#1932 election

[newyorkthegoldenage]

Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, campaigning for his first term as president, is greeted by Owen D. Young shortly after the governor's arrival at the Metropolitan Opera House, November 3, 1932, where he delivered a speech at a rally held under the auspices of the Republicans for Roosevelt Club.

Photo: Associated Press

[todaysdocument]

"A Chicken in Every Pot" political ad and rebuttal article in New York Times

Collection HH-HOOVH: Herbert Hoover PapersSeries: Herbert Hoover Papers: Clippings File

This is the advertisement that caused Herbert Hoover's opponents to state that he had promised voters a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage during the campaign of 1928. During the campaign of 1932, Democrats sought to embarrass the President by recalling his alleged statement. According to an article in the New York Times (10/30/32), Hoover did not make such a statement. The report was based on this ad placed by a local committee -- which only mentions one car!

A Chicken for Every Pot [handwritten] World[?] 30 October 1928 [/handwritten] The Republican Party isn't a [italics] "Poor Man's Party:" [/italics] Republican prosperity has erased that degrading phrase from our political vocabulary. The Republican Party is [italics] equality's [/italics] party -- [italics] opportunity's [/italics] party -- [italics] democracy's [/italics] party, the party of [italics] national [/italics] development, not [italics] sectional [/italics] interests-- the [italics] impartial [/italics] servant of every State and condition in the Union. Under higher tariff and lower taxation, America has stabilized output, employment and dividend rates. Republican efficiency has filled the workingman's dinner pail -- and his gasoline tank [italics] besides [/italics] -- made telephone, radio and sanitary plumbing [italics] standard [/italics] household equipment. And placed the whole nation in the [italics] silk stocking class. [/italics] During eight years of Republican management, we have built more and better homes, erected more skyscrapers, passed more benefactory laws, and more laws to regulate and purify immigration, inaugurated more conservation measures, more measures to standardize and increase production, expand export markets, and reduce industrial and human junk piles, than in any previous quarter century. Republican prosperity is written on [italics] fuller [/italics] wage envelops, written in factory chimney smoke, written on the walls of new construction, written in savings bank books, written in mercantile balances, and written in the peak value of stocks and bonds. Republican prosperity has [italics] reduced [/italics] hours and [italics] increased [/italics] earning capacity, silenced [italics] discontent, [/italics] put the proverbial "chicken in every pot." And a car in every backyard, to boot. It has[italics] raised [/italics] living standards and [italics] lowered [/italics] living costs. It has restored financial confidence and enthusiasm, changed [italics] credit [/italics] from a [italics] rich [/italics] man's privilege to a [italics] common [/italics] utility, [italics] generalized[/italics] the use of time-saving devices and released women from the thrall of [italics] domestic drudgery. [/italics] It has provided every county in the country with its concrete road and knitted the highways of the nation into a [italics] unified [/italics] traffic system. Thanks to Republican administration, farmer, dairyman and merchant can make deliveries in [italics] less [/italics] time and at [italics] less [/italics] expense, can borrow [italics] cheap [/italics] money to refund exorbitant mortgages, and stock their pastures, ranges and shelves. Democratic management [italics] impoverished [/italics] and [italics] demoralized [/italics] the [italics] railroads,[/italics] led packing plants and tire factories into [italics] receivership, [/italics] squandered billions on [italics] impractical [/italics] programs. Democratic maladministration issued [italics] further [/italics] billions of mere "scraps of paper," then encouraged foreign debtors to believe that their loans would never be called, and bequeathed to the Republican Party the job of [italics] mopping up the mess. [/italics] Republican administration has [italics] restored [/italics] to the railroads solvency, efficiency and par securities. It has brought rubber trades through panic and chaos, brought down the prices of crude rubber by smashing [italics] monopolistic rings,[/italics] put the tanner's books in the [italics] black [/italics] and secured from the European powers formal acknowledgment of their obligations. The Republican Party rests its case on a record of stewardship and performance. [full transcription at link]

[deadpresidents]

Herbert Hoover saved so many children's lives in war torn Europe, but popular history doesn't tell people about that.

That is very true. A lot of people don't know that part of Hoover's story. And he didn't just save children; he helped feed literally MILLIONS of people around the world during and after World War I.

Hoover was also one of the most effective Cabinet members in American history. He was Secretary of Commerce under President Harding and continued in that role throughout the Coolidge Administration following Harding's death in office. And while his title was Commerce Secretary, he was basically the troubleshooter for any major Executive Branch issue that needed efficient management for both President Harding and President Coolidge. He may have nominally been in charge of the Commerce Department, but he was basically Secretary of Everything. And he was extraordinarily successful in that role.

Honestly, if Hoover had never been elected President, he'd probably be remembered as one of the great figures of the 20th Century. Unfortunately for him, he became President just months before the 1929 stock market crash and was Chief Executive throughout the worst of the Great Depression. And despite all of his immense talents as an administrator and at mastering the logistics of government bureaucracy, he didn't have an inspirational bone in his body, and the country needed a good President and an inspirational leader who could shine a light to help find a way out of the Great Depression. Hoover was an engineer rather than a politician, and his dour, aloof personality was the worst possible fit for the times in which he served as President. When he was soundly defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 election, a major reason was because the charismatic FDR was the anti-Hoover.

Much like Jimmy Carter, Hoover accomplished far more in his career outside of the Presidency than he did during his term of office. And it's unfortunate that he's not better remembered for his role as one of the greatest humanitarians America has ever produced.

[mapsontheweb]

German Presidential Election, 2nd Round, by District, 1932

[tilbageidanmark]

It's 1932 again

🇺🇸

[murderballadeer]

immersion in an instagram comedy sketch completely broken bc it was established as being set in 1931 and then they said fdr was president

[tomorrowusa]

Anybody who claims that both major US political parties are the same is either a mindless airhead or a self-deceived cult member.

Third parties and independents in US presidential elections are a bad idea in "normal" cycles due to the archaic Electoral College. This year is not close to normal.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out, Biden would like to campaign on abortion and the economy. But the existential threat to democracy by Trump and his groveling Republican Party has shifted the emphasis to the basic existence of this country.

Complain all you like about the electoral system in the US but don't ignore it while trying to make progress politically.

It doesn't matter if a majority of Americans don't want Trump to be president if they don't properly use the available electoral tools. Republicans need to be stopped via the system that currently exists. Voting for impotent minor parties will do nothing to keep Trump from returning.

Way bad régimes in other countries have come to power with much less than a majority of popular votes.

In South Africa in 1948, the pro-apartheid National Party won 37.70% of the popular vote as opposed to 48.18% for the more moderate United Party. But because of the existing first past the post parliamentary system then, the National Party in coalition with the even more extreme Afrikaner Party (3.93% of the vote) won a majority of seats in Parliament and were able to institute apartheid which lasted until 1990.

In both elections in Germany in 1932 the Nazis got less than 40% of the popular vote: 37.27% in the July election and just 33.09% in the November election. Despite these unimpressive results they managed to take power because the opposition was divided and failed to stop them. Famously, the Communist Party of Germany (16.9% of the popular vote in November '32) welcomed the Nazis. According to Communist ideology, fascism is supposed to be the final stage of capitalism and the German Communists were licking their chops; long story short – Ernst Thälmann, head of the German Communists, was executed on Heinrich Himmler's orders. Communists are stupid – but that's another story.

Not taking the threat of dictatorship seriously does not have happy endings in history. And it's always easier to prevent dictatorships than it is to remove them. If a candidate tells you he's going to be a dictator, believe him.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Der neue amerikanische Präsident Roosevelt,” Simplicissimus. Vol. 37, No. 35, November 27, 1932. ---- ...im Kampf mit dem Drachen der Prohibition [FDR against the dragon of prohibition]

[orualpsyche]

.

[tmarshconnors]

"History has its own way of dealing with individuals, as well as with nations."

Franz Joseph Hermann Michael Maria von Papen, Erbsälzer zu Werl und Neuwerk was a German national conservative, diplomat, Prussian nobleman and General Staff officer. He served as the chancellor of Germany in 1932, and then as the vice-chancellor under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1934.

Born: 29 October 1879, Werl, Germany

Died: 2 May 1969 (age 89 years), Sasbach, Germany

Chancellor of Germany: Franz von Papen served as the Chancellor of Germany from June to November 1932. His tenure was marked by political instability and economic difficulties during the final years of the Weimar Republic.

2) Role in Hitler's Rise to Power: Von Papen played a crucial role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power. As Vice Chancellor under Hitler in 1933, von Papen and other conservative elites believed they could control and moderate Hitler's policies. This miscalculation contributed significantly to the consolidation of Nazi power.

3) Diplomatic Career: After being sidelined by the Nazi regime, von Papen served as Germany's ambassador to Austria (1934-1938) and later to Turkey (1939-1944). In Austria, he was instrumental in facilitating the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in 1938.

4) Acquittal at Nuremberg Trials: Despite his involvement with the Nazi regime, von Papen was acquitted at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. The tribunal found insufficient evidence to convict him of war crimes, although he was later denazified by a German court and sentenced to eight years in a labor camp, a sentence which was soon reduced, and he was released.

5) Post-War Life: After his release, von Papen published his memoirs, "Der Wahrheit eine Gasse" ("Memoirs") in 1952, offering his perspective on his political career and the events of the era. He lived a relatively quiet life in West Germany until his death in 1969.

[newyorkthegoldenage]

What would Teddy have said? Edith Roosevelt, widow of former President Theodore Roosevelt, makes her introductory address for the incumbent, President Herbert Hoover, during a rally at Madison Square Garden, October 31, 1932. Hoover's opponent was, of course, Teddy's fifth cousin and nephew by marriage, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Photo: Associated Press

[selkiesstories]

Yad Veshem

[deadpresidents]

Was there any relationship between Calvin Coolidge and FDR? And was Coolidge planning to attend FDR’s inauguration before he died 2 months beforehand in 1933?

Calvin Coolidge was barely interested in his own Presidency, so he probably wasn't making plans to attend FDR's inauguration before he suddenly died in January 1933 (to which the writer Dorothy Parker famously asked, "How can they tell?").

There wasn't really any relationship between Coolidge and FDR. They were the Vice Presidential nominee of their respective parties during the 1920 election, but it's not like today where they debated one another. As far as I can tell, their first and possibly on meeting was in 1919, when Coolidge was Governor of Massachusetts and FDR, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, was returning from President Wilson's first trip to Europe for the Paris Peace Conference. FDR's tenure as Governor of New York overlapped with President Coolidge's time in the White House by just two months, during the lame duck period before President-elect Hoover's inauguration, so I doubt that they had any meetings during that time. It seems like their paths should have crossed more frequently, but Coolidge's political career was pretty provincial before 1920 and Roosevelt's lengthy struggle with polio largely took place during Coolidge's Vice Presidency and most of his Presidential term. FDR's political comeback didn't really take off until Coolidge had one foot out the door.

[mapsontheweb]

The 1932 US Presidential Election

[mostlysignssomeportents]

When prophecy fails, election polling edition

In Canto 20 of Inferno, Dante confronts a pit where the sinners have had their heads twisted around backwards; they trudge, naked and weeping, through puddles of cooling tears. Virgil informs him that these are the fortunetellers, who tried to look forwards in life and now must look backwards forever.

In a completely unrelated subject, how about those election pollsters, huh?

Writing for The American Prospect, historian Rick Perlstein takes a hard look at characteristic failure modes of election polling and ponders their meaning:

https://prospect.org/politics/2024-09-25-polling-imperilment/

Apart from the pre-election polling chaos we're living through today, Perlstein's main inspiration is W Joseph Campbell 2024 University of California Press book, Lost in a Gallup: Polling Failure in US Presidential Elections:

https://www.ucpress.edu/books/lost-in-a-gallup/paper

In Campbell's telling, US election polling follows a century-old pattern: pollsters discover a new technique that works spookily well..for a while. While the new polling technique works, the pollster is hailed a supernaturally insightful fortune-teller.

In 1932, the Raleigh News and Observer was so impressed with polling by The Literary Digest that they proposed replacing elections with Digest's poll. The Digest's innovation was sending out 20,000,000 postcards advertising subscriptions and asking about presidential preferences. This worked perfectly for three elections – 1924, 1928, and 1932. But in 1936, the Digest blew it, calling the election for Alf Landon over FDR.

The Digest was dethroned, and new soothsayers were appointed: George Gallup, Elmo Roper and Archibald Crossler, who replaced the Digest's high-volume polling with a new kind of poll, one that sought out a representative slice of the population (as Perlstein says, this seems "so obvious in retrospect, you wonder how nobody thought of it before").

Representative polling worked so well that, three elections later, the pollsters declared that they could predict the election so well from early on that there was no reason to keep polling voters. They'd just declare the winner after the early polls were in and take the rest of the election off.

That was in 1948 – you know, 1948, the "Dewey Defeats Truman" election?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

If this sounds familiar, perhaps you – like Perlstein – are reminded of the 2016 election, where Fivethirtyeight and Nate Silver called the election for Hillary Clinton, and we took them at their word because they'd developed a new, incredibly accurate polling technique that had aced the previous two elections.

Silver's innovation? Aggregating state polls, weighting them by accuracy, and then producing a kind of meta-poll that combined their conclusions.

When Silver's prophecy failed in 2016, he offered the same excuse that Gallup gave in 1948: when voters are truly undecided, you can't predict how they'll vote, because they don't know how they'll vote.

Which, you know, okay, sure, that's right. But if you know that the election can't be called, if you know that undecided voters are feeding noise into the system whenever you poll them, then why report the polls at all? If all the polling fluctuation is undecided voters flopping around, not making up their mind, then the fact that candidate X is up 5 points with undecided means nothing.

As the finance industry disclaimer has it, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." But, as Perlstein says, "past performance is all a pollster has to go on." When Nate Silver weights his model in favor of a given poll, it's based on that poll's historical accuracy, not its future accuracy, because its future accuracy can't be determined until it's in the past. Like Dante's fortune-tellers, pollsters have to look backwards even as they march forwards.

Of course, it doesn't help that in some cases, Silver was just bad at assessing polls for accuracy, like when he put polls from the far-right "shock pollster" Trafalgar Group into the highly reliable bucket. Since 2016, Trafalgar has specialized in releasing garbage polls that announce that MAGA weirdos are way ahead, and because they always say that, they were far more accurate than the Clinton-predicting competition in 2016 when they proclaimed that Trump had it in the bag. For Silver, this warranted an "A-" on reliability, and that is partially to blame for how bad Silver's 2020 predictions were, when Republicans got pasted, but Trafalgar continued to predict a Democratic wipeout. Silver's methodology has a huge flaw: because Trafalgar's prediction history began in 2016, that single data-point made them look pretty darned reliable, even though their method was to just keep saying the same thing, over and over:

https://www.ettingermentum.news/p/the-art-of-losing-a-fivethirtyeight

Pollsters who get lucky with a temporarily reliable methodology inevitably get cocky and start cutting corners. After all, polling is expensive, so discontinuing the polls once you think you have an answer is a way to increase the enterprise's profitability. But, of course, pollsters can only make money so long as they're somewhat reliable, which leads to a whole subindustry of excuse-making when this cost-cutting bites them in the ass. In 1948, George Gallup blamed his failures on the audience, who failed to grasp the "difference between forecasting an election and picking the winner of a horse race." In 2016, Silver declared that he'd been right because he'd given Trump at 28.6% chance of winning.

This isn't an entirely worthless excuse. If you predict that Clinton's victory is 71.4% in the bag, you are saying that Trump might win. But pollsters want to eat their cake and have it, too: when they're right, they trumpet their predictive accuracy, without any of the caveats they are so insistent upon when they blow it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDlo7YfUxc

There's always some excuse when it comes to the polls: in 1952, George Gallup called the election a tossup, but it went for Eisenhower in a landslide. He took out a full-page NYT ad, trumpeting that he was right, actually, because he wasn't accounting for undecided voters.

Polling is ultimately a form of empiricism-washing. The pollster may be counting up poll responses, but that doesn't make the prediction any less qualitative. Sure, the pollster counts responses, but who they ask, and what they do with those responses, is purely subjective. They're making guesses (or wishes) about which people are likely to vote, and what it means when someone tells you they're undecided. This is at least as much an ideological project as it is a scientific one:

https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2024-09-23-polling-whiplash/

But for all that polling is ideological, it's a very thin ideology. When it comes to serious political deliberation, questions like "who is likely to vote" and "what does 'undecided' mean" are a lot less important than, "what are the candidates promising to do?" and "what are the candidates likely to do?"

But – as Perlstein writes – the only kind of election journalism that is consistently, adequately funded is poll coverage. As a 1949 critic put it, this isn't the "pulse of democracy," it's "its baby talk."

Today, Tor Books publishes VIGILANT, a new, free LITTLE BROTHER story about creepy surveillance in distance education. It follows SPILL, another new, free LITTLE BROTHER novella about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/09/26/dewey-beats-truman/#past-performance-is-no-guarantee-of-future-results

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“CROWD OF 200,000 SEE INAUGURATION OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AT WASHINGTON,” Kingston Whig-Standard. March 7, 1933. Page 10.   ---- A crowd of 200,000 flocked to Washington on Saturday to see the inauguration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd president of the United States. (1) Herbert Hoover, the retiring president, clasping the hand of President-elect Roosevelt, as the former steps into the car for the parade to the Capitol (2) After the inauguration President Roosevelt gives the crowd the old handshake, as he and Mrs. Roosevelt leave the scene of the ceremony (3) A view in front of the Capiol as Mr. Roosevelt takes the oath of office administered by Charles Evans Hughes, chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (4) From a glass-encased stand, the President reviews trim ranks of bluejackets, filing past in salute. To his right is General Douglas MacArthur, chief of staff of the army.