[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Alf Landon.jpg (61 KB, 517x759)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
What were the absolute worst presidential candidates in US history?
>>
William Jennings Bryan
Eugene Debs
>>
Ronald Reagan
Barry Goldwater
>>
define worst
>>
Hillary R. Clinton
>>
Horace Greenley

>guy who had spent many years relentlessly attacking Democrats and all of their policies
>was a charter member of the Republican Party and possibly even gave it its name
>is now the Democrat candidate for president
>my brain is full of billions and billions of fuck
>Greenley was also an unstable, emotional character with many things he'd said or written in his newspaper over the years that could be turned against him
>Democrat enthusiasm rapidly waned once he got the nomination
>although Grant was unpopular due to the corruption of his administration, he had incumbent's advantage and the full support and funding of big business
>Greenley goes down to rapid defeat on election day, his wife dies, and he dies within a few weeks, before the electoral votes had been fully counted
>>
Thomas "If we sit and do absolutely nothing, we'll win" Dewey
>>
Donald Drumpf
>>
>>6462635
If we define "worst" as "should have done far better but completely shit the bed" then I'd nominate:

>Jeb Bush
(brother of a former president and son of another who spends an absurd amount to place sixth in iowa and fourth in new hampshire/south carolina)
>Hillary Clinton
(manages to fuck it up twice, first to a two-year Senator who had done nothing of note and second to a game show host)
>Henry Clay
(runs for president four times and fails each time)
>Thomas Dewey
(running against a historically unpopular Harry Truman and thinks he doesn't have to campaign after the conventions, ends up losing handily after limiting his public statements to feel-good public platitudes)
>Barry Goldwater
(literal autist who ran on a platform of starting a nuclear war)
>>
Walter Mondale. The Democrat pool for 84 was pretty much running on fumes to begin with, but choosing a guy associated with the failure of the previous administration was just asking for it. His ultimate blunder was saying "President Reagan and I will both raise taxes, but he will lie to you and claim he didn't. I'm going to come right out and tell you I will."

He momentarily looked like he had a shot in the second presidential debate when Reagan started to fall asleep, when a reporter questioned the president's age (73) and he replied "I have said before that I will not make age an issue in this campaign, in particular not my opponent's youthfulness and inexperience."

Watch the video of the debate and you can tell from the sheepish look on Mondale's face that he knew right then and there that he wasn't going to be president after all.
>>
>>6463268
Poor Henry Clay. Every time he ran for president, he got beaten either by Andrew Jackson or a guy endorsed by Andrew Jackson.
>>
>>6462635
Ross Perot
Mike Dukakis
>>
>>6463334
Perot never really wanted to be president, he was just trying to sabotage GHW Bush, whom he hated.
>>
>>6463277
Lol Mondale was right tho Reagan did raise taxes
>>
>>6462909
Wendell Willkie was this but in reverse, a lifelong Democrat that only joined the Republicans a year before his run against FDR, didn't even run in the primaries but was still chosen by the RNC, also an eccentric alcoholic who died before the end of his never-was first term.
>>
The 1804, 1808, 1812, and 1816 elections had vapor-tier Federalist candidates running that nobody remembers without looking it up and none of them got any votes outside New York/New England.
>>
>>6463268
Goldwater was based as fuck.
>>
>>6463393
Dewitt Clinton was plenty memorable and hardly a shit candidate in absolute terms (though the irony of a Federalist's best shot being a Dem-Rep turncoat was a bit strong)
>>
If Kennedy had lived, he'd be a one term president and Goldwater would have beaten him easily. He was deeply unpopular and as a poofter Northeasterner couldn't relate to heartland states.

His death essentially sealed Goldwater's fate. Granted, if Hitler himself had ran for president, he would have won just because people felt sorry for Kennedy, but LBJ as a Texan cut heavily into Goldwater's potential support base in the Midwest. Furthermore, unlike Kennedy, LBJ was an extremely dirty politician who would do anything to win an election (he was allegedly consulting with advisers about the presidential election while Kennedy's corpse was still warm).
>>
File: Untitled8.png (11 KB, 1051x161)
11 KB
11 KB PNG
>>6463432
>He was deeply unpopular and as a poofter Northeasterner couldn't relate to heartland states.
Kennedy had a high approval rating
>>
>>6462694
Bryan looks bad in modern contexts, but for him to be as popular as he was in those years was remarkable on its own, not to mention that he played a significant role in moving the nation towards central banking and away from the gold standard
>>6463160
Franklin Delano "If we give all our support to Soviets and let them conquer half the world, we'll win" Roosevelt
>>
>>6463432
>Kennedy the bootleggers son who used mob connections to win Illinois was a clean politician
LBJ is still a dirty sob ill give you that.
>>
Jefferson co-opting most Federalist positions was the death knell of the party but the finale that did them in for good was their antiwar Anglophile stance during the War of 1812 when New England literally talked of secession--back at that time, Massachusetts was considered more likely to secede from the union than the South.
>>
>>6463455
Jefferson didn't really "co-opt" anything, he just conceded a few points like the First Bank.
>>
>>6463451
>Bryan looks bad in modern contexts, but for him to be as popular as he was in those years was remarkable on its own, not to mention that he played a significant role in moving the nation towards central banking and away from the gold standard

Like many unsuccessful presidential hopefuls, he was a winner in the long run when his ideas started to be co-opted by reformers in both parties.
>>
It was more like once Jefferson got into the White House, he realized his dream of a loose confederation of states with small merchants and farmers was just that, and some kind of unified national government and financial system was necessary.
>>
>>6463348
He could have had a shot at deadlocking the EC if he didn't act like a complete lunatic and had consistent policy positions.
>>
>>6463474
The idea that Jefferson was 100% opposed to federal involvement is just some Chernow-tier memeing. His opposition to banking was on a level much more fundamental than that of state vs federal control. Also, his belief in the power of local distributed farmers and merchants held true when Lincoln finally signed the Homestead Acts that Jefferson envisioned.
>>
We'll never know how William Henry Harrison's presidency would have played out, although the circumstances around his election were bullshit.

>Whigs win simply by yelling that this old fuck who had never voted or publicly expressed any political views and owned a mansion with slaves lived in a log cabin and chopped his own firewood
>they refuse all Democrat entreaties to discuss any relevant political issues

They got away with it because there was no cable news in 1840 and you could sell people on this nonsense.
>>
>>6463505
Harrison was a congressman, senator, governor, and ambassador before he was elected president, he certainly had political views. It's true that his campaign was largely shallow populism, but it worked, so how does that make him a bad candidate other than him not knowing the limits of his health? And they were running against Van Buren, whose administration was a shitshow.
>>
James Blaine was pretty bad. The guy was the ultimate corrupt Washington insider/symbol of Republican complacency. Still, he could have won except that Democrats capitalized on a Catholic-baiting minister who spoke at a Blaine campaign rally, and he didn't know how to respond to it. The Irish all vote for Grover Cleveland instead, game over.

Blaine really didn't deserve to win anyway with the cheap smear campaign he ran against Cleveland, who anyway was probably the right guy for the times because people were tired of corrupt Republicans owned by big business.
>>
hillary clinton
>>
>>6463573
Her and Dewey proved the adage that "Nobody ever lost an election by being paranoid."
>>
>>6463567
Huh? Blaine led the Half-Breeds, and deserves a lot of credit for the downfall of Conkling as well as ensuring that Grant's third term run failed by releasing his delegates to Garfield. And then he went on to promote modernization of the US navy and prepare America towards its international shift in the coming decades.
>>
>>6463590
There are some similarities especially in how both had like 90% of the press behind them and were predicting victory months before election day. Both also lost to a guy who pursued an aggressively populist campaign.
>>
>>6463567
>Blaine really didn't deserve to win anyway with the cheap smear campaign he ran against Cleveland, who anyway was probably the right guy for the times because people were tired of corrupt Republicans owned by big business.

Thing is, other than Grant (who wasn't personally a crook, just an idiot who didn't know crooks when he saw them) none of the Republican presidents of the Gilded Age were actually involved in that shit. Two of them (Hayes and Arthur) were reformers who got chucked out by their own ungrateful party. Harrison also started many of the policies TR was lated credited for.
>>
>>6463630
Blaine vs Cleveland might have been the most win-win election in history. Though Hancock vs Garfield was pretty nice too.
>>
The 1920 election, because both candidates were bottom-feeder, but in the end Harding gave the American people what they wanted, which was an end to years of war/progressive policies. People were burned out on that shit and just wanted to go back to living their lives and getting rich. And to his credit, Harding did just that. He ended Wilson's police state and freed his political prisoners.
>>
>>6462715
>Reagan bad!
Why do zoomers pretend to hate Reagan so much?
>>
John Fremont, the "Pathfinder of the West" and the first man to run for president under the Republican ticket. An intellectual featherweight who had very poor political judgement, later on his record as a general in the Civil War was even worse.
>>
>>6463740
Because they've grown up in the age where retards like Bernie Sanders are considered heroes.
>>
>>6463334
>Mike Dukakis

Dukakis did have a number of things he could have capitalized on especially his successful tenure as Massachusetts governor which produced a booming economy, and his "American dream" story as the son of Greek immigrants. Having said that, he had next to no political judgement and fell into one trap after another.

>"If your wife was raped and murdered by Willie Horton, would you still oppose the death penalty?"
>"Uh....well...I...would..."

The tank fiasco was just the icing on the cake.
>>
>>6462635
Unironically Donald Trump. In terms of qualifications, policies, mental stability he ranks at the bottom.

At least among the major party candidates.
>>
>>6463886
more like Dyke Bukkakis lmao roasted
>>
>>6463903
>>>/tumblr/
>>
>>6463973
Fuck off nerd, your hero is shit.
>>
>>6463797
Fremont was based as fuck, a one-man filibuster and emancipator. America wasn't ready to handle someone as man as him.
>>
>>6463393
>following Aaron Burr's downfall, Jefferson selects NY governor George Clinton as his new vice president
>Jefferson had already hand-picked James Madison as his successor and cleverly reasoned that Clinton, who would be almost 70 on Election Day in 1808, would be too old to be considered a viable presidential candidate, thus ensuring Madison's victory
>Jefferson also played it safe by paying as little attention to Clinton as possible to avoid drawing any undesired attention to him
>when the presidential election came, Madison was easily nominated as the Democratic-Republican candidate
>the Federalists considered endorsing Clinton, but as Jefferson had anticipated, they concluded that his age was a liability and instead chose to reprise their 1804 ticket of Charles Pinckney and Rufus King, whom James Madison easily trounced at the ballot box (Clinton received a few electoral votes in his home state).
>>
>>6463353
And Hillary was right that le ebin $20/hour entry-level industrial jobs are never coming back, but only an idiot would ever admit something like that during an election. People want hope n change, not hard truths.
>>
John W. Davis. One newspaper editor remarked "We already know [Coolidge] is going to win, so why not just cancel the election and damn the Constitution."
>>
>>6464182
The Democrat nomination process in that election was a mess and Robert LaFollete stole potential votes from them.
>>
>>6463358
Willkie had no real message to run on other than "FDR is a dictator. No to three terms!" He didn't even reject the New Deal, saying he agreed with many of its tenants.
>>
>>6463432
lbj was a great president.
fuck kennedy for getting us involved in vietnam and escalating in vietnam so lbj couldn't pull out without coming off like a pussy.

truman was great, integrated the military, and nuked the japs
>>
File: download.jpg (166 KB, 1160x629)
166 KB
166 KB JPG
>>6463886
Why was the tank such a big deal? am I missing something (apart from some braincells)?
>>
>>6463321
>1824
Several regional candidates including Clay run for president. The election goes into the House of Representatives where Clay endorses John Quincy Adams, allowing him victory.
>1832
Jackson has incumbent's advantage and wins reelection easily.
>1836
Whigs run several regional candidates hoping to deny Van Buren a majority of the electoral vote, this ploy doesn't work.
>1844
Loses to Jackson-endorsed James Polk.

Clay put forth his name one last time in 1848, but his loser reputation was no longer surmountable and besides, at 70 he was too old for consideration as a candidate. Zachary Taylor won the Whig nomination easily.
>>
File: viet.png (79 KB, 573x724)
79 KB
79 KB PNG
>>6464691
>i-it's not my fault, I swear
>>
>>6464709
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-the-tank-099119
>>
>>6463886
>>6464709
He hasn't taken his defeat gracefully either, in more recent years he's made some really bitter rants against the Bushes and Trump.
>>
>>6464755
i still don't get it. was it that he looked kind of goofy? I don't it looked THAT bad
>>
Alice Roosevelt said that Thomas Dewey "resembled the groom on a wedding cake."
>>
>>6462635
Alf Landon was unbelievably bad by any stretch. He didn't actively campaign at all and allowed advisers to do most of his work for him. The virtual absence of Landon from public led to jokes from newspaper columnists. After FDR won a second term in an overwhelming rout, he joked "I wonder if we should sell Vermont and Maine (the only states Landon carried) to Canada."
>>
>>6463903
>>6463977
Hi Hillary
>>
>>6464823
>>6463160
He wasn't prepared for Truman's aggressive campaigning, which was quite unprecedented at the time. Previous tradition held that presidential candidates never directly attacked their opponents or even mentioned them by name in speeches, that was left to their campaign team and the press, while they themselves were above the fray.

So Truman did what had never been done before, which was travel around the country attacking Dewey by name, and the Republican team didn't know how to respond. They didn't even give consideration to trying the same thing until shortly before Election Day, by which time it was too late.
>>
>>6464839
>After FDR won a second term in an overwhelming rout, he joked "I wonder if we should sell Vermont and Maine (the only states Landon carried) to Canada."
kek. People don't want to admit it, but FDR's temperment in terms of banter and holding grudges was the closest thing we've ever had to Trump.
>>
probably Hillary Clinton for blowing one of the easiest victories in generations
>>
>>6464810
You know that kid in high school that tries to act tough as nails but he's a literal who that cowers at the first sign of trouble? Dukakis was being that kid but as an adult.
>>
>>6464877
It's too coherent.
>>
File: image.jpg (53 KB, 551x750)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
Can't fault him on having good taste in women though
>>
>>6464874
Dewey wasn't above aggressive campaigning, he'd used it when running for governor of New York and during his 1944 presidential campaign, but this time around he concluded that it cost him votes and that it was more sound practice to sit and do nothing with the hope that Truman would self-destruct, and that the nation was tired of 14 years of Democrat rule and was ready for a change. He also believed in polling data, then a relatively new science, almost to a fault.

The Republican camp assumed that victory was inevitable given trends over the previous eight years. FDR's margin of victory in his third and fourth elections was smaller than the first two and the GOP had taken over Congress in a landslide in the 1946 elections. Although Dewey was a moderate and more accepting of the New Deal than the 80th Congress (he also refused to engage in red-baiting or make an issue of communists in government), dominated by the right wing of the GOP, his passivity allowed Truman to connect him to the "no-good, do-nothing 80th Congress."

The third party candidacies of Henry Wallace, which drew leftists away from the Democrat camp, and Strom Thurmond, who drew away Dixiecrats, proved to be no serious liability to Truman on Election Day.
>>
>>6464969
>The third party candidacies of Henry Wallace, which drew leftists away from the Democrat camp
And blame FDR for having a literal communist and Soviet spy as VP. Wallace was a liability to the point where the president ditched him in favor of Truman in 1944. He went around during his presidential bid four years later calling for peace and understanding with Stalin, and even the American Socialist Party were facepalming and telling him to knock it off.
>>
>>6464880
That doesn't factor in her lack of charisma or the numerous and serious questions about her honesty, integrity, and judgement, or butthurt Bernie supporters who thought they'd been robbed.
>>
>>6464998
He really was one of the worst politicians to ever get elected to office here, he makes Bernie seem like a moderate.
>>
>>6465007
>butthurt Bernie supporters who thought they'd been robbed
I mean, they definitely were robbed. Sanders robbed them of their money knowing full well that Clinton was going to be the nominee, no matter how well he performed. Then the DNC robbed them a second time. Naivety does not preclude robbery.
>>
>>6462909
Greeley was not part of the Democratic Party. He, and a bunch of other Republicans, broke off and made the short-lived Liberal Republican Party in opposition to Grant. They Democrats then gathered to them and supported them as they didn't believe they had any shot of winning that election and Greeley wanted to end Reconstruction.
>>
>>6464969
>Truman's populist appeal was further enhanced by his campaign rail car, where staffers did their laundry in wash basins and passed their free time drinking whiskey and gambling. For comparison, Dewey's rail car was luxurious and visiting dignitaries and reporters were treated to gourmet meals and fine champagne. They stayed in the best hotels on stops and had maids doing their laundry for them. This allowed the president to cement his message as the candidate of the people against rich fatcat Republicans who had caused the Great Depression and aimed to overturn the New Deal.
>>
>>6464969
>(he also refused to engage in red-baiting or make an issue of communists in government)
Another blunder that he might have taken advantage of. Truman himself had been fairly soft on Moscow and even went so far as to say Stalin was a nice guy and a moderate (!) held hostage by Kremlin hardliners. Some Republicans wanted to make an issue of this, but Dewey refused, again probably due to his experience in 44 when he tried to connect FDR to CPUSA head Earl Browder. Only once during the campaign did Dewey make an issue out of it when he accused Truman of being an appeaser who had delivered millions of Europeans into Soviet servitude without a fight.
>>
Wallace does deserve a few props for daring to campaign in the South and refusing to use segregated facilities. He was booed, had stuff thrown at him, and received death threats for it.
>>
>>6464129
Her husband was the person responsible for the loss of those jobs in the first place.
>>
>>6463715
Socialist leader Eugene Debs mounted a campaign for president from prison, where he had been put by Wilson for protesting the US entry into WWI. He still achieved almost a million votes. On Christmas Day, 1921, Harding issued a presidential pardon for Debs, after the Justice Department had decided that a 65 year old man was unlikely to be a source of trouble anymore. Debs's health had been ruined by his incarceration, and he died a few years after his release.
>>
>>6462909
Greenley flip-flopped on his prior abolitionist stance by claiming he was no longer sure that abolishing slavery had been a good idea and that secession "may be justified under certain circumstances".
>>
File: P0005-ADRIEN-ARCAND.jpg (44 KB, 600x863)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>6464839
that guy isso irrelevant that he doesnt even have a portrait in hoi4.
even a canadian fascist got a portrait before him
>>
>>6462635
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
>>
>>6463903
Cringe
>>
>>6462635
I want to say Gore but the real answer is John Kerry. Dubya was at just about his most unpopular going into the 2004 election because of Iraq and liberals being really fucking fired up over culture war shit. Almost anyone the Dems fielded should have been able to take it and instead they go with this uncharismatic Herman Munster who's basically the walking stereotype of an out of touch coastal liberal elite who could offer no actual policy or ideas beyond "I'm not Bush".

That he still almost won despite literally only carrying the coastal liberal enclaves of the northeast and Pacific coast should tell you just how unpopular Bush was. Had the Dean Scream never happened and Dean hadn't overnight turned into a joke because of it Dubya would've likely wound up being a one-termer just like dear ol' dad. Instead we got Kerry, four more years of Bush and the further degradation of the political atmosphere in the United States as liberal resentment grew and grew culminating in Obama who brought a new message, destroyed McCain (George Bush's third term) and then ran a presidency which did a lot to get the right seething while he stoked the flames of racial tension and political divide during his second term and the 2012 campaign (their bibles and their guns and all of that) leading us into the situtation we're in now.

So yeah, John Kerry is the worst and I blame how everything's ended up in the 15 years since then on him being a failure.
>>
>>6462635

Cynthia McKinney. She was a member of Congress and tried to pass a bill to release the government's secret records on Tupac Shakur:

https://fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/hr4210.html
>>
>>6463237
Trump's 2016 campaign is something that will be studied endlessly. Whatever you can say about him and his presidency (which has been pretty bad as it's been hijacked into a bog standard neocon/GOPe presidency) his campaign is not something you can criticize him on.

He destroyed everyone the Republicans threw at him and his insults have stuck around (I even hear libs saying Little Marco Rubio), so thoroughly annhilated the Bush dynasty that Barbara went to her grave cursing Trump's name and pretty much put an end to the Clintons as an effective political force. All of this while almost the entirety of the media was against him, the sitting President was actively spying on/trying to sabotage his campaign. He campaigned with an endless amount of energy, had a message that resonated with a lot of people, especially a section of society that felt like they'd been marginalized under Obama (white blue collar Dems) and through focusing on that was able to flip states and win despite MUH POPULARE VOTE.

Trump's 2016 campaign will go down as one of the all time greatest regardless of how his actual presidency is remembered.
>>
>>6465492
I don't think they really expected Kerry to win, it was more like Bob Dole's campaign where it was just a token reward to a long-serving party insider.
>>
>>6465028
Truman was low key just broke lol bankruptcy is a sonofabitch.
>>
>>6465529
>Bob Dole
Another terrible candidate. He had no real message to run on and handily played into the Democrat narrative that he was a slightly befuddled senior citizen by falling off a stage, referring to the Dodgers as the Brooklyn Dodgers, and his frequent allusions to the Depression and WWII.
>>
>>6463644
>we'll never see what a Blaine presidency focused on modernization and business could've been
>we'll never see a full Garfield presidency
It hurts. I'm guessing that a Blaine presidency would've been a proto-McKinley one.
>>
>>6463818

This

But they grew up with propaganda drilled into their head by Gen Ys and millennials.
>>
>>6463886
I've met Dukakis before

>>6464792
He's just a liberal, it really has nothing to do with defeat or grace
>>
>>6464792
He said something like "If only I'd won and stopped the elder Bush back then, we could have been spared his son." and "Watching the election returns come in on Election Night 2016 was the single worst day of my life."
>>
>>6464691

>lbj was a great president
Are you fucking smoking crack?
>>
>>6463403
Fuck LBJ
>>
>>6463797
Fremont was also ridiculed for his illegitimate birth. His teenage mother had been pushed into an arranged marriage with a 60 year old plantation owner, and she cheated on him almost instantly with a tutor of hers.

He was one of a number of utterly inept political generals appointed to satisfy abolitionists in Congress. His failures in Missouri and West Virginia sealed his fate and he never held a command again after spring 1862. Fremont made a weak presidential bid in 1864, and later became territorial governor of Arizona. He went broke when the 1873 depression wiped out most of his savings, but eventually obtained a pension from his service in the Civil War.
>>
>>6465414
This
>>
>>6465513
>All of this while almost the entirety of the media was against him
It's because Trump realized something that most politicians don't seem to realize: the media is a paper tiger, a politician is not a CEO because they can't be fired for what they say, only not get re-elected. And the people who would vote for him liked what he was saying.
>>
>>6465492
Don't know what you're talking about, Dubya was still very popular in 2004 and the Iraq War, at the time, seemed to be wrapping up quickly just like his daddy's war did. John Kerry was bland as fuck, but he had tough competition; disasters work well in favor of incumbents (9/11, JFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, etc)
>>
>>6465565
Yeah, Blaine as Secretary of State designed most of the goals (stronger navy primarily) that ultimately defined Teddy's presidency, not to mention that Teddy endorsed Blaine back when he was only a lower-level New York official in his 20s.
>>
>>6465713
The leftist chimpout against Bush in 2003-04 was also off-putting to people. You had a sitting president literally being called a war criminal.
>>
Kerry was a Northeastern Democrat which is almost a guaranteed loss in a presidential election.
>>
>>6465735
Insofar as he's commander in chief of the armed forces he literally was a war criminal, and so was Obama, and so was every other president since at least Vietnam.
>>
>>6465717
Cleveland's three presidential campaigns were pretty nasty and as the GOP couldn't really assail his policies, they instead resorted to petty attacks on his personal life.
>>
File: obama_hitler_sign.jpg (41 KB, 233x350)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>6462635
DAHNELD DRAUMPFFF
>>
>>6465759
The Gilded Age-era GOP was routinely mocked by Democrat newspapers and cartoonists for still fighting the Civil War rather than being concerned about anything happening currently. It was all like "blah blah blah party of treason blah blah blah slavery blah blah blah veterans don't vote for the party of Jefferson Davis. Tariffs? The economy? Who cares? Remember what Al Brooks did to Charles Sumner on the Senate floor 30 years ago." In the end this gave way to younger progressives like TR who weren't old enough to have memories of the war.
>>
>>6465759
To be fair, politicians have always used personal attacks to get ahead in America, going back to Jefferson and Callender starting the first smear campaigns on Adams and Hamilton. I don't blame Republicans for getting dirty, especially when they had to realize that running against a New York Bourbon Democrat was virtually the only thing their party was vulnerable to. Plus, Cleveland used a bit of race-baiting to rile up his urban Irish constituency (which backfired when Harrison forged that letter to destroy Cleveland's first reelection campaign).

But I think there were real and useful policy differences between the two. Cleveland was a hyper-libertarian that wanted to avoid war and imperialism wherever possible, Blaine was a moderate reformist that avoided the worst tariff-mongering and war-mongering of guys like McKinley and Harrington, while still seeking to make America an international military player. They agreed on monetary policy iirc, and both appreciated the significance of an advanced, well-functioning railway system, even if Blaine was more into public improvements than free-market strike-busting Cleveland.
>>6465782
Was that only in the South though? Because it frankly didn't matter what the South said about Republicans when their polls were rigged for decades. I mean, no doubt that a bunch of Gilded Age Republicans were filthy corrupt and had no purpose except to take bribes from billionaires, but guys like Garfield, Arthur (a reformed shyster), Sherman, Blaine, etc kept America functioning and away from reverting to a Jacksonian spoils system. The Gilded Age is the most underappreciated/overhated era in American history, remembered only for its faults rather than the amazing economic, military, and industrial growth that were all necessary for the Progressive Era to even begin.
>>
>>6465821
>Was that only in the South though? Because it frankly didn't matter what the South said about Republicans when their polls were rigged for decades
The vise was clamped gradually. With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, restrictions on the votes of blacks in the South began to appear, but it didn't get really bad until the 1892 election when the Populist Party attracted a large number of black voters (many Southern whites found the Populist platform attractive as well but were afraid to desert the Democrats). Following that election, black voting rights in the South were almost snuffed out.
>>
>>6464709

Man, fuck the press.

I liked Mike Dukakis and I liked his tank.
>>
>>6464126
Why didn’t Jefferson just make Madison veep tho?
>>
>>6462635
BLUMPFT
>>
>>6464877
FDR was an absolutely petty, lying, treacherous shit.
But a lot of our “best” presidents were psychopaths
>>
>>6464709
The press is/was hugely influential.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPsLGoy-U-k
I mean in hindsight it seems really fucking stupid that this literally ended the guys career and he immedialy lost any chance of winning the nomination because of the press
>>
>>6465544
Bob Dole didn't run to beat Clinton he ran to beat Buchanan after letting all of the other nominees tear at him throughout the primary. The 96 primary was one of the biggest wastes of talent the GOP has ever seen.
>>
>>6462737
underrated
>>
File: Huey Long.jpg (40 KB, 640x837)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>6463740
Because he was just a mouth piece and gave amnesty and started this "taxing the rich is bad" bullshit. He was the final victory for Buckley-ite neo-liberal, free trading, "let's ship all our jobs overseas" trash that gutted this country.

Fuck Reagan, and fuck boomers who supported his ass.

And don't even get me started on his bullshit amnesty bill.
>>
>>6463818
>tfw I hate Reagan and Sanders in equal measure
>>
>>6463740
because he presided over the switch from Keynesian economics to neoliberalism which was largly the beginning of the globalism we know today. Not only that, his rainbow collection of every type of conservative arguably hurt the movement long term as neocons took over the party and controlled it until Trump.
>>
>>6463740
>>6463818
>>6463973
>>6465585
Go back to facebook, boomers.
>>
>>6467892
>Trump controls the GOP
The base maybe, but the GOPe are still very very in control. Come back in 5 years and maybe you'll have a point.
>>
>>6463886
What the fuck was Shaw's problem anyway? Why did he have it in for Dukakis? Or was he just the TV equivalent of a shock jock, out for blood of any color simply for the fun of it?
>>
>>6464792
>"He's pretty bitter and angry about losing for not being bitter and angry enough, what a dick"
Shit like this is why Dukakis deserves to make as many bitter rants as he likes.
>>
>>6467895
Get back to r/sanders4president you baby
>>
>>6467897
Ironically that misses the more relevant part of my post.
>>
>>6463268
Fuck Henry Clay, Jackson should have won the first time.
>>
>>6465163
Maybe I'm just ignant, but I'm pretty sure that was already well fucking underway by '92
>>
>>6467806
There was no excuse for why they allowed the unpopular Clinton, who had just witnessed a massive rout of his own party in the 94 midterms, to get a second term. Total ineptitude.
>>
>>6462715
William Jennings Bryan and Barry Goldwater were far from the worst candidates to run for president, because they permanently reshaped their respective parties. The country wasn't ready for them, but they were winners in the long term.
>>
Orrin Hatch ran for president in 2000. Not many remember, but he lost the Iowa caucus and got 1% of the vote. One would expect a known firebrand like Gary Bauer, who also ran for president in that election, to go for it along with other maverick figures like Jesse Jackson, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich (lest we forget, Donald Trump made his first presidential bid in 2000).

Whatever drives an important, established member of Congress like Hatch or Dick Gephardt (in 2004) or Arlen Spector (in 1996) to run for president despite the odds being near zero is something that will never make sense.
>>
>>6467533
>Why didn’t Jefferson just make Madison veep tho?
He was Secretary of State, silly. In those days SoS was the most prestigious cabinet position and serving in it was considered an easy route to the presidency.
>>
>>6465007
VP that looked like a used car salesman can't have helped either.
>>
>>6465492
You're discounting Karl Rove's brilliance.
>>
>>6468585
>easy route to the presidency
weren't the first handful of presidents after Washington SoS? Which is part of the reason why Jackson was so buttmad about not being made SoS because he thought he'd never be pres then?
>>
Ya'll need to stop shitting on my man Goldwater. He was the last Classic Republican before the Christcucks got a hold of it.
>>
>>6462694
>Bryan

Kek no. Would have been one of the most based presidents ever
>>
>>6469289
>starting a nuclear war is one of your main campaign promises
...
>>
>>6468860
Other than Jefferson (vice president) this was true.
>>
>>6469371
>Falling Hook, Line, and Sinker for Johnson's Propaganda

Goldwater said that he wasn't opposed to Nuking Nam' if shit got bad enough but he wasn't an outright Warmonger as the Dems claimed.
>>
>>6469323
>>6462694
>1896
McKinley had the full backing of big business behind him, but in the end Bryan was just considered too radical and dangerous for middle America, and his campaign message did not appeal to them (only the South and the desert, critics said).
>1900
Bryan reprised his pro-silver message but with the economy booming, it wasn't relevant anymore. He also crusaded against imperialism, also a dead letter since the question was not "Should we annex the Philippines and PR?" but "Now that we have the Philippines and PR, what the fuck do we do with them?"
>1908
Bryan suggested that TR had stolen many of his ideas (which in fact, he had) and therefore the originator was the best person to carry them out. Innate middle America conservatism favored Taft instead.

Despite his failures at the ballot box, Wilson rewarded him with the post of Secretary of State.
>>
>>6467892
>massive deficit spending and bank bailouts to stimulate the economy
>Keynesian economics
Pick two
>>
>>6469429
And Jefferson was elected VP, not nominated.
>>
Yeah the original setup had it that electors could choose two candidates and the runner up got to become VP. The weakness in this was obvious early on, but not fixed until a constitutional amendment in 1804.
>>
>>6465735
the entire iraq war cabinet deserves the rope for the crimes they did.
>>
>>6470741
It should’ve been Powell pulling the chains instead of Dick
>>
>>6470764
rumsfeld pulling troops out of afghanistan into iraq, making sure both fronts are under trooped and the regions devolve into violent chaos. Al-Zawahiri saying: "we gonna chill in the mountains and come down next spring" and then he actually does it? who could have expected this???
>>
File: 1494478360914.jpg (2.81 MB, 4524x5820)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB JPG
>>6469289
I wonder what America would be like now if he had won. But going that far back makes it hard to estimate.
>>
>>6463740
he fucked over American industry, just slightly less than Thatcher fucked over British industry. He also opened up the gates to the melinated.
>>
>>6465735
He literally was. His administration sanctioned the systematic torture of terror suspects, and the US is a signatory to UN conventions on torture that allow for foreign countries to arrest and try government officials of signatory states that engage in torture.

Literally the only reason he was allowed to travel outside the US without being arrested and tried is because the US is powerful enough to frighten countries away from doing that.
>>
>>6463886
How do you avoid a trap like that? Is it just literally any answer that isn't "yes" or "no"?
>That's a ridiculous thing to ask anybody on live television. I might hope that we have children watching, you know, interested in our politics and our country. The simple fact is I'm opposed to the death penalty personally and on behalf of my constituents and here's why, bright as day.
best i can think of on the spot
>>
>>6465362
He’s got one now
>>
>>6470844
Industry was on a long downhill spiral since LBJ. You can't maintain a grip on the world's manufacturing when you have both social democrats passing a billion regulations and worker's programs, AND import millions of illegals, AND open up your ports to competition from China and Japan, AND build up Western Europe while expecting them to never produce anything of their own. He did the best he could, more or less. At the very least he crippled the Japanese economy for the benefit of the West.
>>
>>6470896
Maybe something like
>If my wife was raped and killed I would want to strangle the bastard to death with my own hands, but why are you making this personal? That has nothing to do with the legal question and it's a disgusting thing to ask. As a society we support laws fairly and evenly and we're not allowed to make personal exceptions. Therefore, it's not hypocritical to oppose the death penalty as an institution, while still recognizing that some men deserve death.
>>
>>6465821
>The Gilded Age is the most underappreciated/overhated era in American history, remembered only for its faults rather than the amazing economic, military, and industrial growth that were all necessary for the Progressive Era to even begin.
It's a shame there's no good books that really comprehensively cover the Gilded Age (or up into Wilson's presidency). It's definitely one of the most dynamic times in American history but lacked the large personality, bombastic Presidents that the eras it's sandwiched inbetween had and yeah it just gets dismissed as "EVIL ROBBER BARONS AND CAPITALISTS".

But it was about America finding its place in the world and asserting its power after the Civil War, the beginnings of the country's ascendancy to Great Power and then Superpower status. Not just American history, the latter half of the 1800s is honestly one of the most interesting and exciting periods of world history in general.
>>
File: 130842303938.jpg (16 KB, 250x250)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>6470866

>Thinking that UN mandate means anything
>mfw

Countries routinely shit on UN mandates unless one of the members of the security council arbitrarily decides to enforce them. And countries unofficially sanctioning torture against enemies of the state is an open secret.

Your criticism is shit and without merit.
>>
>>6468585
It was that way for a long time. I know during the Gilded Age it was a position that was far and away the most coveted. Arguably it still is the most prestigious cabinet position.
>>
File: Depression.png (1.52 MB, 1920x796)
1.52 MB
1.52 MB PNG
>>6471180
>Nobody follows the rules therefore we shouldn't care about them
>>
>>6467878
Based post

Will America ever see another Huey Long?
>>
File: Tucker tie.grid-4x2.jpg (13 KB, 308x413)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>>6471285
>another Huey Long
pic related is the closest we have right now
>>
File: carlson.jpg (579 KB, 1208x1500)
579 KB
579 KB JPG
>>6471294
Tucker Carlson is very cute.
>>
File: 1544422053678.png (588 KB, 720x722)
588 KB
588 KB PNG
>>6471306
>>
>>6463451
FDR saved your shitty system, burgermutt
>>
>>6471124
>It's definitely one of the most dynamic times in American history but lacked the large personality, bombastic Presidents that the
Comgress clipped the executive branch's wings after the debacle with Andrew Johnson and it wasn't until TR that the executive branch's power was revived. But then most 19th century presidents weren't outstanding or colorful figures anyway. There was Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and that was it.
>>
>>6471124
>eras it's sandwiched inbetween had and yeah it just gets dismissed as "EVIL ROBBER BARONS AND CAPITALISTS".
Muh six gorillion immigrants living in hovels in NYC who get their hand chopped off in Andrew Carnegie's factories.
>>
>>6471325
Garfield was a really interesting figure IMO and his story should probably be held up as the gold standard of the American Dream over Jackson.
>>
>>6471124
The Civil War transformed the country from a crude frontier society to a wealthy, sophisticated superpower almost overnight, but when a lot of people get rich in a hurry, there's bound to be corruption.
>>
>>6471294
>>6471306
I've never watched his sho. He gets memed on pretty hard tho.
>>
>>6471377
I haven't watched it in years because it's kind of repetitive. I just think that he's handsome.
>>
>>6471377
He's rapidly forging a third positionist voter in the GOP base, which is the best way to describe what Huey Long wanted.
>>
>>6469371
>unironically falling for Johnson's "Daisy" propaganda even after he escalated the Vietnam War
How do people keep falling for that bullshitter's lies nearly 60 years later?
>>
File: immigration_by_year.jpg (144 KB, 800x437)
144 KB
144 KB JPG
>>6471325
That's kinda true regarding executive power, but at the same time, Republicans dominated both the executive and the legislative, so in practice the executive still had a fair amount of leeway, even if it was mostly just used to end strikes and negotiate expansion into the Caribbean and Pacific. Cleveland used his veto pen more than any other president in history on a per-term basis (FDR just barely beat him while serving 3 and a quarter terms), for example. A lot of those powers Teddy used were given to Harrison, but Harrison was too much of a fuck up to ever wield them properly. Followed by another Cleveland term, the hardcore government minimalist who only used power to stop power, it made the executive look weaker than it really was.
>>6471332
To be fair, the immigration policies towards the end of the Gilded Age got a bit absurd. From Garfield through Cleveland's second term we averaged 500k new arrivals per year, and that was when we had 50 million total. In the current period we average about double that rate, but with a total population closer to 7x.

It's funny that modern neoliberals insist that immigration has no effect on wages, all the while the only period we ever had with virtually no immigration was later FDR through Eisenhower (times of record American wages).
>>
File: s071973931-300.jpg (34 KB, 770x433)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>6462635

>The worst

That's subjective.

The thick ankled dog face from Chappaqua comes to mind
>>
>>6471271

This first theft marked Buck as fit to survive in the hostile Northland environment. It marked his adaptability, his capacity to adjust himself to changing conditions, the lack of which would have meant swift and terrible death. It marked, further, the decay or going to pieces of his moral nature, a vain thing and a handicap in the ruthless struggle for existence. It was all well enough in the Southland, under the law of love and fellowship, to respect private property and personal feeling; but in the Northland, under the law of club and fang, whoso took such things into account was a fool, and in so far as he observed them he would fail to prosper.

-Jack London "Call of the Wild"
>>
>>6471561
>it's okay for a society to condone secret police and torture because Jack Landon once wrote a book about how nature is more brutal than society

What the fuck are you even arguing?
>>
File: JUST.png (189 KB, 1513x983)
189 KB
189 KB PNG
>>6462635
>>
>>6471669
Worth noting that the dark blue county in Western South Dakota is the poorest county in the entire country and the one with the shortest life expectancy. With liberal Democrats, you lose.
>>
>>6471583

>Thinks in black and white
>Can't comprehend the idea of a necessary evil

Go back to /leddit/ short bus it's more to your speed.
>>
File: 1984prescountymap2.png (191 KB, 1513x983)
191 KB
191 KB PNG
>>6471669
1936 and 1984 weren't even as one-sided as this.
>>
>>6471683
It's an Indian reservation and no Republican has carried that county since Eisenhower.
>>
>>6471717
Yeah it's interesting how Nixon even won most of the Black Belt against McGovern despite the usual Southern Strategy mantra
>>
>>6471717
>>6471669
What happened to you, California? You used to be cool.
>>
>>6471669
I'm convinced this is what the map would look like (besides Cali, Vermont and New York) if Bernie won the nomination
>>
>>6471732
The Cold War ending. California had a lot of defense contractors who were a reliable Republican voting bloc. With the downscaling of the US military in the early 90s, a lot of people were laid off and moved to other states, so it went Democrat in 92 and has remained so ever since.
>>
>>6471733
>I'm convinced this is what the map would look like (besides Cali, Vermont and New York) if Bernie won the nomination
>>
>>6471732
Reagan and amnesty. Followed by Bush the 1st and additional amnesty.
>>6471733
Nah Bernie has a real populist movement behind him. He'll sweep the Midwest and keep the Left Coast and New England, and in the best performance from a Democrat since LBJ, even though he'll probably still lose the West and South.
>>
>>6471732
Illegal immigrants getting amnesty under Reagan ruined everything
>>
>>6471745
>He'll sweep the Midwest and keep the Left Coast and New England, and in the best performance from a Democrat since LBJ, even though he'll probably still lose the West and South.
Doubt.jpg
The middle class will never go out in droves for him and the majority of democrats still hate him after 2016.
>>
>>6471747
All Bernie has to do is stick to the line: "A 70% marginal tax on incomes above $10 million". Why would the middle class hate that? And you have to remember that about 2/3rds of the population rarely or never votes. Obama had a huge surge of black voters that had never voted, for obvious reasons. Trump had a large surge of lower and middle class white voters that had never voted, also for obvious reasons. Sanders can tap into a new voter base, and to beat Trump all he needs to do is swing the Rust Belt (WI, MI, PA) back to the Dems.

Also, a lot of wealthy, old-guard Republicans hated Trump in 2016 and voted for HRC in protest, but ultimately they didn't matter.
>>
File: 340-im-confus.jpg (7 KB, 251x218)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
>>6471745
>>6471739
Who is right here?
>>
>>6471787
Defense contractors are big in terms of $$$$$$, they're not big in terms of the vote.
>>
>>6471787
Do you guys stop and think that in 1972 and 84, we had a president from CA running? Derp de derp.
>>
>>6471787
Both. I think that immigration was the bigger issue, though.
>>
>>6471792
In that case I'd argue it was because the state voted Republican in every presidential election from 1952 to 88, excepting 1964, which coincides with, yes, the Cold War.

Also the main reason Nixon approved the Space Shuttle was to keep aerospace workers employed with Apollo ending and thus ensure California would vote for him in 72.
>>
>>6471795
Ike won California by a good margin, and Truman only barely won California despite winning the overall election in a landslide. California was a Republican stronghold for about 100 years.
>>
>>6471807
Which aerospace workers? NASA was always more of a Texas thing.
>>
>>6471809
>California was a Republican stronghold for about 100 years
It was a solid Republican state from the Civil War until the Depression, when it went blue for FDR and Truman, and then went back to the Republican camp until Clinton.
>>
>>6462737
Might be a less ironic example than it seems.

Think of it this way: Trump has been a joke for decades, and the recent runs at political office had merely been the latest chapter in a public life that provided fodder for tabloids and comedians.

On top of that, Hilary had a connection to one of the more popular recent presidents in history, had a political background, had the backing of the establishment, had a financial advantage, and even won the popular vote by a decent margin.

Yet, despite all of the above, she still managed to find a way to lose. If that's not a terrible candidate, then what is?
>>
>>6471812
General Dynamics and North American Aviation are two I can think of who had extensive California operations.
>>
>>6471822
Rockwell. Rocketdyne. Aerojet.
>>
>>6471822
>>6471825
Do you have a breakdown on their relative abundance in California? Most of these companies are split all over the nation. I'm not saying that defense contractor jobs aren't important electorally, they're clearly a kind of Republican corporate welfare, I just don't see Nixon losing a massive 20-30 point lead over that, particularly when Nixon ultimately downsized aerospace funding anyways.
>>
>>6465513
also there use of very targeted internet advertising. All with quite a small amount of money being spent overall by the campaign and the various political action committees.
>>
>>6471807
This could also be argued of Washington and Oregon, both reliably red states during the Cold War period, although they switched to blue in 1988, one presidential election earlier than California.
>>
>>6471837
Boeing layoffs really did put a dent in the PNW's economy, the depressed conditions there in the early 90s were the backdrop for grunge to happen.
>>
File: vp_wallace.jpg (19 KB, 260x320)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>6462635
Henry Wallace
>>
>>6471837
>>6471839
Fair point actually, the more I think about it the more I'm inclined to believe it. Though I think there's been a self-promoting culture in all political groups that's responsible for the blueward shift of the Pacific as well. The hippies, gay rights activists, environmentalists, etc were only a small part of San Francisco in the 1960s but they've increased their numbers and gradually become magnets for likeminded people all over the country.

On a slightly-related tangent, I know there was some poll recently that showed the old Texans were primarily Democratic, which is contrary to the simple expectations of 1) Texans being Republican/conservative and 2) old people being Republican/conservative. But of course, Texas was once a Democratic stronghold not only because of Dixiecrats but also because of liberal Democrats like LBJ, and they turned red in significant part due to the oil boom and other Republican/conservative contractors from all over the country moving there. So I guess the defense contractor theory regarding the Pacific states is actually pretty compelling.
>>
>>6471853
Oil was initially discovered in Texas in 1901, so that theory is out the window. And yes it was a blue state for most of its first 100 years of statehood except in 1928 when Hoover won it, most likely because the Northeastern Catholic Al Smith was distrusted in Texas.

Eisenhower carried Texas in both his elections, but its switch to a solidly red state didn't happen until Reagan.
>>
>>6471867
>Eisenhower carried Texas in both his elections
Extremely easy to figure out. Ike was a Midwesterner and both times ran against Adlai Stevenson, an Ivy Leaguer much beloved by liberal intellectuals of the 50s, but not exactly heartland voting material.
>>
>mfw people associate Texas with being part of the South
Well it's not. Sure, it was a slave state and part of the Confederacy, but modern Texas doesn't identify with the South very much and few Texans give a shit about the Civil War--the Texan War of Independence is considered far more important.
>>
>>6471867
>Oil was initially discovered in Texas in 1901, so that theory is out the window.
There was a massive oil boom in the 70s and early 80s due to the energy crisis. My parents met in Texas because my grandparents were both oil men (one moved to Taiwan after the collapse, the other became a bum).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_oil_glut
>>
>>6471935
>my grandparents were both oil men

sounds kind of gay desu
>>
Texas unquestioningly identified with the South during the 19th century. Towns had monuments honoring those who had died serving in the Confederate army and there were streets, public buildings, and town squares named after Confederate leaders. Cotton was as much a part of the state's economy as it was in Alabama.

As the 20th century dawned and a new, younger generation started to take over from the war generation, they decided they really didn't want to be part of the South anymore. The South after all was stigmatized with defeat, failure, treason, slavery, poverty, the KKK, all that stuff. So Texans began to pitch themselves as a Western state, not a Southern one, and governor Oscar Colquitt (1911-15) was a huge promoter of this movement. He was eager to distance the state from the South and the memory of the Confederacy and pushed instead for commemoration of the Texas Revolution. After all, it was a more glorious moment than the soldiers of the Texas Brigade dying in the Petersburg trenches.

The centennial of the Texas Revolution in 1936 was commemorated with the slogan "Texas--We are not the South."
>>
Heck, some people say Virginia isn't part of the South anymore.
>>
>>6471809
>Truman won in a landslide
That word doesn’t mean what you think it means. Current president’s use notwithstanding.
>>
>>6471990
This guy mostly knows what’s up.
But the shift from south to west was later and more gradual than you imply. Politically Texas was southern in many respects until the 60s. For example, it continued to pass Jim Crow laws, erect confederate monuments, resisted implementing Brown, and voted with the southern senate bloc.
Caro talks about this a lot in his Johnson biography in terms of Johnson’s need to balance survival in Texas against southern alliances against non-southern national mood.
>>
>>6472791
OK, a strong amount then. 5% when there's already a spoiler on the ballot is pretty damn good, particularly when you were projected to lose.
>>
>>6471322
Are you implying The New Deal actually did something lmao
>>
File: 1549387604102.jpg (11 KB, 225x223)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>6463277
>"I have said before that I will not make age an issue in this campaign, in particular not my opponent's youthfulness and inexperience."
Reagan was a cunt, but he had the bants on lockdown
>>
File: how amsuing.jpg (74 KB, 320x454)
74 KB
74 KB JPG
>>6471969
>>
>>6462635
Jimmy Carter



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.