his morally repugnant actions as well as all of the scandals that were in regard to him did nothing to shake how his voters continued to support him. I kept hearing some version of how 'in old days this-and-this would have doomed him with the electorate.'

I admit that was shocking to me at the time. But the more I look at the history of Presidential elections both in the long view and comparatively recently I increasingly wonder if that particular part was ever true. And the more I look at it I think the idea that scandals that were big deals in the media ending Presidential candidacies is, well it has to be said, a creation of the media.

Part of me wonders if the reporters were so shocked by what they were seeing that they stopped doing their homework or if they decided to pick and choose the elements that they reported to their viewers and readers. Because the hard truth of the matter is that in the 200 years since the Presidency was chosen by popular vote there has always been a disconnect between whether scandals – be they moral, financial or even downright criminal – has altered the opinion of the electorate when it comes to voting for President. It may be taken to its most extreme version in the last decade but that doesn't mean its unprecedented.

To be clear I'm not denying that scandals have done their part to end the political life of state and local officials so many times over the history of the Republic. I am saying that there has always been a disconnect between a candidate's behavior and whether the voters are so devoted to what he represents (it is he in the case of the Presidency) that they will still vote for him regardless of anything he's done.

The most extreme example in the 20^th century was the case of the Socialist Candidate for President Eugene V. Debs.  Debs ran as a third party candidate on the Socialist Party ticket five times between 1900 and 1920. It's that last run I want to focus one for reasons that will become clear immediately.

During World War I many socialist leaders were arrested under the Sedition Act for being against fighting in the war. He was tried and convicted and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Despite that fact the Socialist Party nominated him for President at their annual convention in May of 1920. Many believed that this was rally the cause in America which was beginning to flag in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's formation. In accepting the speech Debs went out of his way to say he was in favor of the Russian Revolution. Debs and the party thought this would lead to the incumbent Woodrow Wilson pardoning him. Wilson, who had always been a petty man before the failure of Congress to accept the League of Nations, made it clear he considered Debs a traitor and that he would never do so.

Despite this the Socialist Party chose to keep Debs as their candidate anyway. Campaign literature proudly referred to him as 'Prisoner No. 9653'. It's worth noting the Socialist Party, which had elected multiple candidates across the country during the first two decades of the century was wrenched by internal division. Debs received over 919,799 votes that November, which represented little more than 3 percent of the total but still the highest number of votes Debs ever received when running for President. It was a protest vote but the fact remained just under a million voters were willing to vote for a man who couldn't serve in the White House even had he been elected.

That faithfulness is at least part of the reason I was always skeptical of the idea that even had Trump been convicted it would diminish his following among his followers.  Debs was always a fringe candidate and Trump, despite everything the media wants to say, never was.

This case, however, is not one I wish to highlight because it is a fringe movement. There were six other Presidential candidates of the two major parties who in the 19^th and well into the end of the last century all dealt with the kinds of scandals that were so controversial at the time in many cases they should have cost the candidate the White House. Not only didn't they but in many cases the electorate couldn't have made it clearer that they cared less about what the media told them even when it was true.

 

1872: Grant runs for reelection

 

By 1871, a new term had entered the political lexicon: ‘Grantism’. It was not a compliment. Grant’s administration had the reputation of being notoriously corrupt, even though Grant himself was honest. This was not necessarily on Grant: American politics in the 1870s and 1880s was notoriously corrupt as the robber barons and big business began to take a hold in every aspect of politics as every level. But Grant seemed particularly incompetent when it came to choosing who advised him: at the position of Attorney General alone, five men would hold the office due to multiple resignation from scandals. Grant was also perceived as incompetent as leader, and rumors about his drinking in the Oval Office were rampant even by his allies.

Nevertheless the Republicans nominated Grant for President in 1872 by acclimation. His Vice President Schuyler Colfax had been forced to step down because of a corruption scandal and they named Henry Wilson his Vice President this time.

Grant should have been easy picking for a good candidate. Fortunately his opponent was Horace Greeley, the nominee of the Liberal Republicans and the Democrats. The kindest thing one could say about Greeley was that he was a national celebrity. As a publisher he had the reputation of a busybody who had been a gadfly in politicians ears (Lincoln had loathed him) He was personally unctuous, had been known to embrace causes such as vegetarianism that were outside the societal norm and had isolated many of his supporters when he had posted bail for Jefferson Davis when the former President of the Confederacy was being tried for treason. Worst of all, Greeley had spent almost his entire career in journalism attacking everything the Democratic Party stood for, especially in the Northeast.

. Grant’s administration was deeply flawed and easy to campaign against, but with Greeley as his opponent, he was unbeatable. The result was a disaster both for the Liberal Republicans and Greeley personally. Grant won in a landslide carrying 30 states and 286 electoral votes. Not long after the election Greeley’s wife died, he was institutionalized and he died on November 29^th 1872, less than a month after election day.

If anything Grant’s second term was worse than his first. A national depression hit the country in 1873 and a veto of what was a version of a stimulus bill caused the Republicans to lose the house in 1874, giving the Democrats control for the first time since the before the War. The Whiskey Ring did much to hurt his cabinet and his Secretary of Ware was discovered to be guilty of taking kickbacks and was impeached by the Houses. Grants own brother was indicted in a corruption scandal. Despite all of that, Grant considered running for an unprecedented third term, but the scandals were so great he decided against running. That year. Four years later he threw his hat back in the ring for a third term. It was a battle between Grant and James G. Blaine (we'll get back to him later) and eventually the Republican delegates turned to…

 

 

1880: James Garfield and Credit Mobilier

 

James Garfield had been a dark horse candidate (he'd actually declined the nomination the first time it was offered) but many thought he was the hope of the party. He did, however, have one big mark against him.

When the Transcontinental Railroad was being built one of the companies involved was known as Credit Mobilier. Its founders had created it to believe that is was responsible for constructing the railroad, not operating it. It was a sham company to charge the government extortionate fees and expenses during the construction. The scheme most operated through fraudulent accounting practices. In order to gain influence multiple Congressional members were bribed with cash and stock in exchange for votes favorable to the company. (You have to love the Gilded Age. These days it would just be campaign contributions to a PAC.)

The scandal broke just prior to the 1872 election. Multiple Congressmen were named, including Colfax and Wilson. Garfield had been among those allegedly offered stock or profits but he testified that he had not been offered any. This didn't stop Democrats attacking Garfield for being corrupt (there's evidence that his account of dealings was less than honest) as opposed to Hancock who was a bastion of integrity. Indeed the Republicans were reluctant to criticize the man considered the hero of Gettysburg.

It turned out to be the closest election in the popular vote in history: Garfield defeated Hancock by less then 2000 votes out of over nine million cast. Over 80 percent of eligible voters participated the highest turnout in American history. The Electoral College vote was more decisive. Each man carried 19 states but Garfield's triumphs in the North gave him 214 electoral votes to Hancock's 155.

 

 

 

 

1884: Ma, Ma Where's My Pa?

In my opinion few things demonstrate the more repressed nature of the American people then the 'Scandal' that rocked Grover Cleveland's first run for the Presidency in 1884.

Cleveland was a bachelor when he ran for office the first time. During the 1870s he'd had a relationship with a widow named Maria Halpin. In July of 1884 a minister argued that Cleveland had father an illegitimate child when he was an attorney in Buffalo.

Cleveland immediately told his supporters: "Above all, tell the truth." He admitted he had paid some child support to the woman who claimed to father the child but the paternity was uncertain.

The Republicans showing the same high standards they too often do today published an affidavit that she had been practically a virgin; Cleveland was the father of her child and that she'd been institutionalized. (Halpin was impossible to locate so the truth is still uncertain.) The campaign again used perfect candor, saying that Cleveland had had an 'illicit connection' with Halpin, there was a child but there was no proof he was the father, and all he done was his moral duty.

Just to be clear Grover Cleveland, a bachelor, had sex with a widow and might have fathered a child with her. If you think that Republicans are always obsessed with what goes on our bedrooms, this might be where it starts. Indeed Blaine's supporters would condemn Cleveland's campaign with the chant: "Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa?"

The thing is the man run against Cleveland James G. Blaine was far from morally spotless. (We'll deal with him in the next article in the series.) And his moral corruption bother voters far more than Cleveland private affairs.

It was nearly as close an election as four years earlier, even in the electoral college. But Cleveland prevailed with 219 electoral votes to Blaine's 182. And as a result after he won his supporters now had an answer to the Republicans chant: "Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha, Ha."

 

1920: The First of the Second-Raters Wasn't Even That

As a historian I try to be objective. But looking back on it the 1920 election is one of those where I can't help look at the American electorate and say: "Guys, you really let us down."

Warren Harding's own campaign manager advocated for him by saying: "There are no first-raters this year and Harding's the best of the second-raters."  That's not a ringing endorsement from the man who knew him best. Harding had multiple affairs, one of which was statutory rape that he only got away with due to bribing a hotelier. He fathered a child with her and by the time he had been nominated for President the RNC sent her on a goodwill tour of China. That was just the most well-known of his affairs; there were at last several others and quite a few pregnancies and abortions.  There was also the problem that many suspected he had 'Negro blood' – in the era of the KKK that was tantamount to a vote-killer. In addition to everything else he had a bad heart and blood pressure even before he starting running in 1919. His own wife didn't think he'd survive his term – an accurate prophecy.

And on the campaign trail he was often boring and mangled words so badly that H.L. Mencken coined the term 'Gamilielese' to refer to it.

And the electorate responding by giving Harding the biggest electoral landslide to that point in American history. He was the first candidate to receive 60 percent of the popular vote and he crushed his opponent James W. Cox by a margin of nearly 2-1. He won by 7 million votes the largest plurality to that point in history. Joe Tumulty the head of the DNC said: "It wasn't a landslide; it was an earthquake.

Much of what Harding did, to be fair, was unknown at the time and much of the worst parts could be found in the future. Still its striking that the Presidential candidate who to that point in history was the most unfaithful in private life (there were far more to be found in the decades to come) was elected by the largest margin in American history to that point.

It must be admitted much of it has to due with the times: by 1919 America was so sick of all things Woodrow Wilson any Republican would have probably swept the victory. But even by the terms of the second raters that were eligible by any measure Harding was fourth-rate at best even before he took office. Afterwards it got worse for him and the country.

 

 

1972: They Knew About Watergate. Nixon won anyway

This one is going to get the most pushback considering that Watergate did bring down Richard Nixon. But the thing is it only happened after two years of ruthless investigation. The thing is Theodore White devotes an entire chapter to in his 1972 Making of the President series. He reminds us the burglary did take place in July of that year and that during the fall of that year both the press and the McGovern campaign tried to make as much a deal of it is possible. However:

By early October, reported the Gallup poll, 52 percent of the public had read or heard about the Watergate affair but four out of five thought it was not a reason to vote for George McGovern. On October 19^th, the Harris Poll said that 76 percent of those polled had heard something about it  - and 62 percent of all those polled dismissed the matter as 'just politics'.

White makes an argument that hearing about Watergate was a factor in many Americans not going to the polls go all together. He also points out that of the 42 states that offered a vote for a statewide race (Senator or Governor) in fully nineteen of them in those races ran ahead of the candidates in both parties. In 23 of the states of the union despite the passage of the 26^TH Amendment enfranchises 18-21 year olds, the total vote for President was less then it had been four years earlier.

But even allowing for that factor White sees no scenario where McGovern  - or for that matter, any Democrat – could have beaten Richard Nixon that year. That is the dual tragedy of the Watergate affair. It's not just that it was unnecessary for the purposes of Nixon's victory; it's that there was clearly awareness of it at the time – and rather then encourage the voters to go for McGovern en mass they thought he was so incompetent that they decided not to vote at all.

White acknowledges that point: "The after-myth of a contrived or rigged election cannot change (the facts). Americans were giving an open choice of ideas, a free choice of direction and they chose Richard Nixon." Even Woodward and Bernstein knew it was a fait accompli. In a section of the book that is forgotten both men are present when a pool is going at the Washington Post as to who's going to win. Both men are sure Nixon will win in a landslide Both men have a clear idea of what Watergate means and neither believe it will change the electorate's difference one bit. As indeed it didn't. Nixon won forty-nine of fifty states, 520 electoral votes and 60.7 percent of the popular vote.

 Millions of Americans had agreed that 'Nixon's The One." Within a matter of months many regretted their decision

 

1992: The Comeback Kid

Bill Clinton is the only candidate here that falls under a different standard, mainly because in the era of post-Watergate the media had engaged in the kind of over-policing that had done much to wreck the candidacies of so many men. (Even then there were limits to it; they never got anywhere with Ronald Reagan.) Four years earlier Joe Biden had decided to quit the race for the Democratic nomination because of a bizarre plagiarism scandal that even the media admitted was the definition of trivial. (Short term, it saved his life; long-term it did nothing to stop his presidential prospects.)

Bill Clinton had been the kind of candidate who had minor flaws, any one of which had brought other contenders to ruin. He'd bobbled an issue of smoking pot or whether he'd dodged the draft. But the biggest scandal which developed in the weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary was his reported affair with Gennifer Flowers. Five years earlier a reported infidelity had forced Gary Hart to end his candidacy and there was no reason to expect that Clinton would face any more of a rejection.

And yet in the New Hampshire primary he managed to finish in a respectable second place to Paul Tsongas. He would face his share of challenges the rest of the way but eventually Clinton would earn the Democratic nomination and win the White House, eventually becoming the first Democrat to win reelection in his own right since FDR. He never truly escaped the 'Slick Willy' moniker but when he left the White House he was still incredibly popular with the electorate.

 

Now I need to be clear about what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

I'm not saying that the voters made the right choice in each of these elections. Grant, Harding and Nixon rank on any historians list of the five worst Presidents of all time. The fact that all three men won elected office by (in successive order) the biggest electoral margins of any Republican President to that time has to rank as some of the poorest decisions the American voter ever made.

And it is not as though that these scandals were the only factor causing people to vote for the winner.  Horace Greeley and George McGovern ran two of the most poorly run campaigns for the White House in the long history of the electorate. And as I'll write about in the next series of articles James G. Blaine, who ran against Cleveland, had far more serious scandals that were public then Cleveland had and may have fallen victim to the first October surprise.

But the historical and electoral record are very clear. All six candidates running for President had scandals that involved the two biggest problems: corruption and sexual infidelity. The public was very aware of them at the time they happened. And despite all the media's efforts to make it clear how genuinely flawed these men were, the electorate sent a very different message: its not enough to stop us from voting for them.

Now if you are the kind of person who wrings their hands about the purported intelligence of the electorate every time they choose a candidate for elected office that is at best intellectually lacking and at worst morally corrupt this will no doubt confirm your worst feeling about the voters. Or if you wanted to look at it a different way, you could argue the electorate is far less susceptible to being brainwashed by any media and will make up its own mind, regardless of what the bigger forces think.

The reason I come away with the latter feeling is because of one election that doesn't fall under the mantle of what I said: FDR's first reelection in 1936. By that point it was the decision of the very conservative media that Roosevelt was a dangerous man running roughshod over the Constitution and 'a traitor to his class'. Most of the media was under the control of men like William Randolph Hearst and Henry Luce as well as other conglomerates. According to the historical records, fully two-thirds of all publications endorsed the Republican candidate for President Alf Landon.

The night of FDR's historic landslide, in which he broke all records by carrying more than 60 percent of the vote and 46 of 48 states, two of Hearst's son came into a New York nightclub hoping to drown their sorrows and not to be recognized. A twenty year old master of ceremonies named Jackie Gleason recognized them instantly as they came in.

Without missing a beat he said: "Ah here come Maine and Vermont!"

Hearst was very much the Rupert Murdoch of his day and had done everything in his power to put a Republican in the White House.

He made his message clear. The people, as is always the way, sent their own.