Obama isn't really the same category because he didn't win in 2006 and then immediately start running in 2008. While he did get attacked for being a relative Senate newbie before running for president, he did have a whole election cycle where he could travel across the country without worrying about his own race.
Obama isn't really the same category because he didn't win in 2006 and then immediately start running in 2008. While he did get attacked for being a relative Senate newbie before running for president, he did have a whole election cycle where he could travel across the country without worrying about his own race.
As for James Garfield, that is quite the deep cut I didn't know about! But I think politics has changed enough since the 19th century to have him not be a great blueprint for anyone in 2025.
And Wilson had the major advantage in that the Republican Party was irreparably damaged in 1912. With Taft and Roosevelt going at each other's throats, we Democrats essentially could have nominated Bozo the Clown for President that year and won the White House.
While I agree with your point, please do not confuse the Democrats of 1912 with Democrats of today ("we Democrats"). The parties have realigned since then. Today's Republicans are not the "party of Lincoln" and today's Democrats are not the party of the segregationists.
Wilson helped bring in the income tax, the Fed, the federal 8-hour day, the Federal Trade Commission, anti-trust legislation, legislation against child labor.
In my personal case it was small time peace church folk who had been locked up for being vocal about being anti-war and conscientious objectors during a war.
On social issues, you are very much correct. On economic issues, not so much. Wilson very much was economically liberal and hit Charles Evans Hughes hard in 1916 for fighting against the 8 hour day, unions, and excessive big business.
Obama isn't really the same category because he didn't win in 2006 and then immediately start running in 2008. While he did get attacked for being a relative Senate newbie before running for president, he did have a whole election cycle where he could travel across the country without worrying about his own race.
As for James Garfield, that is quite the deep cut I didn't know about! But I think politics has changed enough since the 19th century to have him not be a great blueprint for anyone in 2025.
Also people will want to avoid the same outcome as Garfield's Presidency. 😉
A more recent, but still long ago, example is Woodrow Wilson claiming the governorship of New Jersey in 1910 and winning the presidency in 1912. And back then Jersey had three-year terms for governors! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1910_New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election
And Wilson had the major advantage in that the Republican Party was irreparably damaged in 1912. With Taft and Roosevelt going at each other's throats, we Democrats essentially could have nominated Bozo the Clown for President that year and won the White House.
While I agree with your point, please do not confuse the Democrats of 1912 with Democrats of today ("we Democrats"). The parties have realigned since then. Today's Republicans are not the "party of Lincoln" and today's Democrats are not the party of the segregationists.
Wilson helped bring in the income tax, the Fed, the federal 8-hour day, the Federal Trade Commission, anti-trust legislation, legislation against child labor.
Wilson also went out of his way to purge African-Americans from the Federal workforce.
https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/how-woodrow-wilsons-racist-segregation-order-eroded-the-black-civil-service/#:~:text=Wilson%20imposed%20segregation%20in%20his,Wilson's%20order%20was%20overtly%20discriminatory.
I’m well aware of that. That was the point to which I was responding. He also had a horrible record on civil liberties during World War I.
I knew folks as a child that did prison time under Wilson/Palmer for political crimes.
They weren’t even reds, just insufficiently pro-nationalist.
Like Eugene Debs.
In my personal case it was small time peace church folk who had been locked up for being vocal about being anti-war and conscientious objectors during a war.
Which was upheld by his GOP successors and largely reversed by New Dealers, despite the Solid South.
On social issues, you are very much correct. On economic issues, not so much. Wilson very much was economically liberal and hit Charles Evans Hughes hard in 1916 for fighting against the 8 hour day, unions, and excessive big business.
Wilson did serve for eight years as president of Princeton University, a potentate that was then perhaps as powerful as the governorship.