With Al Smith gone the next should be William Henry Harrison,he is the definition of neutral out of everyone in this ranking,WHH is the only man who we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what his policies would’ve been,cause when he finally became president in 1841,he pulled a uno card on the nation and died a month later,leaving the nation with John Tyler
From what he’s said in speeches, he was in favor of transitioning the presidency to be secondary to the legislature akin to a parliamentary style of government where Henry Clay would be the de facto leader of the country. Part of the reason Tyler was ousted by the Whigs is that he refused to go along with it.
**Bob Dole**, ineffective and lackluster campaign, and likely a very mediocre president. Basically focused on rolling back some of the reforms Clinton made and stopping investment. He’s a nice guy but there’s no doubt that he would have been quite average.
Why Dole instead of McCain? I know Dole didn't run the greatest of campaigns, but even before he picked Palin as his running mate, McCain was terrible in 2008 and would have likely been an awful president if elected, due to his war hawk and corporatist tendencies (as someone who leans right, I consider him possibly the worst Republican nominee since Barry Goldwater, he just was so out of touch even with numerous members of his own party).
McCain wasn't a terrible nominee, nor was he out of touch with the mood of the party at the time (the angry-bitter-losers version of the GOP hadn't formed yet - we were still a pro-corporate, interventionist party (and better for it)).
He was just so severely outmatched that he never had a chance, especially with the economic conditions.
People act like Debs would've been completely stonewalled by Congress, but if Wilson or Roosevelt could've passed some of the progressive reforms they did, I have no doubts that Debs would've been able to *at least* pass a watered-down version of his agenda.
Again, **Gerald Ford, 1976**
Ford is overdue at this point. Perhaps the biggest reason is his pardon of Nixon. One thing I despise is the logic of "the county needed to move on." The best way for the country to move on was to prosecute those responsible and involved in watergate, and Ford's failure to grasp this really should help my case. Ford also wasn't visionary, and his administration wasn't very good, since he was seen as more of a "caretaker" president than an actual president. His 1976 campaign was also nowhere near as good as Jimmy Carter's, as it was racked with several problems. Overall, I think Gerald Ford has been on here for long enough.
Not a big Gerald Ford fan . . . but he wasn't TOO bad a president and he ran a good campaign - one of the only times, if not the only time, the losing candidate won more states (27-23) than the winner. I think he should stay on a little longer :)
They both had issues but how was his campaign “nowhere near as good” as Carter’s? After the July DNC Carter had a pretty massive 30+ point lead on Ford, which continually narrowed to a near-tie all the way up until Election Day
Everyone knows about Ford’s USSR gaffe which stalled his momentum at a critical time (and likely cost him the election), but Carter also had the Playboy Interview blunder which essentially torpedoed his lead and likewise almost cost him the election — something he’s said himself
For all his missteps Ford came pretty close to winning (0.27 and 1.68 swing in Ohio and Wisconsin respectively), and had the closest electoral vote in 60 years. For starting on such poor footing, Ford had one of the better *losing* campaigns in modern memory
“There is no soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there will never be under a Ford administration” that line right there sealed his fate
Edit:There’s like footage online and the funniest thing is seeing Carter’s reaction,he does not say anything but you can read on his face he has a million different thoughts at the moment
I once again nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Same reason as before. While domestically he would have been good, but half way through his term World War 1 starts and between the 3 major candidates Roosevelt would have been the worst war time leader. The US would have joined way earlier and participated in most of the really bloody fights of the Western front. The Somme probably becomes an Anglo-American offensive. Also let's not forget that the public was already isolationist, but in this timeline the sentiment would have been way stronger because of the unpopular war. And also his Vice President Hiram Johnson was an ardent isolationist and probably resigns and cost TR support on the west coast.
I’m going to piss the Clay stans off but, Henry Clay 1832
Henry Clay’s campaign was essentially built on completely rejecting Jackson’s proposals of compromising on the Bank issue to make it a partisan hack issue, which would of course lead to Jackson going on a revenge-fueled crusade against the Bank that would precipitate one of the worst depressions in U.S. history.
This is not to deny Jackson had agency in choosing to destroy the Bank, but Clay’s campaign was fundamentally built around the idea that sowed the seeds of the death of the bank: defending it like a partisan hack with no interest in compromise.
John Sidney McCain III, wanted to stay in Iraq forever and sang about bombing Iran.
The only thing that this subreddit seems to view negativity about him is his running mate choice though.
We did end up staying in Iraq forever though (despite Obama's attempt at withdrawal, there are still US forces in Iraq to this day) - and as a result have achieved all of our 2003 objectives, 'winning' the war insofar as such a thing is possible.
Had McCain's Iraq policy been enacted, there never would have been an ISIS - AQI would have stayed destroyed, as the 2011 withdrawal never would have happened (and that's what allowed them to regroup and become ISIS, requiring the 2014 return).
That said, he never had a chance...
Martin Van Buren, 1848. Denied the Democratic Party nomination by Lewis Cass, MVB accepted the nomination of the Free Soil Party, knowing he had no chance to win but wanting to split the Democratic vote to ensure Taylor's election.
With Al Smith gone the next should be William Henry Harrison,he is the definition of neutral out of everyone in this ranking,WHH is the only man who we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what his policies would’ve been,cause when he finally became president in 1841,he pulled a uno card on the nation and died a month later,leaving the nation with John Tyler
From what he’s said in speeches, he was in favor of transitioning the presidency to be secondary to the legislature akin to a parliamentary style of government where Henry Clay would be the de facto leader of the country. Part of the reason Tyler was ousted by the Whigs is that he refused to go along with it.
Death is not a very good policy if you’re a president. All I know is I’m not gonna vote for Harrison in this upcoming election.
Not sure why Dewey is on there. Pretty sure he defeated Truman
But did Dewey defeat FDR in 1944? 🤨
**Bob Dole**, ineffective and lackluster campaign, and likely a very mediocre president. Basically focused on rolling back some of the reforms Clinton made and stopping investment. He’s a nice guy but there’s no doubt that he would have been quite average.
Why Dole instead of McCain? I know Dole didn't run the greatest of campaigns, but even before he picked Palin as his running mate, McCain was terrible in 2008 and would have likely been an awful president if elected, due to his war hawk and corporatist tendencies (as someone who leans right, I consider him possibly the worst Republican nominee since Barry Goldwater, he just was so out of touch even with numerous members of his own party).
McCain wasn't a terrible nominee, nor was he out of touch with the mood of the party at the time (the angry-bitter-losers version of the GOP hadn't formed yet - we were still a pro-corporate, interventionist party (and better for it)). He was just so severely outmatched that he never had a chance, especially with the economic conditions.
Can we stop nominating people based on campaigns and nominate them based on they'd do as President?
I can't understand how Eugene Debs and Adlai Stevenson got chucked when people like Ford and Bob Dole are still here.
People act like Debs would've been completely stonewalled by Congress, but if Wilson or Roosevelt could've passed some of the progressive reforms they did, I have no doubts that Debs would've been able to *at least* pass a watered-down version of his agenda.
I think it's getting close to time for Dewey
‘92’s Perot’s clock is ticking.
Again, **Gerald Ford, 1976** Ford is overdue at this point. Perhaps the biggest reason is his pardon of Nixon. One thing I despise is the logic of "the county needed to move on." The best way for the country to move on was to prosecute those responsible and involved in watergate, and Ford's failure to grasp this really should help my case. Ford also wasn't visionary, and his administration wasn't very good, since he was seen as more of a "caretaker" president than an actual president. His 1976 campaign was also nowhere near as good as Jimmy Carter's, as it was racked with several problems. Overall, I think Gerald Ford has been on here for long enough.
Not a big Gerald Ford fan . . . but he wasn't TOO bad a president and he ran a good campaign - one of the only times, if not the only time, the losing candidate won more states (27-23) than the winner. I think he should stay on a little longer :)
They both had issues but how was his campaign “nowhere near as good” as Carter’s? After the July DNC Carter had a pretty massive 30+ point lead on Ford, which continually narrowed to a near-tie all the way up until Election Day Everyone knows about Ford’s USSR gaffe which stalled his momentum at a critical time (and likely cost him the election), but Carter also had the Playboy Interview blunder which essentially torpedoed his lead and likewise almost cost him the election — something he’s said himself For all his missteps Ford came pretty close to winning (0.27 and 1.68 swing in Ohio and Wisconsin respectively), and had the closest electoral vote in 60 years. For starting on such poor footing, Ford had one of the better *losing* campaigns in modern memory
“There is no soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there will never be under a Ford administration” that line right there sealed his fate Edit:There’s like footage online and the funniest thing is seeing Carter’s reaction,he does not say anything but you can read on his face he has a million different thoughts at the moment
Yes, take him out!
Dewey. For the hubris.
I once again nominate Theodore Roosevelt. Same reason as before. While domestically he would have been good, but half way through his term World War 1 starts and between the 3 major candidates Roosevelt would have been the worst war time leader. The US would have joined way earlier and participated in most of the really bloody fights of the Western front. The Somme probably becomes an Anglo-American offensive. Also let's not forget that the public was already isolationist, but in this timeline the sentiment would have been way stronger because of the unpopular war. And also his Vice President Hiram Johnson was an ardent isolationist and probably resigns and cost TR support on the west coast.
I’m going to piss the Clay stans off but, Henry Clay 1832 Henry Clay’s campaign was essentially built on completely rejecting Jackson’s proposals of compromising on the Bank issue to make it a partisan hack issue, which would of course lead to Jackson going on a revenge-fueled crusade against the Bank that would precipitate one of the worst depressions in U.S. history. This is not to deny Jackson had agency in choosing to destroy the Bank, but Clay’s campaign was fundamentally built around the idea that sowed the seeds of the death of the bank: defending it like a partisan hack with no interest in compromise.
But why compromise with ignorant stupidity? Some things just shouldn't be done, in any form....
Walter Mondale should’ve been gone a long time ago
No
Absolutely not
John Sidney McCain III, wanted to stay in Iraq forever and sang about bombing Iran. The only thing that this subreddit seems to view negativity about him is his running mate choice though.
We did end up staying in Iraq forever though (despite Obama's attempt at withdrawal, there are still US forces in Iraq to this day) - and as a result have achieved all of our 2003 objectives, 'winning' the war insofar as such a thing is possible. Had McCain's Iraq policy been enacted, there never would have been an ISIS - AQI would have stayed destroyed, as the 2011 withdrawal never would have happened (and that's what allowed them to regroup and become ISIS, requiring the 2014 return). That said, he never had a chance...
William Jennings Bryan 1900, time to finish him off.
Why is John McCain still here? Seriously, he’s a Warhawk and picked Palin as his running mate. It would have been a disaster if he won over Obama
Romney in ‘12
Not Al!
Martin Van Buren, 1848. Denied the Democratic Party nomination by Lewis Cass, MVB accepted the nomination of the Free Soil Party, knowing he had no chance to win but wanting to split the Democratic vote to ensure Taylor's election.
Dewey. That 1944 photo looks like Al Capone’s mugshot.
What is rule 3?
Check the rules bit of the About section of this sub, if this is genuinely your first time
No discussion of the 2020/2024 candidates.
How does Perot not get double-eliminated? It's not like there were any real differences between his 2 runs....
John McCain Warhawk Imperialist Loves carpet bombing poor people. His Daughter. Sarah Palin was his running mate. He was a Absolute ghoul.
Ima nominate dewey 1944 dude had no chance of winning against fdr
We’re nominating candidates by chances of winning now? Why not rank them by their platforms or political records
True
What is rule 3 ?
As I also said to spookingeveryday - check the rules bit of the About section of this sub, if this is genuinely your first time
Nah im good