document_title: List of Major League Baseball single-game runs batted in leaders

question_text: who has the most rbi in a single game

question_tokens: who has the most rbi in a single game

text: In baseball, a run batted in (RBI) is awarded to a batter for each runner who scores as a result of the batter's action, including a hit, fielder's choice, sacrifice fly, sacrifice bunt, catcher's interference, or a walk or hit by pitch with the bases loaded.[1]  A batter is also awarded an RBI for scoring himself upon hitting a home run.[1]  Sixteen players have batted in at least 10 runs in a single Major League Baseball (MLB) game to date, the most recent being Mark Reynolds of the Washington Nationals on July 6, 2018.[2]  No player has accomplished the feat more than once in his career and no player has ever recorded more than 12 RBIs in a game. Wilbert Robinson was the first player to record at least 10 RBIs in a single game,[3][4] driving in 11 runs for the Baltimore Orioles against the St. Louis Browns on June 10, 1892.[5]

text: As of  2016[update], every team that has had a player achieve the milestone has won the game in which it occurred. These games have resulted in other single-game MLB records being set due to the stellar offensive performance. Robinson, for example, also amassed seven hits in that same game, setting a new major league record that has since been tied by only one other player.[6] Mark Whiten hit four home runs to complement his 12 RBIs for the St. Louis Cardinals on September 7, 1993, tying the single-game records in both categories.[7][8]  By attaining both milestones, he became one of only two players to hit four home runs and drive in 10 or more runs in the same game,[3] with Scooter Gennett being the other.[2][9] Tony Lazzeri, Rudy York, and Nomar Garciaparra hit two grand slams during their 10 RBI game,[10][11][12] equaling the record for most grand slams in one game.[13] Norm Zauchin has the fewest career RBIs among players who have 10 RBIs in one game with 159, while Alex Rodriguez, with 2,086, drove in more runs than any other player in this group and hit the third most in major league history.[14]

text: Of the eight players eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame who have batted in 10 runs in a game, four have been elected and one was elected on the first ballot. Players are eligible for the Hall of Fame if they have played in at least 10 MLB seasons, and have either been retired for five seasons or deceased for at least six months.[15] These requirements leave three players ineligible who are living and have played in the past five seasons and two—Phil Weintraub and Zauchin—who did not play in 10 seasons.[16][17]

text: Players[edit]

text: Mark Reynolds is the most recent player to record 10 RBIs in one game, achieving the feat in 2018.]]

text:
Key

Player

Name of the player

Date

Date of the game

Team

The player's team at the time of the game

Opposing team

The team against whom the player hit 10 runs batted in

Score

Final score of the game, with the player's team score listed first

Runs batted in

Number of runs batted in the player hit

Career RBI

The number of runs batted in the player hit in his MLB career

Elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame

Player is active

text:
MLB hitters with 10 RBI in one game

Player

Date

Team

Opposing team

Score

Runs batted in

Career RBI

Refs

Wilbert Robinson

June 10, 1892
Baltimore Orioles
St. Louis Browns
25–4
11
722
[5][18]

Jim Bottomley

September 16, 1924
St. Louis Cardinals
Brooklyn Robins
17–3
12
1,422
[19][20]

Tony Lazzeri

May 24, 1936
New York Yankees
Philadelphia Athletics
25–2
11
1,194
[21][22]

Phil Weintraub

April 30, 1944
New York Giants
Brooklyn Dodgers
26–8
11
207
[16][23]

Rudy York

July 27, 1946
Boston Red Sox
St. Louis Browns
13–6
10
1,152
[24][25]

Walker Cooper

July 6, 1949
Cincinnati Reds
Chicago Cubs
23–4
10
812
[26][27]

Norm Zauchin

May 27, 1955
Boston Red Sox
Washington Senators
16–0
10
159
[17][28]

Reggie Jackson

June 14, 1969
Oakland Athletics
Boston Red Sox
21–7
10
1,702
[29][30]

Fred Lynn

June 18, 1975
Boston Red Sox
Detroit Tigers
15–1
10
1,111
[31][32]

Mark Whiten

September 7, 1993
St. Louis Cardinals
Cincinnati Reds
15–2
12
423
[33][34]

Nomar Garciaparra

May 10, 1999
Boston Red Sox
Seattle Mariners
12–4
10
936
[35][36]

Alex Rodriguez

April 26, 2005
New York Yankees
Los Angeles Angels
12–4
10
2,086
[37][38]

Garret Anderson

August 21, 2007
Los Angeles Angels
New York Yankees
18–9
10
1,365
[39][40]

Anthony Rendon

April 30, 2017
Washington Nationals
New York Mets
23–5
10
365
[41][42]

Scooter Gennett

June 6, 2017
Cincinnati Reds
St. Louis Cardinals
13–1
10
190
[43][44]

Mark Reynolds

July 7, 2018

Washington Nationals

Miami Marlins

18-4

10

833

[45][46]


document_title: ITER

question_text: what is the status of the iter fusion power project

root

text: ITER

text: Background[edit]

text: Fusion power has the potential to provide sufficient energy to satisfy mounting demand, and to do so sustainably, with a relatively small impact on the environment.

tag: p

text: Nuclear fusion has many potential attractions. Firstly, its hydrogen isotope fuels are relatively abundant – one of the necessary isotopes, deuterium, can be extracted from seawater, while the other fuel, tritium, would be bred from a lithium blanket using neutrons produced in the fusion reaction itself.[20] Furthermore, a fusion reactor would produce virtually no CO2 or atmospheric pollutants, and its radioactive waste products would mostly be very short-lived compared to those produced by conventional nuclear reactors.

text: On 21 November 2006, the seven participants formally agreed to fund the creation of a nuclear fusion reactor.[21] The program is anticipated to last for 30 years – 10 for construction, and 20 of operation. ITER was originally expected to cost approximately €5 billion, but the rising price of raw materials and changes to the initial design have seen that amount almost triple to €13 billion.[14] The reactor is expected to take 10 years to build with completion scheduled for 2019.[22] Site preparation has begun in Cadarache, France, and procurement of large components has started.[23]

text:
When supplied with 300 MW of electrical power, ITER is expected to produce the equivalent of 500 MW of thermal power sustained for up to 1,000 seconds.[24] This compares to JET's consumption of 700 MW of electrical power and peak thermal output of 16 MW for less than a second) by the fusion of about 0.5 g of deuterium/tritium mixture in its approximately 840 m3 reactor chamber. The heat produced in ITER will not be used to generate any electricity because after accounting for losses and the 300 MW minimum power input, the
output will be equivalent to a zero (net) power reactor.[25]

text: Organization history[edit]

text: ITER began in 1985 as a Reagan–Gorbachev[26][27] initiative[27][28] with the equal participation of the Soviet Union, the European Atomic Energy Community, the United States, and Japan through the 1988–1998 initial design phases. Preparations for the first Gorbachev-Reagan Summit showed that there were no tangible agreements in the works for the summit.

text: One energy research project, however, was being considered quietly by two physicists, Alvin Trivelpiece and Evgeny Velikhov. The project involved collaboration on the next phase of magnetic fusion research — the construction of a demonstration model. At the time, magnetic fusion research was ongoing in Japan, Europe, the Soviet Union and the US. Velikhov and Trivelpiece believed that taking the next step in fusion research would be beyond the budget of any of the key nations and that collaboration would be useful internationally.

text: A major bureaucratic fight erupted in the US government over the project. One argument against collaboration was that the Soviets would use it to steal US technology and know-how. A second was symbolic — the Soviet physicist Andrei Sakharov was in internal exile and the US was pushing the Soviet Union on its human rights record. The United States National Security Council convened a meeting under the direction of William Flynn Martin that resulted in a consensus that the US should go forward with the project.

text: Martin and Velikhov concluded the agreement that was agreed at the summit and announced in the last paragraph of this historic summit meeting, "... The two leaders emphasized the potential importance of the work aimed at utilizing controlled thermonuclear fusion for peaceful purposes and, in this connection, advocated the widest practicable development of international cooperation in obtaining this source of energy, which is essentially inexhaustible, for the benefit for all mankind."[29]

text: Conceptual and engineering design phases carried out under the auspices of the IAEA led to an acceptable, detailed design in 2001, underpinned by US$650 million worth of research and development by the "ITER Parties" to establish its practical feasibility.[citation needed] These parties, namely EU, Japan, Russian Federation (replacing the Soviet Union), and United States (which opted out of the project in 1999 and returned in 2003), were joined in negotiations by China, South Korea, and Canada (who then terminated its participation at the end of 2003). India officially became part of ITER in December 2005.

text: On 28 June 2005, it was officially announced that ITER would be built in the European Union in Southern France. The negotiations that led to the decision ended in a compromise between the EU and Japan, in that Japan was promised 20% of the research staff on the French location of ITER, as well as the head of the administrative body of ITER. In addition, another research facility for the project will be built in Japan, and the European Union has agreed to contribute about 50% of the costs of this institution.[30]

text: On 21 November 2006, an international consortium signed a formal agreement to build the reactor.[31] On 24 September 2007, the People's Republic of China became the seventh party to deposit the ITER Agreement to the IAEA. Finally, on 24 October 2007, the ITER Agreement entered into force and the ITER Organization legally came into existence.

text: Objectives[edit]

text: ITER's mission is to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion power, and prove that it can work without negative impact.[32] Specifically, the project aims to:

text:
Momentarily produce a fusion plasma with thermal power ten times greater than the injected thermal power (a Q value of 10).
Produce a steady-state plasma with a Q value greater than 5. (Q = 1 is scientific breakeven.)
Maintain a fusion pulse for up to 8 minutes.
Develop technologies and processes needed for a fusion power station — including superconducting magnets and remote handling (maintenance by robot).
Verify tritium breeding concepts.
Refine neutron shield/heat conversion technology (most of the energy in the D+T fusion reaction is released in the form of fast neutrons).

tag: ul

text: Timeline and current status[edit]

text: In 1978, the European Commission, Japan, United States, and USSR joined in the International Tokamak Reactor (INTOR) Workshop, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to assess the readiness of magnetic fusion to move forward to the experimental power reactor (EPR) stage, to identify the additional R&D that must be undertaken, and to define the characteristics of such an EPR by means of a conceptual design. Hundreds of fusion scientists and engineers in each participating country took part in a detailed assessment of the then present status of the tokamak confinement concept vis-a-vis the requirements of an EPR, identified the required R&D by early 1980, and produced a conceptual design by mid-1981.

text: In 1985, at the Geneva summit meeting in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev suggested to Ronald Reagan that the two countries jointly undertake the construction of a tokamak EPR as proposed by the INTOR Workshop. The ITER project was initiated in 1988.[33][34]

text:
Project milestones

Date
Event

1988
ITER project officially initiated.[33][34] Conceptual design activities ran from 1988 to 1990.[35]

1992
Engineering design activities from 1992[36] to 1998.[37]

2005
India officially became part of ITER.

2006
Approval of a cost estimate of €10 billion (US$12.8 billion) projecting the start of construction in 2008 and completion a decade later.[21]

2008
Site preparation start, ITER itinerary start.[38]

2009
Site preparation completion.[38]

2010
Tokamak complex excavation starts.[34]

2013
Tokamak complex construction starts.[38]

2015
Tokamak construction starts,[39][40] but the schedule is extended by at least six years.[41]

2016
The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran formally requests to join ITER.[42]

2017
Assembly Hall ready for equipment

2018-2025
Assembly and integration[43]

2025
Planned: Assembly ends; commissioning phase starts [43]

2025
Planned: Achievement of first plasma.[44]

2035
Planned: Start of deuterium–tritium operation.[45]

tag: table

text: Reactor overview[edit]

text: When deuterium and tritium fuse, two nuclei come together to form a helium nucleus (an alpha particle), and a high-energy neutron.

text: While nearly all stable isotopes lighter on the periodic table than iron-56 and nickel-62, which have the highest binding energy per nucleon, will fuse with some other isotope and release energy, deuterium and tritium are by far the most attractive for energy generation as they require the lowest activation energy (thus lowest temperature) to do so, while producing among the most energy per unit weight.

text: All proto- and mid-life stars radiate enormous amounts of energy generated by fusion processes. Mass for mass, the deuterium–tritium fusion process releases roughly three times as much energy as uranium-235 fission, and millions of times more energy than a chemical reaction such as the burning of coal. It is the goal of a fusion power station to harness this energy to produce electricity.

text:
Activation energies for fusion reactions are generally high because the protons in each nucleus will tend to strongly repel one another, as they each have the same positive charge. A heuristic for estimating reaction rates is that nuclei must be able to get within 100 femtometers (1 × 10−13 meter) of each other, where the nuclei are increasingly likely to undergo quantum tunneling past the electrostatic barrier and the turning point where the strong nuclear force and the electrostatic force are equally balanced, allowing them to fuse. In ITER, this distance of approach is made possible by high temperatures and magnetic confinement.
High temperatures give the nuclei enough energy to overcome their electrostatic repulsion (see Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution). For deuterium and tritium, the optimal reaction rates occur at temperatures on the order of 100,000,000 K. The plasma is heated to a high temperature by ohmic heating (running a current through the plasma). Additional heating is applied using neutral beam injection (which cross magnetic field lines without a net deflection and will not cause a large electromagnetic disruption) and radio frequency (RF) or microwave heating.

text:
At such high temperatures, particles have a large kinetic energy, and hence velocity. If unconfined, the particles will rapidly escape, taking the energy with them, cooling the plasma to the point where net energy is no longer produced. A successful reactor would need to contain the particles in a small enough volume for a long enough time for much of the plasma to fuse.
In ITER and many other magnetic confinement reactors, the plasma, a gas of charged particles, is confined using magnetic fields. A charged particle moving through a magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to the direction of travel, resulting in centripetal acceleration, thereby confining it to move in a circle or helix around the lines of magnetic flux.

text:
A solid confinement vessel is also needed, both to shield the magnets and other equipment from high temperatures and energetic photons and particles, and to maintain a near-vacuum for the plasma to populate.
The containment vessel is subjected to a barrage of very energetic particles, where electrons, ions, photons, alpha particles, and neutrons constantly bombard it and degrade the structure. The material must be designed to endure this environment so that a power station would be economical. Tests of such materials will be carried out both at ITER and at IFMIF (International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility).

text: Once fusion has begun, high energy neutrons will radiate from the reactive regions of the plasma, crossing magnetic field lines easily due to charge neutrality (see neutron flux). Since it is the neutrons that receive the majority of the energy, they will be ITER's primary source of energy output. Ideally, alpha particles will expend their energy in the plasma, further heating it.

text: Beyond the inner wall of the containment vessel one of several test blanket modules will be placed. These are designed to slow and absorb neutrons in a reliable and efficient manner, limiting damage to the rest of the structure, and breeding tritium for fuel from lithium bearing ceramic pebbles contained within the blanket module following the following reactions:

text: where the reactant neutron is supplied by the D-T fusion reaction.

text: Energy absorbed from the fast neutrons is extracted and passed into the primary coolant. This heat energy would then be used to power an electricity-generating turbine in a real power station; in ITER this generating system is not of scientific interest, so instead the heat will be extracted and disposed of.

text: Technical design[edit]

text: Vacuum vessel[edit]

text: The vacuum vessel is the central part of the ITER machine: a double walled steel container in which the plasma is contained by means of magnetic fields.

text: The ITER vacuum vessel will be twice as large and 16 times as heavy as any previously manufactured fusion vessel: each of the nine torus shaped sectors will weigh between 390 and 430 tonnes.[46] When all the shielding and port structures are included, this adds up to a total of 5,116 tonnes. Its external diameter will measure 19.4 metres (64 ft), the internal 6.5 metres (21 ft). Once assembled, the whole structure will be 11.3 metres (37 ft) high.

text: The primary function of the vacuum vessel is to provide a hermetically sealed plasma container. Its main components are the main vessel, the port structures and the supporting system. The main vessel is a double walled structure with poloidal and toroidal stiffening ribs between 60-millimetre-thick (2.4 in) shells to reinforce the vessel structure. These ribs also form the flow passages for the cooling water. The space between the double walls will be filled with shield structures made of stainless steel. The inner surfaces of the vessel will act as the interface with breeder modules containing the breeder blanket component. These modules will provide shielding from the high-energy neutrons produced by the fusion reactions and some will also be used for tritium breeding concepts.

text: The vacuum vessel has 18 upper, 17 equatorial and 9 lower ports that will be used for remote handling operations, diagnostic systems, neutral beam injections and vacuum pumping.

text: Breeder blanket[edit]

text: Owing to very limited terrestrial resources of tritium, a key component of the ITER reactor design is the breeder blanket. This component, located adjacent to the vacuum vessel, serves to produce tritium through reaction with neutrons from the plasma. There are several reactions that produce tritium within the blanket. 6Li produces tritium via n,t reactions with moderated neutrons, 7Li produces tritium via interactions with higher energy neutrons via n,nt reactions. Concepts for the breeder blanket include helium cooled lithium lead (HCLL) and helium cooled pebble bed (HCPB) methods. Six different Test Blanket Modules (TBM) will be tested in ITER and will share a common box geometry. Materials for use as breeder pebbles in the HCPB concept include lithium metatitanate and lithium orthosilicate.[47] Requirements of breeder materials include good tritium production and extraction, mechanical stability and low activation levels.[48]

text: Magnet system[edit]

text:
The central solenoid coil will use superconducting niobium-tin to carry 46 kA and produce a field of up to 13.5 teslas.
The 18 toroidal field coils will also use niobium-tin. At their maximum field strength of 11.8 teslas, they will be able to store 41 gigajoules. They have been tested at a record 80 kA. Other lower field ITER magnets (PF and CC) will use niobium-titanium for their superconducting elements. As of now the in-wall shielding blocks to protect the magnets from high energy neutrons are being manufactured and transported from the Avasarala technologies in Bangalore India to the ITER center.[49]

text: Additional heating[edit]

text: There will be three types of external heating in ITER:

text:
Two Heating Neutral Beam injectors (HNB), each providing about 17MW to the burning plasma, with the possibility to add a third one. The requirements in terms of deuterium beam energy (1MeV), total current (40A) and beam pulse duration (up to 1h). The prototype is being built at the Neutral Beam Test Facility (NBTF)[50] prototype is being constructed in Padova
Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating (ICRH)
Electron Cyclotron Resonance Heating (ECRH)

text: Cryostat[edit]

text: The cryostat is a large 3,800-tonne stainless steel structure surrounding the vacuum vessel and the superconducting magnets, in order to provide a super-cool vacuum environment. Its thickness ranging from 6998500000000000000♠50 to 250 mm will allow it to withstand the atmospheric pressure on the area of a volume of 8,500 cubic meters. The total of 54 modules of the cryostat will be engineered, procured, manufactured, and installed by Larsen & Toubro Heavy Engineering.[51][52]

text: Cooling systems[edit]

text: The ITER tokamak will use three interconnected cooling systems. Most of the heat will be removed by a primary water cooling loop, itself cooled by water through a heat exchanger within the tokamak building's secondary confinement. The secondary cooling loop will be cooled by a larger complex, comprising a cooling tower, a 5 km (3.1 mi) pipeline supplying water from Canal de Provence, and basins that allow cooling water to be cooled and tested for chemical contamination and tritium before being released into the Durance River. This system will need to dissipate an average power of 7008450000000000000♠450 MW during the tokamak's operation. A liquid nitrogen system will provide a further 7006130000000000000♠1300 kW of cooling to 80 K (−193.2 °C; −315.7 °F), and a liquid helium system will provide 7004750000000000000♠75 kW of cooling to 4.5 K (−268.65 °C; −451.57 °F). The liquid helium system will be designed, manufactured, installed and commissioned by Air Liquide.[53][54]

text: Location[edit]

text: The process of selecting a location for ITER was long and drawn out. The most likely sites were Cadarache in Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France, and Rokkasho, Aomori, Japan. Additionally, Canada announced a bid for the site in Clarington in May 2001, but withdrew from the race in 2003. Spain also offered a site at Vandellòs on 17 April 2002, but the EU decided to concentrate its support solely behind the French site in late November 2003. From this point on, the choice was between France and Japan. On 3 May 2005, the EU and Japan agreed to a process which would settle their dispute by July.

text: At the final meeting in Moscow on 28 June 2005, the participating parties agreed to construct ITER at Cadarache in Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur, France. Construction of the ITER complex began in 2007, while assembly of the tokamak itself was scheduled to begin in 2015.[23]

text: Fusion for Energy, the EU agency in charge of the European contribution to the project, is located in Barcelona, Spain. Fusion for Energy (F4E) is the European Union's Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy. According to the agency's website:

text: "F4E is responsible for providing Europe's contribution to ITER, the world's largest scientific partnership that aims to demonstrate fusion as a viable and sustainable source of energy. [...] F4E also supports fusion research and development initiatives [...]"[55]

text: The ITER Neutral Beam Test Facility aimed at developing and optimizing the neutral beam injector prototype, is being constructed in Padova, Italy.[56] It will be the only ITER facility out of the site in Cadarache.

text: Participants[edit]

text: Currently there are seven parties participating in the ITER program: the European Union (through the legally distinct organisation EURATOM), India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States.[23] Canada was previously a full member, but has since pulled out due to a lack of funding from the federal government. The lack of funding also resulted in Canada withdrawing from its bid for the ITER site in 2003. The host member of the ITER project, and hence the member contributing most of the costs, is the EU.

text:
In 2007, it was announced that participants in the ITER will consider Kazakhstan's offer to join the program[57] and in March 2009, Switzerland, an associate member of EURATOM since 1979, also ratified the country's accession to the European Domestic Agency Fusion for Energy as a third country member.[58]
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced on 20 March 2017 that the UK will be withdrawing from EuroAtom and future involvement in the project is unclear. The future of the Joint European Torus project, which is located in the UK, is also not certain. Some type of associate membership in EURATOM is considered a likely scenario, possibly similar to Switzerland.[59][60] In 2016, ITER announced a partnership with Australia for "technical cooperation in areas of mutual benefit and interest", but without Australia becoming a full member.[61]

text: ITER's work is supervised by the ITER Council, which has the authority to appoint senior staff, amend regulations, decide on budgeting issues, and allow additional states or organizations to participate in ITER.[62] The current Chairman of the ITER Council is Won Namkung,[63] and the ITER Director-General is Bernard Bigot.

text:
EU
 United States
 China
 India
 Japan
 Russia
 South Korea
  Switzerland

text: Funding[edit]

text: As of 2016, the total price of constructing the experiment is expected to be in excess of €20 billion,[64] an increase of €4.6 billion of its 2010 estimate,[65] and of €9.6 billion from the 2009 estimate.[66] Prior to that, the proposed costs for ITER were €5 billion for the construction and €5 billion for maintenance and the research connected with it during its 35-year lifetime. At the June 2005 conference in Moscow the participating members of the ITER cooperation agreed on the following division of funding contributions: 45% by the hosting member, the European Union, and the rest split between the non-hosting members – China, India, Japan, South Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA. During the operation and deactivation phases, Euratom will contribute to 34% of the total costs.[67]

text: Although Japan's financial contribution as a non-hosting member is one-eleventh of the total, the EU agreed to grant it a special status so that Japan will provide for two-elevenths of the research staff at Cadarache and be awarded two-elevenths of the construction contracts, while the European Union's staff and construction components contributions will be cut from five-elevenths to four-elevenths.

text: It was reported in December 2010 that the European Parliament had refused to approve a plan by member states to reallocate €1.4 billion from the budget to cover a shortfall in ITER building costs in 2012–13. The closure of the 2010 budget required this financing plan to be revised, and the European Commission (EC) was forced to put forward an ITER budgetary resolution proposal in 2011.[68]

text: The U.S. withdrew from the ITER consortium in 2000. In 2006, Congress voted to rejoin, and again contribute financially.

text: Criticism[edit]

text: A technical concern is that the 14 MeV neutrons produced by the fusion reactions will damage the materials from which the reactor is built.[70] Research is in progress to determine whether and how reactor walls can be designed to last long enough to make a commercial power station economically viable in the presence of the intense neutron bombardment. The damage is primarily caused by high energy neutrons knocking atoms out of their normal position in the crystal lattice. A related problem for a future commercial fusion power station is that the neutron bombardment will induce radioactivity in the reactor material itself.[71] Maintaining and decommissioning a commercial reactor may thus be difficult and expensive. Another problem is that superconducting magnets are damaged by neutron fluxes. A new special research facility, IFMIF, is planned to investigate this problem.

text: Another source of concern comes from the 2013 tokamak parameters database interpolation which says that power load on tokamak divertors will be five times the expected value for ITER and much more for actual electricity-generating reactors. Given that the projected power load on the ITER divertor is already very high, these new findings mean that new divertor designs should be urgently tested.[72] However, the corresponding test facility (ADX) has not received any funding as of  2018[update].

text:
A number of fusion researchers working on non-tokamak systems, such as Robert Bussard and Eric Lerner, have been critical of ITER for diverting funding from what they believe could be a potentially more viable and/or cost-effective path to fusion power, such as the polywell reactor.[73][74]
Many critics accuse ITER researchers of being unwilling to face up to the technical and economic potential problems posed by tokamak fusion schemes.[73] The expected cost of ITER has risen from US$5 billion to US$20 billion, and the timeline for operation at full power was moved from the original estimate of 2016 to 2027.

text: A French association including about 700 anti-nuclear groups, Sortir du nucléaire (Get Out of Nuclear Energy), claimed that ITER was a hazard because scientists did not yet know how to manipulate the high-energy deuterium and tritium hydrogen isotopes used in the fusion process.[75]

text: Rebecca Harms, Green/EFA member of the European Parliament's Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, said: "In the next 50 years, nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply." Arguing that the EU's energy research should be focused elsewhere, she said: "The Green/EFA group demands that these funds be spent instead on energy research that is relevant to the future. A major focus should now be put on renewable sources of energy." French Green party lawmaker Noël Mamère claims that more concrete efforts to fight present-day global warming will be neglected as a result of ITER: "This is not good news for the fight against the greenhouse effect because we're going to put ten billion euros towards a project that has a term of 30–50 years when we're not even sure it will be effective."[76]

text: ITER is not designed to produce electricity, but made as a proof of concept reactor for the later DEMO project.[77]

text: Responses to criticism[edit]

text:
Proponents believe that much of the ITER criticism is misleading and inaccurate, in particular the allegations of the experiment's "inherent danger." The stated goals for a commercial fusion power station design are that the amount of radioactive waste produced should be hundreds of times less than that of a fission reactor, and that it should produce no long-lived radioactive waste, and that it is impossible for any such reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction.[78] A direct contact of the plasma with ITER inner walls would contaminate it, causing it to cool immediately and stop the fusion process. In addition, the amount of fuel contained in a fusion reactor chamber (one half gram of deuterium/tritium fuel[23]) is only sufficient to sustain the fusion burn pulse from minutes up to an hour at most, whereas a fission reactor usually contains several years' worth of fuel.[79]
Moreover, some detritiation systems will be implemented, so that at a fuel cycle inventory level of about 2 kg (4.4 lb), ITER will eventually need to recycle large amounts of tritium and at turnovers orders of magnitude higher than any preceding tritium facility worldwide.[80]

text: In the case of an accident (or sabotage), it is expected that a fusion reactor would release far less radioactive pollution than would an ordinary fission nuclear station. Furthermore, ITER's type of fusion power has little in common with nuclear weapons technology, and does not produce the fissile materials necessary for the construction of a weapon. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power would be able to produce reliable electricity on demand, and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2, SO2, or NOx by-products are produced).

text: According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities that are exploring several fusion paths.[81]

text: In the United States alone, electricity accounts for US$210 billion in annual sales.[82] Asia's electricity sector attracted US$93 billion in private investment between 1990 and 1999.[83] These figures take into account only current prices. Proponents of ITER contend that an investment in research now should be viewed as an attempt to earn a far greater future return.[citation needed] Also, worldwide investment of less than US$1 billion per year into ITER is not incompatible with concurrent research into other methods of power generation, which in 2007 totaled US$16.9 billion.[84]

text: Supporters of ITER emphasize that the only way to test ideas for withstanding the intense neutron flux is to experimentally subject materials to that flux, which is one of the primary missions of ITER and the IFMIF,[23] and both facilities will be vitally important to that effort.[85] The purpose of ITER is to explore the scientific and engineering questions that surround potential fusion power stations. It is nearly impossible to acquire satisfactory data for the properties of materials expected to be subject to an intense neutron flux, and burning plasmas are expected to have quite different properties from externally heated plasmas.[citation needed] Supporters contend that the answer to these questions requires the ITER experiment, especially in the light of the monumental potential benefits.

text: Furthermore, the main line of research via tokamaks has been developed to the point that it is now possible to undertake the penultimate step in magnetic confinement plasma physics research with a self-sustained reaction. In the tokamak research program, recent advances devoted to controlling the configuration of the plasma have led to the achievement of substantially improved energy and pressure confinement, which reduces the projected cost of electricity from such reactors by a factor of two to a value only about 50% more than the projected cost of electricity from advanced light-water reactors.[citation needed] In addition, progress in the development of advanced, low activation structural materials supports the promise of environmentally benign fusion reactors and research into alternate confinement concepts is yielding the promise of future improvements in confinement.[86] Finally, supporters contend that other potential replacements to the fossil fuels have environmental issues of their own. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power all have a relatively low power output per square kilometer compared to ITER's successor DEMO which, at 2,000 MW,[87] would have an energy density that exceeds even large fission power stations.[88]

text: Similar projects[edit]

text:
Precursors to ITER were EAST, KSTAR, JET,[89] and Tore Supra.[90]
Other planned and proposed fusion reactors include DEMO,[91] Wendelstein 7-X,[92] NIF,[93] HiPER,[94] and MAST,[95] as well as CFETR (China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor), a 7008200000000000000♠200 MW tokamak.[96][97][98][99]


document_title: United States presidential election, 1928

question_text: who ran in the presidential election of 1928

text: Nominations[edit]

text: Republican Party nomination[edit]

text:
Republican Party Ticket, 1928

Herbert Hoover
Charles Curtis

for President
for Vice President

3rd
U.S. Secretary of Commerce
(1921–1928)
U.S. Senator from Kansas
(1907–1913 & 1915–1929)

Campaign

text: Republican candidates:

text:
Herbert Hoover from California,
Secretary of Commerce

Former Governor Frank Orren Lowden of Illinois

Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis from Kansas

text: With President Coolidge choosing not to enter the race, the race for the nomination was wide open. The leading candidates were Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, former Illinois Governor Frank Orren Lowden and Senate Majority Leader Charles Curtis. A draft-Coolidge movement failed to gain traction with party insiders and failed to persuade Coolidge himself.[3][4]

text: In the few primaries that mattered, Hoover did not perform as well as expected, and it was thought that the president or Vice-President Charles G. Dawes might accept a draft in case of a deadlock, but Lowden withdrew just as the convention was about to start, paving the way for a Hoover victory.[5]

text: The Republican Convention, held in Kansas City, Missouri, from June 12 to 15, nominated Hoover on the first ballot. With Hoover disinclined to interfere in the selection of his running mate, the party leaders were at first partial to giving Dawes a shot at a second term, but when this information leaked, Coolidge sent an angry telegram saying that he would consider a second nomination for Dawes, whom he hated, a "personal affront."[6] To attract votes from farmers concerned about Hoover's pro-business orientation, it was instead offered to Senator Curtis, who accepted. He was nominated overwhelmingly on the first ballot.[7]

text: In his acceptance speech eight weeks after the convention ended, Secretary Hoover said: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of this land... We shall soon with the help of God be in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this land."[8] The phrase would eventually haunt Hoover during the Great Depression.

text:
The Balloting[9][10]

Presidential Ballot

Vice Presidential Ballot

Herbert Hoover
837
Charles Curtis
1,052

Frank Orren Lowden
74
Herman Ekern
19

Charles Curtis
64
Charles G. Dawes
13

James Eli Watson
45
Hanford MacNider
2

George W. Norris
24

Guy D. Goff
18

Calvin Coolidge
17

Charles G. Dawes
4

Charles Evans Hughes
1

text: Democratic Party nomination[edit]

text:
Democratic Party Ticket, 1928

Al Smith
Joseph T. Robinson

for President
for Vice President

42nd
Governor of New York
(1919–1920 & 1923–1928)
U.S. Senator from Arkansas
(1913–1937)

Campaign

text: Democratic candidates:

text:
Governor Al Smith of New York

Representative Cordell Hull from Tennessee

Senator James A. Reed from Missouri

Former Senator Atlee Pomerene from Ohio

text: With the memory of the Teapot Dome scandal rapidly fading, and the current state of prosperity making the party’s prospects look dim, most of the major Democratic leaders, such as William Gibbs McAdoo, were content to sit this one out.[citation needed] One who did not was New York Governor Al Smith, who had tried twice before to secure the Democratic nomination.[11]

text: The 1928 Democratic National Convention was held in Houston, Texas, on June 26 to 28, and Smith became the candidate on the first ballot.

text: The leadership asked the delegates to nominate Sen. Joseph Taylor Robinson of Arkansas, who was in many ways Smith’s political polar opposite, to be his running mate, and he was nominated for vice-president.[12][13]

text: Smith was the first Roman Catholic to gain a major party's nomination for president, and his religion became an issue during the campaign. Many Protestants feared that Smith would take orders from church leaders in Rome in making decisions affecting the country.[14][15]

text:
The Balloting

Presidential Ballot

Vice Presidential Ballot

Al Smith
849.17
Joseph Taylor Robinson
1,035.17

Cordell Hull
71.84
Alben W. Barkley
77

Walter F. George
52.5
Nellie Tayloe Ross
31

James A. Reed
52
Henry Tureman Allen
28

Atlee Pomerene
47
George L. Berry
17.5

Jesse H. Jones
43
Dan Moody
9.33

Evans Woollen
32
Duncan U. Fletcher
7

Pat Harrison
20
John H. Taylor
6

William A. Ayres
20
Lewis Stevenson
4

Richard C. Watts
18
Evans Woollen
2

Gilbert Hitchcock
16
Joseph Patrick Tumulty
100

A. Victor Donahey
5

Houston Thompson
2

Theodore G. Bilbo
1

text: Source: US President - D Convention. Our Campaigns. (March 10, 2011).

text: Prohibition Party nomination[edit]

text: The Prohibition Party Convention was held in Chicago from July 10 through July 12. Smith openly opposed Prohibition.[16] Some members of the Prohibition Party wanted to throw their support to Hoover, thinking that their candidate would not win and that they did not want their candidate to provide the margin by which Smith would win.[citation needed] Nonetheless, William F. Varney was nominated for president over Hoover by a margin of 68–45.

text: General election[edit]

text: The fall campaign[edit]

text: Anti-Catholicism was a significant problem for Smith’s campaign. Protestant ministers warned that he would take orders from the pope who, many Americans sincerely believed, would move to the United States to rule the country from a fortress in Washington, D.C., if Smith won. According to a popular joke, after the election he sent a one-word telegram advising Pope Pius XI to “Unpack”.[17][18] Beyond the conspiracy theories, a survey of 8,500 Southern Methodist Church ministers found only four who supported Smith, and the northern Methodists, Southern Baptists, and Disciples of Christ were similar in their opposition. Many voters who sincerely rejected bigotry and the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan—which had declined during the 1920s until the 1928 campaign revived it—justified their opposition to Smith on their belief that the Catholic Church was an “un-American”, “alien culture” that opposed freedom and democracy.[18]

text: An example was a statement issued in September 1928 by the National Lutheran Editors’ and Managers’ Association that opposed Smith’s election. The manifesto, written by Dr. Clarence Reinhold Tappert, warned about “the peculiar relation in which a faithful Catholic stands and the absolute allegiance he owes to a ‘foreign sovereign’ who does not only ‘claim’ supremacy also in secular affairs as a matter of principle and theory but who, time and again, has endeavored to put this claim into practical operation.” The Catholic Church, the manifesto asserted, was hostile to American principles of separation of church and state and of religious toleration.[19] Groups circulated a million copies of a counterfeit oath claiming that fourth degree Knights of Columbus members swore to exterminate Freemasons and Protestants and commit violence against anyone, if the church so ordered.[20] Smith’s opposition to Prohibition, a key reform promoted by Protestants, also lost him votes, as did his association with Tammany Hall. Because many anti-Catholics used these issues as a cover for their religious prejudices, Smith’s campaign had difficulty denouncing anti-Catholicism as bigotry without offending others who favored Prohibition or disliked Tammany’s corruption.[18]

text: Due to these issues, Smith lost several states of the Solid South that had been carried by Democrats since Reconstruction.[21] However, in many southern states with sizable African American populations (and where the vast majority of African Americans could not vote at the time), many believed that Hoover supported integration, or at least was not committed to maintaining segregation, which in turn overcame opposition to Smith’s campaign. During the campaign, Mississippi Governor Theodore G. Bilbo claimed that Hoover had met with a black member of the Republican National Committee and danced with her. Hoover’s campaign quickly denied the "untruthful and ignoble assertion".[22]

text: Smith’s religion helped him with Roman Catholic New England immigrants (especially Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans), which may explain his narrow victories in traditionally Republican Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as his narrow loss in his home state of New York, where previous Democratic presidential candidates lost by double digits, but which Smith only lost by two percent.[23]

text: Results[edit]

text: The total vote exceeded that of 1924 by nearly eight million. It was nearly twice the vote cast in 1916 and nearly three times that of 1896. Every section in the Union increased its vote, the Mountain, East South Central and West South Central sections least of all. The greatest increases were in the heavily populated (Northeastern) Mid-Atlantic and East North Central sections, where more than 4,250,000 more votes were cast, more than half of the nationwide increase. There was an increase of over a million each in New York and Pennsylvania.[25]

text: Hoover won the election by a wide margin on pledges to continue the economic boom of the Coolidge years. He received more votes than any candidate of the Republican Party previously had in every state except five: Rhode Island, Iowa, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Tennessee.[26] The Hoover vote was greater than the Coolidge vote in 2,932 counties; it was less in 143 of the comparable counties.[27] The 21,400,000 votes cast for Hoover also touched the high-water mark for all votes for a presidential candidate up to that time and were an increase of more than 5,500,000 over the Coolidge vote four years earlier.[2] The Republican ticket made substantial inroads in the South: the heaviest Democratic losses were in the three Southern sections (South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central). These losses included 215 counties that had never before supported a Republican presidential candidate, distributed as follows: Alabama (14), Arkansas (5), Florida (22), Georgia (4), Kentucky (28), Maryland (3), Mississippi (1), Missouri (10), North Carolina (16), Tennessee (3), Texas (64), Virginia (26), West Virginia (4). In Georgia, eight counties recorded more votes cast for “anti-Smith” electors than either of the two-party candidates,[25] while one county in Wyoming had no recorded votes.

text: The electoral votes of North Carolina and Virginia had not been awarded to a Republican since 1872, while Florida had not been carried by a Republican since the heavily disputed election of 1876. Texas was carried by a Republican for the first time in its history, leaving Georgia as the only remaining state never carried by a Republican presidential candidate. Georgia was eventually won by Barry Goldwater in 1964. In all, Smith carried only six of the eleven states of the former Confederacy, the lowest number carried by a Democratic candidate since the end of Reconstruction.

text: Smith polled more votes than any previous Democratic candidate in thirty of the 48 states, all but Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. In only four of these (Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico) did Smith receive fewer votes than Davis had in 1924.[25]

text: Smith received nearly as many votes as Coolidge had in 1924, and his vote exceeded Davis’s by more than six and half million.[25] The Democratic vote was greater than in 1924 in 2,080 counties; it fell off in 997 counties. In only one section did the Democratic vote drop below 38%, and that was the Pacific section, the only one in which the Republican percentage exceeded 60%. But the Democrats made gains in five sections. Of these counties, fourteen had never been Democratic and seven had been Democratic only once. The size and the nature of the distribution of the Democratic vote illustrates Smith’s strengths and weaknesses as a candidate. Despite evidence of an increased Democratic vote, Smith’s overwhelming defeat in the electoral college and the retention of so few Democratic counties reflected Hoover’s greater appeal. Smith won the electoral votes of only the Deep Southern States of the Democratic Solid South (plus Robinson’s home state of Arkansas) and the New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which had a large proportion of Catholic voters. His 87 electoral votes were the fewest a Democratic candidate had won since the 80 votes earned by Horatio Seymour in 1868 (not counting Horace Greeley in 1872, who was endorsed by the Democratic Party, but ran as a Liberal Republican). Hoover even triumphed by a narrow margin in Smith’s home state of New York. Smith carried 914 counties, the fewest in the Fourth Party System. The Republican total leaped to 2,174 counties, a greater number than in the great overturn of 1920.[25]

text: Third-party support sank almost to the vanishing point, as the election of 1928 proved to be a two-party contest to a greater extent than any other in the Fourth Party System. Until the major split before the 1948 election in the Democratic Party between Southern Democrats and the more liberal Northern faction, no further significant third-party candidacies as seen in 1912 and 1924 were to occur. All “other” votes totaled only 1.08 percent of the national popular vote. The Socialist vote sank to 267,478, and in seven states there were no Socialist votes.[25]

text: This was the last election in which the Republicans won North Carolina until 1968, the last when they won Kentucky and West Virginia until 1956, the last when they won Arizona, California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington until 1952, the last when they won Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Oregon until 1948, the last when they won Ohio, Wisconsin, and Wyoming until 1944, and the last when they won Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota until 1940. As of 2016 it remains the last election when the Republican candidate carried the three contiguous counties of Saint Louis County, Minnesota, Carlton County, Minnesota and Douglas County, Wisconsin, and the last until Donald Trump in 2016 when the Republicans carried neighboring Itasca County, Minnesota, Columbia County, Oregon or Grays Harbor County, Washington.[28] It is also the last occasion when Wayne County, Michigan supported a Republican candidate and the only occasion since 1908 when Republicans have carried Orange County, North Carolina.[28]

text:
Presidential candidate
Party
Home state
Popular vote
Electoral
vote
Running mate

Count
Percentage
Vice-presidential candidate
Home state
Electoral vote

Herbert Hoover
Republican
California
21,427,123
58.21%
444
Charles Curtis
Kansas
444

Al Smith
Democratic
New York
15,015,464
40.80%
87
Joseph Taylor Robinson
Arkansas
87

Norman Thomas
Socialist
New York
267,478
0.73%
0
James H. Maurer
Pennsylvania
0

William Z. Foster
Communist
Massachusetts
48,551
0.13%
0
Benjamin Gitlow
New York
0

Verne L. Reynolds
Socialist Labor
Michigan
21,590
0.06%
0
Jeremiah D. Crowley
New York
0

William F. Varney
Prohibition
New York
20,095
0.05%
0
James Edgerton
Virginia
0

Frank Webb
Farmer-Labor
California
6,390
0.02%
0
LeRoy R. Tillman
Georgia
0

Other
321
0.00%
—
Other
—

Total
36,807,012
100%
531

531

Needed to win
266

266

text: Source (Popular Vote): Leip, David. "1928 Presidential Election Results". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved July 28, 2005.

text: Source (Electoral Vote): "Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved July 28, 2005.

text:
Popular vote

Hoover

58.21%

Smith

40.80%

Thomas

0.73%

Others

0.26%

text:
Electoral vote

Hoover

83.62%

Smith

16.38%

text: Geography of results[edit]

text: Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote

text: Cartographic gallery[edit]

text:
Map of presidential election results by county

Map of Republican presidential election results by county

Map of Democratic presidential election results by county

Map of "other" presidential election results by county

Cartogram of presidential election results by county

Cartogram of Republican presidential election results by county

Cartogram of Democratic presidential election results by county

Cartogram of "other" presidential election results by county

text: Results by state[edit]

text:
States won by Hoover/Curtis

States won by Smith/Robinson

text:
Herbert Hoover
Republican
Alfred E. Smith
Democratic
Norman Thomas
Socialist
William Foster
Communist
Verne Reynolds
Socialist Labor
Margin
State Total

State
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
electoral
votes
#
 %
#

Alabama
12
120,725
48.49
-
127,797
51.33
12
460
0.18
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-7,072
-2.84
248,982
AL

Arizona
3
52,533
57.57
3
38,537
42.23
-
-
-
-
184
0.20
-
-
-
-
13,996
15.34
91,254
AZ

Arkansas
9
77,751
39.33
-
119,196
60.29
9
429
0.22
-
317
0.16
-
-
-
-
-41,445
-20.96
197,693
AR

California
13
1,162,323
64.69
13
614,365
34.19
-
19,595
1.09
-
112
0.01
-
-
-
-
547,958
30.50
1,796,656
CA

Colorado
6
253,872
64.72
6
133,131
33.94
-
3,472
0.89
-
675
0.17
-
-
-
-
120,741
30.78
392,242
CO

Connecticut
7
296,614
53.63
7
252,040
45.57
-
3,019
0.55
-
730
0.13
-
622
0.11
-
44,574
8.06
553,031
CT

Delaware
3
68,860
65.03
3
36,643
34.60
-
329
0.31
-
59
0.06
-
-
-
-
32,217
30.42
105,891
DE

Florida
6
144,168
56.83
6
101,764
40.12
-
4,036
1.59
-
3,704
1.46
-
-
-
-
42,404
16.72
253,672
FL

Georgia
14
99,369
43.36
-
129,602
56.56
14
124
0.05
-
64
0.03
-
-
-
-
-30,233
-13.19
229,159
GA

Idaho
4
97,322
64.22
4
52,926
34.93
-
1,293
0.85
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
44,396
29.30
151,541
ID

Illinois
29
1,769,141
56.93
29
1,313,817
42.28
-
19,138
0.62
-
3,581
0.12
-
1,812
0.06
-
455,324
14.65
3,107,489
IL

Indiana
15
848,290
59.68
15
562,691
39.59
-
3,871
0.27
-
321
0.02
-
645
0.05
-
285,599
20.09
1,421,314
IN

Iowa
13
623,570
61.77
13
379,311
37.57
-
2,960
0.29
-
328
0.03
-
230
0.02
-
244,259
24.20
1,009,489
IA

Kansas
10
513,672
72.02
10
193,003
27.06
-
6,205
0.87
-
320
0.04
-
-
-
-
320,669
44.96
713,200
KS

Kentucky
13
558,064
59.33
13
381,070
40.51
-
837
0.09
-
293
0.03
-
340
0.04
-
176,994
18.82
940,604
KY

Louisiana
10
51,160
23.70
-
164,655
76.29
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-113,495
-52.58
215,833
LA

Maine
6
179,923
68.63
6
81,179
30.96
-
1,068
0.41
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
98,744
37.66
262,171
ME

Maryland
8
301,479
57.06
8
223,626
42.33
-
1,701
0.32
-
636
0.12
-
906
0.17
-
77,853
14.74
528,348
MD

Massachusetts
18
775,566
49.15
-
792,758
50.24
18
6,262
0.40
-
2,461
0.16
-
772
0.05
-
-17,192
-1.09
1,577,823
MA

Michigan
15
965,396
70.36
15
396,762
28.92
-
3,516
0.26
-
2,881
0.21
-
799
0.06
-
568,634
41.44
1,372,082
MI

Minnesota
12
560,977
57.77
12
396,451
40.83
-
6,774
0.70
-
4,853
0.50
-
1,921
0.20
-
164,526
16.94
970,976
MN

Mississippi
10
27,153
17.90
-
124,539
82.10
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-97,386
-64.20
151,692
MS

Missouri
18
834,080
55.58
18
662,562
44.15
-
3,739
0.25
-
-
-
-
340
0.02
-
171,518
11.43
1,500,721
MO

Montana
4
113,300
58.37
4
78,578
40.48
-
1,667
0.86
-
563
0.29
-
-
-
-
34,722
17.89
194,108
MT

Nebraska
8
345,745
63.19
8
197,959
36.18
-
3,434
0.63
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
147,786
27.01
547,144
NE

Nevada
3
18,327
56.54
3
14,090
43.46
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4,237
13.07
32,417
NV

New Hampshire
4
115,404
58.65
4
80,715
41.02
-
465
0.24
-
173
0.09
-
-
-
-
34,689
17.63
196,757
NH

New Jersey
14
925,285
59.77
14
616,162
39.80
-
4,866
0.31
-
1,240
0.08
-
488
0.03
-
309,123
19.97
1,548,195
NJ

New Mexico
3
69,645
59.01
3
48,211
40.85
-
-
-
-
158
0.13
-
-
-
-
21,434
18.16
118,014
NM

New York
45
2,193,344
49.79
45
2,089,863
47.44
-
107,332
2.44
-
10,876
0.25
-
4,211
0.10
-
103,481
2.35
4,405,626
NY

North Carolina
12
348,923
54.94
12
286,227
45.06
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
62,696
9.87
635,150
NC

North Dakota
5
131,441
54.80
5
106,648
44.46
-
936
0.39
-
842
0.35
-
-
-
-
24,793
10.34
239,867
ND

Ohio
24
1,627,546
64.89
24
864,210
34.45
-
8,683
0.35
-
2,836
0.11
-
1,515
0.06
-
763,336
30.43
2,508,346
OH

Oklahoma
10
394,046
63.72
10
219,174
35.44
-
3,924
0.63
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
174,872
28.28
618,427
OK

Oregon
5
205,341
64.18
5
109,223
34.14
-
2,720
0.85
-
1,094
0.34
-
1,564
0.49
-
96,118
30.04
319,942
OR

Pennsylvania
38
2,055,382
65.24
38
1,067,586
33.89
-
18,647
0.59
-
4,726
0.15
-
380
0.01
-
987,796
31.35
3,150,610
PA

Rhode Island
5
117,522
49.55
-
118,973
50.16
5
-
-
-
283
0.12
-
416
0.18
-
-1,451
-0.61
237,194
RI

South Carolina
9
5,858
8.54
-
62,700
91.39
9
47
0.07
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-56,842
-82.85
68,605
SC

South Dakota
5
157,603
60.18
5
102,660
39.20
-
443
0.17
-
232
0.09
-
-
-
-
54,943
20.98
261,865
SD

Tennessee
12
195,388
53.76
12
167,343
46.04
-
631
0.17
-
111
0.03
-
-
-
-
28,045
7.72
363,473
TN

Texas
20
367,036
51.77
20
341,032
48.10
-
722
0.10
-
209
0.03
-
-
-
-
26,004
3.67
708,999
TX

Utah
4
94,618
53.58
4
80,985
45.86
-
954
0.54
-
46
0.03
-
-
-
-
13,633
7.72
176,603
UT

Vermont
4
90,404
66.87
4
44,440
32.87
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45,964
34.00
135,191
VT

Virginia
12
164,609
53.91
12
140,146
45.90
-
250
0.08
-
173
0.06
-
180
0.06
-
24,463
8.01
305,358
VA

Washington
7
335,844
67.06
7
156,772
31.30
-
2,615
0.52
-
1,541
0.31
-
4,068
0.81
-
179,072
35.75
500,840
WA

West Virginia
8
375,551
58.43
8
263,784
41.04
-
1,313
0.20
-
401
0.06
-
-
-
-
111,767
17.39
642,752
WV

Wisconsin
13
544,205
53.52
13
450,259
44.28
-
18,213
1.79
-
1,528
0.15
-
381
0.04
-
93,946
9.24
1,016,831
WI

Wyoming
3
52,748
63.68
3
29,299
35.37
-
788
0.95
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23,449
28.31
82,835
WY

TOTALS:
531
21,427,123
58.21
444
15,015,464
40.80
87
267,478
0.73
-
48,551
0.13
-
21,590
0.06
-
6,411,659
17.42
36,807,012
US

text: Close states[edit]

text: Margin of victory less than 1% (5 electoral votes):

text: Rhode Island, 0.61%

tag: ol

text: Margin of victory less than 5% (95 electoral votes):

text:
Massachusetts, 1.09%
New York, 2.35%
Alabama, 2.84%
Texas, 3.67%

text: Margin of victory between 5% and 10% (60 electoral votes):

text:
Utah, 7.72%
Tennessee, 7.72%
Virginia, 8.01%
Connecticut, 8.06%
Wisconsin, 9.24%
North Carolina, 9.87%

text: Statistics[edit]

text: Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Republican)

text:
Jackson County, Kentucky 96.52%
Leslie County, Kentucky 94.51%
Alpine County, California 94.23%
Johnson County, Tennessee 93.74%
Sevier County, Tennessee 92.57%

text: Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Democratic)

text:
Jackson Parish, Louisiana 100.00%
Armstrong County, South Dakota 100.00%
Humphreys County, Mississippi 99.90%
Edgefield County, South Carolina 99.67%
Bamberg County, South Carolina 99.49%

text: Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Other)

text:
Alachua County, Florida 62.63%
Appling County, Georgia 58.25%
Long County, Georgia 57.32%
Decatur County, Georgia 46.03%
Jefferson County, Georgia 43.67%


document_title: Mongol invasion of Rus'

question_text: who led the mongols into russia and conquered kiev

text: Mongol invasion of Rus'

text: Background[edit]

text: As it was undergoing fragmentation, Kievan Rus' faced the unexpected eruption of an irresistible foreign foe coming from the mysterious regions of the Far East. "For our sins", writes the Rus' chronicler of the time, "unknown nations arrived. No one knew their origin or whence they came, or what religion they practiced. That is known only to God, and perhaps to wise men learned in books".[5]

text: The princes of Rus' first heard of the coming Mongol warriors from the nomadic Cumans. Previously known for pillaging settlers on the frontier, the nomads now preferred peaceful relations, warning their neighbors: "These terrible strangers have taken our country, and tomorrow they will take yours if you do not come and help us". In response to this call, Mstislav the Bold and Mstislav Romanovich the Old joined forces and set out eastward to meet the foe, only to be routed on April 1, 1223 at the Battle of the Kalka River.

text: Although this defeat left the Rus' principalities at the mercy of invaders, the Mongol forces retreated and did not reappear for thirteen years, during which time the princes of Rus' went on quarreling and fighting as before, until they were startled by a new and much more formidable invading force. In the Secret History of the Mongols, the only reference to this early battle is:

text: "Then he (Chinghis Khan) sent Dorbei the Fierce off against the city of Merv, and on to conquer the people between Iraq and the Indus. He sent Subetei the Brave off to war in the North where he defeated eleven kingdoms and tribes, crossing the Volga and Ural Rivers, finally going to war with Kiev."

text: Invasion of Batu Khan[edit]

text: The vast Mongol hordes of around 35,000 mounted archers, commanded by Batu Khan and Subutai, crossed the Volga River and invaded Volga Bulgaria in late 1236. It took them a year to extinguish the resistance of the Volga Bulgarians, the Cumans-Kipchaks, and the Alani.

text: In November 1237, Batu Khan sent his envoys to the court of Yuri II of Vladimir and demanded his submission. A month later, the hordes besieged Ryazan. After six days of bloody battle, the city was totally annihilated. Alarmed by the news, Yuri II sent his sons to detain the invaders, but they were soundly defeated. Having burnt down Kolomna and Moscow, the horde laid siege to Vladimir on February 4, 1238. Three days later, the capital of Vladimir-Suzdal was taken and burnt to the ground. The royal family perished in the fire, while the grand prince retreated northward. Crossing the Volga, he mustered a new army, which was encircled and totally annihilated by the Mongols in the Battle of the Sit River on March 4.

text: Thereupon Batu Khan divided his army into smaller units, which ransacked fourteen cities of modern-day Russia: Rostov, Uglich, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kashin, Ksnyatin, Gorodets, Galich, Pereslavl-Zalessky, Yuriev-Polsky, Dmitrov, Volokolamsk, Tver, and Torzhok. Chinese siege engines were used by the Mongols under Tului to raze the walls of Russian cities.[6] The most difficult to take was the small town of Kozelsk, whose boy-prince Vasily, son of Titus, and inhabitants resisted the Mongols for seven weeks, killing 4,000. As the story goes, at the news of the Mongol approach, the whole town of Kitezh with all its inhabitants was submerged into a lake, where, as legend has it, it may be seen to this day. The only major cities to escape destruction were Novgorod and Pskov. The Mongols planned to advance on Novgorod, but the principality was spared the fate of its brethren by the wise decision to preemptively surrender.[7]

text: In mid-1238, Batu Khan devastated the Crimea and pacified Mordovia. In the winter of 1239, he sacked Chernigov and Pereyaslav. After many days of siege, the horde stormed Kiev in December 1240. Despite the resistance of Danylo of Halych, Batu Khan managed to take two of his principal cities, Halych and Volodymyr-Volynskyi. The Mongols then resolved to "reach the ultimate sea", where they could proceed no further, and invaded Hungary and Poland.

text: Age of Tatar rule[edit]

text: This time the invaders came to stay, and they built for themselves a capital, called Sarai, on the lower Volga. Here the commander of the Golden Horde, as the western section of the Mongol empire was called, fixed his golden headquarters and represented his sovereign the grand khan who lived with the Great Horde in the Orkhon Valley. Here they had their headquarters and held parts of Rus' in subjection for nearly three centuries. All of the Russian states, including Novgorod, Smolensk, Galich, and Pskov, submitted to the Tatar-Mongol rule.[8]

text: The term by which this subjection is commonly designated, the Mongol or Tatar "yoke", suggests terrible oppression, but in reality these nomadic invaders from Mongolia were not such cruel, oppressive taskmasters.[9] In the first place, they never settled in the country, and they had little direct dealing with the inhabitants. In accordance with the admonitions of Genghis Khan to his children and grandchildren, they retained their pastoral mode of life, so that the subject races, agriculturists, and dwellers in towns were not disturbed in their ordinary avocations. Golden Horde instituted census, taxes and tributes on the conquered lands, which were usually collected by local princes and brought to Sarai. It was only in the 14th and 15th centuries, with the rise of the Tatar khanates, that slave raids on the Slavic population became significant, with the purpose of trading slaves with the Ottoman Empire. The raids were an important drain of the human and economic resources of both Muscovy and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and they largely prevented the settlement of the "Wild Fields" – the steppe and forest-steppe land extending from about a hundred miles south of Moscow to the Black Sea – and they ultimately contributed to the development of the Cossacks.

text: In religious matters, the Mongols were extremely tolerant. When they first appeared in Europe, they were shamanists, and as such they had no religious fanaticism. After adopting Islam they remained as tolerant as before,[10] and the khan of the Golden Horde, who first became a Muslim, allowed the Rus' to found a Christian bishopric in his capital. Nogai Khan, half a century later, married a daughter of the Byzantine emperor, and gave his own daughter in marriage to a Rus' prince, Theodor the Black. Some modern revisionist Russian historians (most notably the Soviet era historian and "Neo-Eurasianist" ideologist Lev Gumilev) even postulate that there was no invasion at all. According to them, the Rus' princes concluded a defensive alliance with the Horde in order to repel attacks of the fanatical Teutonic Knights, which posed a much greater threat to the Rus' religion and culture.

text: These points represent the bright side of Tatar rule, but it also had its dark side. So long as a great horde of nomads was encamped on the frontier, the country was liable to be invaded by an overwhelming force. Fortunately, these invasions were not frequent, but when they occurred they caused an incalculable amount of devastation and suffering. In the intervals the people had to pay a fixed tribute. At first it was collected in a rough-and-ready fashion by Tatar tax-gatherers; by about 1259 it was regulated by a census of the population; and finally its collection was entrusted to the native princes, so the people were no longer brought into direct contact with the Tatar officials.

text: Impact on development[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

History of East Slavs

Middle Ages

Early East Slavs
Khazars
Rus' Khaganate
Kievan Rus'
Novgorod Republic
Vladimir-Suzdal
Galicia–Volhynia
Mongol invasion
Golden Horde
Grand Duchy of Lithuania
Grand Duchy of Moscow

Early Modern period

Tsardom of Russia
Cossack Hetmanate
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

Modern period

Russian Empire
Revolutions of 1917
Russian Civil War
Soviet Union

Post-Soviet states

Belarus
Russian Federation
Ukraine

History of states

History of Belarus
History of Russia
History of Ukraine

v
t
e

text: The influence of the Mongol invasion on the territories of Kievan Rus' was uneven. Colin McEvedy (Atlas of World Population History, 1978) estimates the population of Rusa dropped from 7.5 million prior to the invasion to 7 million afterwards.[2] Centers such as Kiev took centuries to rebuild and recover from the devastation of the initial attack. The Novgorod Republic continued to prosper, and new entities, the rival cities of Moscow and Tver, began to flourish under the Mongols. Moscow's eventual dominance of northern and eastern Rus' was in large part attributable to the Mongols. After the prince of Tver joined a rebellion against the Mongols in 1327, his rival prince Ivan I of Moscow joined the Mongols in crushing Tver and devastating its lands. By doing so he eliminated his rival, allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to move its headquarters to Moscow, and was granted the title of Grand Prince by the Mongols. As such, the Muscovite prince became the chief intermediary between the Mongol overlords and the Rus' lands, which paid further dividends for Moscow's rulers. While the Mongols often raided other areas of Rus', they tended to respect the lands controlled by their principal collaborator. This, in turn, attracted nobles and their servants who sought to settle in the relatively secure and peaceful Moscow lands.[11]

text: Although Rus' forces defeated the Golden Horde at the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, Mongol domination of parts of Rus' territories, with the requisite demands of tribute, continued until the Great stand on the Ugra river in 1480.

text: Historians argued[by whom?] that without the Mongol destruction of Kievan Rus', the Rus' would not have unified into the Tsardom of Russia and, subsequently, the Russian Empire would not have risen. Trade routes with the East went through Rus' territory, making them a center of trade between east and west. Mongol influence, while destructive to their enemies, had a significant long-term effect on the rise of modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.[12]

text: Influence on Rus' society[edit]

text: Historians have debated the long-term influence of Mongol rule on Rus' society. The Mongols have been blamed for the destruction of Kievan Rus', the breakup of the ancient Rus' nationality into three components, and the introduction of the concept of "oriental despotism" into Russia.[citation needed] Historians also credit the Mongol regime with an important role in the development of Muscovy as a state. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its mestnichestvo hierarchy, postal road network (based on Mongolian ortoo system, known in Russian as "yam", hence the terms yamshchik, Yamskoy Prikaz, etc.), census, fiscal system, and military organization.[13]

text: The period of Mongol rule over Russia included significant cultural and interpersonal contacts between the Russian and Mongolian ruling classes. By 1450, the Tatar language had become fashionable in the court of the Grand Prince of Moscow, Vasily II, who was accused of excessive love of the Tatars and their speech, and many Russian noblemen adopted Tatar surnames (for example, a member of the Veliamanov family adopted the Turkic name "Aksak" and his descendents were the Aksakovs)[14] Many Russian boyar (noble) families traced their descent from the Mongols or Tatars, including Veliaminov-Zernov, Godunov, Arseniev, Bakhmetev, Bulgakov (descendents of Bulgak), and Chaadaev (descendents of Genghis Khan's son Chagatai Khan). In a survey of Russian noble families of the 17th century, over 15% of the Russian noble families had Tatar or Oriental origins.[15]

text: The Mongols brought about changes in the economic power of states and overall trade. In the religious sphere, St. Paphnutius of Borovsk was the grandson of a Mongol baskak, or tax collector, while a nephew of Khan Bergai of the Golden Horde converted to Christianity and became known as the monk St. Peter Tsarevich of the Horde.[16] In the judicial sphere, under Mongol influence capital punishment, which during the times of Kievan Rus' had only been applied to slaves, became widespread, and the use of torture became a regular part of criminal procedure. Specific punishments introduced in Moscow included beheading for alleged traitors and branding of thieves (with execution for a third arrest).[17]