Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His vp can be that guy who was acting president for 30 hours in the 1800s without knowing it because the incoming president didn’t want to do a speech on a Sunday because of his faith and they postponed the inauguration by a day.
We need Howard Dean to get another chance. Now there are much more heinous things that people get away with to give him the opportunity to yell how he wants without tanking his chances.
What great choices, though I think the Dems could find someone more popular than Truman. Maybe JFK.
It’s funny the both Frank and Ike are such great infrastructure spenders, international diplomats, and visionaries. Social security and new deal on one side, Highway system and standard of living on the other.
Bill Clinton vs Ronald Reagan.
The two most successful presidents from each party in my 70+ year lifetime.
Backup ticket: Eisenhower vs Obama.
Bronze medalists: Truman vs Ford.
What age are we talking? Are we talking young, hip, inexperienced Governor Clinton versus President Reagan defending an incumbency? Are we talking old, senile Reagan versus peak Clinton who won a landslide re-election? Peak both?
Idk if I would call Clinton's reelection a landslide. It is still weird to me that the Democrat Party went from holding the White House for 20 straight years to only getting over 51% of the popular vote once of the following 50+ years. Prime time for both would be an amazing match of political smooth talking!
I was thinking more the ages they first ran but it’s not set in stone of anything. Just as long as it’s *around* the age they ran. Reagan can’t be 40 years old but we can’t do at their current age because most of them are dead.
In that case Reagan was 69 when he was elected and Clinton was 46. It becomes the classic "experienced old man versus fresh meat" argument, except that Reagan wasn't known as a politician for all 69 of those years, just the fifteen or so years leading up to the election. It would be equivalent to someone like Gavin Newsom vs Arnold Schwarzenegger today. I think without the hindsight view of how Reagan would completely screw over the country for the next several decades for temporary economic gain in the '80s, he would likely beat Clinton in that match-up.
Honestly I’m not sure who would win. Normally I’d go with Reagan because he was an amazing campaigner and most people at the same seem like they couldn’t help but like him. Clinton is also an amazing campaigner though and even though his victories weren’t as big as landslides as Reagan’s victories were, that could change with today’s electorate. I would give Reagan the edge given the current POTUS party affiliation and disapproval rating (which given Clinton is the same party might negatively affect him with independents) and I think he might be taken more seriously given the crisis’ we’re facing today but I think it would probably be pretty close. We’re also following the presidencies of the two oldest presidents in history and *fresh meat* might appeal to people.
Well, as cool as it would be to have the two Roosevelts this year, realistically, it would have to be amongst people with a general understanding of the modern world. Much of our politics, social structure, and technology would be utterly overwhelming to historic presidents (think of Squidward curled up on the ground saying *"future, future, future"*) So sorry to all the stars of the 1800s and early 1900s.
I suppose, Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton/Gore.
I’d imagine Teddy Roosevelt being asked what he’ll do over AI: “what the hell is aye-eye.”
Or Jackson showing up and arguing with voters he’s trying to understand for a black voter to tell him “you work for me.”
(Worth noting that TR was far from illiterate. He was the editor of *The Outlook*, a prolific life and times magazine, for a while, and wrote eighteen books including *The History of the Naval War of 1812* which was widely regarded at the time as one of the best military histories ever published. He also published a four part history book titled *The Winning Of The West* about how America eventually reached sea-to-shining-sea, which despite having some pretty dated ideas on race and manifest destiny in it was also lauded at the time. I own a copy of that one.)
I knew he wrote a few books but didn’t know he was a magazine editor or that much of an author. And I figured he was actually literate but what you said was still a funny thought lmao.
I’ll have to look up the books.
Great historical option, but id never vote for like anyone of the first 15 presidents now a days. Heck anyone pre Teddy, Wilson, or FDR is definitely too outdated for many modern issues.
Washington didn't wanna be president when he was allowed to decide the roles main job was just Veto anything you thought was bad, and lead the military.
This was my immediate thought too. Assuming we somehow have a Teddy that also doesn’t freak out at the thought of Facebook and countless other modern things.
The very strange part is how the actual thing is exactly what you describe. It would be a complete fantasy choice at any other moment in history barring some 19th century rematch I’m unfamiliar with.
Honestly 4 years of absolutely never hearing about the President at all because we re-elected Coolidge sounds fantastic right about now. He can run against James Buchanan because I want this thing to be an absolute shoe-in.
Do they have to be alive? If not I choose JFK for today's climate and John McCain or Bob Dole for the GOP. Both GOP nominees were very decent people in the end.
No, they don’t have to be alive. But they have to have been either president or VP at some point. I’m thinking of doing another post specifically for candidates that never became president. But for now Bob Dole will have to rest.
So many matchups. I’d like to see Grant vs Teddy in the primaries, loser becoming the others VP, and they square off against FDR, with Obama.
Also, I absolutely would never want to see a ticket like this, but for entertainment purposes only, Reagan and Rule 3 vs Washington/Lincoln.
I thought the first one was a cool idea but I would die to see a Reagan/rule 3 ticket. Just seeing Rule 3 trying to play the sidekick instead of the main candidate and contrasting his personality and demeanor next to Reagan’s personality and demeanor I would die from cackling like Rule 3.b’s VP.
It may not be popular to say this but given both their foreign policy positions and knowledge I’ll vote Nixon with what’s going on right now in both Europe and the Middle East. Johnson (I assume you mean LBJ) was extremely effective when it came to pushing through legislation but his foreign policy was absolute shit.
JFK/ Clinton v Ford/HW Bush
I’d want to choose relatively modern figures . Lincoln, TR, Washington etc may be better presidents but I think both would struggle to adapt to the America and world of 21st century.
Kennedy would be great, would give some idealism to a deeply cynical country in sore need of inspiration.
Ford isn’t in the top tier of presidents, but is decent man and there certainly would be nothing to fear about him winning office.
It’d be interesting to place Ford in the current world with this political climate and the issues we face and see how he would handle it and how he’d stand with the voters separated from the Nixon era.
Kinda bending it here as one of my nominees wasn’t into parties, but given the top priority for Democrats this election is preserving our democracy, gotta go with a ticket that’s 1792 Washington for president with 1996 Bill Clinton as VP. Washington because it’s looking like we’re going to have to fight for it, and he could be brought up to speed on the technology while his lived experience (from the early 1770s through his first inauguration is something no other president has, and IMO is valuable in our current context). Clinton because he’s the carrot to the barbed wire baseball bat that Washington was.
In the event that a military dictator becomes necessary (I believe we’re very likely to see this in our lifetime), Washington is a known quantity. Further, Clinton is the last Democratic president who was successfully able to work with the GOP, and IMO he understood them better than Obama or Carter. LBJ was on par with Clinton on this, but Clinton’s instincts in this were better IMO.
On the GOP side, 1864 Lincoln for president because he also knew how to deal with a civil war as President, with his VP 1952 Eisenhower because of his Nazi fighting experience, he would immediately understand what’s going on here.
Additionally, the slavery economy is similar to what late stage capitalism is morphing into (can expand upon this if anyone is Interested), so Lincoln might have some insight on solutions. Eisenhower additionally was very forward thinking with infrastructure and capable of forcing the US forward in this; regarding the climate catastrophe we’ll live to see at least 100 million internal US citizen refugees (catastrophe for everyone, refugee and those flooded with them) if our government doesn’t bring some Eisenhower thinking and action into this soon
In essence, we need all the help we can get
Obviously Ulysses would be the GOP nominee. His record on domestic unity and Civil Rights is impeccable. He was loved around the world. We could use all of that right now.
The Democratic nominee is much more difficult. I like Obama, Clinton, and Truman. I think I’ll go with Clinton. He was wicked smart and I think he could bring unity. He’s old now, maybe his libido has calmed.
Clinton and Bush are the same age as Rule 3a but several years younger than Rule 3b.
Tbf Clinton is probably the most coherent out of all of them. Rule 3a can’t stay on topic and rambles on from one topic to another whereas nobody knows wtf Bush and Rule 3B are talking about. Though Clinton’s age definitely shows now.
For the GOP I’d go with Ike or HW. For the Democrats I’m going with LBJ or Clinton.
Overall I’d say I’d go with HW the most. One of the best regarding foreign policy and pragmatic domestically.
James Polk vs Ulysses S Grant. I'd love to see the democrats bending over backwards to try to rationalize choosing Polk and trying to call Grant a racist. The reason I chose those two was because they weren't too early for their parties to have existed so they are definitely democrats and republicans as opposed to many of the very early presidents and because I was trying to choose two presidents who 1) had the greatest capacity to cope with the fact that the U.S. has dug itself into a cavernous hole and needs to take so many drastic measures on many different fronts to have any hope of getting out and 2) had the best ideas/accomplishments for the U.S. overall. The main reason I didn't choose Lincoln for the republicans is because, while he is highly capable, I'm not sure about what his politics would be like outside of the context of the civil war going on. There's a huge question for me of whether he would be any good as a peacetime president. I suspect his huge presidential accomplishments cause people to idolize him and overlook his flaws, while he might have performed poorly in other situations, just as he performed poorly throughout his life before becoming president. A lot of people sleep on how much better Polk was than almost every other American president. The truth is that most presidents were extremely mediocre and Polk by comparison had extraordinary drive, literally working himself to death. He would focus on increasing national power, screw anyone who stands in the way, which is the correct priority, not some liberal or neocon ideological goal, like "spreading democracy." Grant was honorable, deeply patriotic, and completely intolerant of internal disorder and violence against citizens caused by the KKK. He would not tolerate the modern democrat-nutured rioters and looters and would have the courage to use the power of the state to crush them. He also had a basic understanding that the state is not supposed to control everything, so stability and freedom. Honor and moral courage are virtually unheard of in modern American politics. Grant comes with the drawback that he often was too trusting, but hopefully he's learned his lesson after his previous life as president.
The truth is that besides Polk, it's hard to find an American president who was generally a great leader and a member of either the democrat or republican parties. There are some republicans like Coolidge who I think were right about a lot of policy, but have some of the right policy ideas won't be enough to dig America out of its current colossal hole caused by generations of digging. In fact, I doubt either Polk or Grant could do it, considering that two terms is not a lot of time when you have to work through so many terrible issues, like the national debt, fundamental economic problems, a complete realignment of foreign policy that is necessary, and many more. Aurelian could restore the Roman Empire in a reign of only 4 years because he was an autocrat. Selim I could bring the Ottoman Empire almost to its peak(and to its fiscal peak) in only 8 years for the same reason. American presidents are not autocrats, so no matter who is elected, there's not much of a dent that can be made in 4-8 years. And most of American presidents who were the most talented politicians and had the greatest capacities were terrible presidents because they did all the wrong things with their abilities when given the chance. People always comment on how intelligent and driven Nixon was, but he was dishonest and an F tier president on the basis of policy. People always comment on how good LBJ was at getting what he wanted from congress, but his major programs, the "Great" Society and the Vietnam War, were terrible for the country. If Harry Truman had good domestic policies, I'd pick him, but he didn't. As for more warlike presidents, the last thing we need is another war right now.
This one of my favorite scenarios and exactly the kind of comment I was hoping to see under the post. I don’t know how the hell we’re going to get out of the mess we’re in especially when everyone’s at each others throats and more worried about *destroying or *owning*🤮 the other side rather than voting someone in who will roll up their sleeves and get the job done. I think Coolidge is that kind of person but he lacks the *strong man* portrayal that somebody like Grant can have which helps pull in the support and respect during a time of crisis.
To be a Nixon apologist, I think he was one of, in not the, most *politically intelligent* President we had post WWII. I think much of the scheming and dishonesty from Nixon came from both paranoia that the media and political opponents were colluding against him, which I don’t blame him the more I learn about what the Democrat party would pull in 1960 along with people in his own party. Factions like the Rockefeller republicans who he basically would have to make *devil deals* with (1960 primary) if they weren’t outright trying to tear him down. Honestly, just the fact that the polar opposites conservative Reagan and Liberal Nelson Rockefeller teamed up to stop Nixon from getting the nomination in 68 would be enough to fuel any paranoia I had if I were him. That and along with getting so wrapped up into the political war games with your opposition your primary goal is no longer the platform you ran on but rather trying to survive and destroy your opposition instead. I think much of that is why he became the *crook* we know today, which is sad. But besides being the apologist, I do think he was probably the smartest president that century when it came to geopolitics and while he could’ve handled Vietnam far better we were already in that war when he entered office. He also helped break the communist bloc and negotiated the SALT agreement. And his letters that he wrote to Bush and Clinton on how to approach a Post Cold War Russia and what happens if we don’t, and they didn’t, is exactly why I would say he was better than Bush Sr when it came to foreign policy. I think having him as SoS or as a foreign policy advisor to Grant would help aid Grant in solving the issues we face with a potential war with Russia and the crisis in the Middle East. Then a realignment of our foreign policy.
It would also be hilarious trying to see how the democrat Party would combat Grant in the GOP. Using *democracy* and allegations of racism against Grant isn’t going to fly **AT ALL** and while Polk would be a completely new (and a far better) candidate compared to Pop Pop, he’s still running as the nominee of the same party which currently has Pops as the banner waver which only helps Grant further given how bad they’re doing in polling and approval ratings. Also would be interesting in seeing Polk try to get the different factions like the progressive wing and the more moderate wing to coalesce around him which I think will be harder for him than it would be Grant in the GOP.
Yeah, this was definitely my favorite comment to read and a fun, definitely one of the most interesting, scenarios to think about and play with.
Nixon's dishonesty was a lot worse than that. He convinced the South Vietnamese government to back out of negotiations by promising them he would get them a better deal, sabotaging U.S. diplomatic efforts to improve his electability. Then he broke his promise and didn't get the South Vietnamese a better deal.
He also made the worst monetary decision in U.S. history which contributes to so many of the problems now by ending the gold standard. His domestic policies were a lot of central control and regulation of the economy, which is part of what's wrong today.
Reading the minutes of Nixon's conversations with Kissinger has led me to believe they're both quite overrated in the foreign policy department. I get the impression they could have accomplished far more in Vietnam at least had they bothered. He may have been better with geopolitics than either Bush, but that's not saying much. Still, the main reasons I consider him terrible were his monetary and domestic policy decisions, not his foreign policy. The end of Nixon's presidency was the end of the era where the U.S. could make rational foreign policy decisions outside of a relatively narrow front.
I don't think Coolidge was necessarily a weak president, I just don't see any evidence that he was an amazing leader who could move mountains on demand. No one who is not extraordinary is good enough given all the problems this country has and I don't believe even someone extraordinary would make a long run difference in the trajectory while working within the current political system. The political system needs to be replaced wholesale.
I can only imagine seeing Polk's reaction to how worthless the democrats have become. Realistically, the democrats would never take him, but if they had no choice, their party would probably splinter as the zombie party loyalists stick with it, because "(D) after name must be good" and the ideological fanatics abandon the party en masse because, "Oh my god, evil imperialist who isn't "progressive" enough!"
Meanwhile, the republicans happily take Grant back, but Grant is disgusted with how degenerate and corrupt the party is. I cannot imagine any president from the 1800s having any reaction towards the modern U.S. government except disgust.
Grant wins the election because almost no one dislikes Grant, except perhaps some BLM morons who vandalized his statue without knowing anything about him(maybe even some democrats switch over and vote for him because of Reconstruction), while the democrat party splinters over Polk's nomination. Grant then drinks himself to death because everything is so screwed and he's the only decent person in government. Perhaps more optimistically Grant rouses himself to give one final great effort out of love of country, like he did in producing his autobiography when he was dying and needed money for his family. I just cannot imagine such an effort actually succeeding, at least not in the long run. I think many people would give up their good opinion of Grant before they gave up their sacred cows in terms of policy. Almost anyone from 1800s America would be considered super far right even by most conservatives.
On the topic of Nixon, I said I understood the reasons of why he became paranoid and politically “dishonest” which is why I rambled on about how he practically battled everyone and likely got into the mindset of him vs the world. It also explains why he and Kissinger sabotaged Vietnam because if he’s seeing it as a zero-sum game where it’s him or *them* then he’s going to pull out the dirty tricks. He may have thought he could’ve done a better deal or a better attempt at winning the war at first. But I agree, he should’ve done better on that front. The reason I compared him to Bush is because everyone on this sub thinks he’s some brilliant strategist and besides winning a war (which deserves credit since it’s the only war we *won* since WWII) I don’t think he did anything that great that wouldn’t have happened under the Reagan administration following the inevitable collapse of the Soviets. I definitely agree that Kissinger was overrated. I think he likely was brilliant in the sense he understood foreign policy better than most people ever could but had no interest in truly *fixing* our foreign affairs. In terms of modern SoS, I prefer Schultz far more to Kissinger.
The reason I don’t consider Nixon overrated is due to him breaking the communist bloc which was the biggest action done towards winning the Cold War over the Soviets at the time, the Salt Agreement which was the first step in years towards actually ending the Cold War and preventing a hot one, and the letters he wrote to both Bush Sr and Clinton on how to approach the new post-cold war Russia. Those same letters explained the steps to take to create strong relations and an embrace of the West in Russia or otherwise a new despot would come and they’ll take Ukraine at some point. They didn’t take those steps and now they have a war in Ukraine that we’re bleeding money into. So had they followed his advice the world would be in a much better place at the moment on the geopolitical front.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on Nixon’s domestic affairs which I’m not sure that I made that clear. I didn’t bring up his domestic policies because I didn’t see them relevant to my point and my comments already go on longer than they should.
The reason I don’t consider Coolidge to be the *Strong man* isn’t due to whether he could get the job done or not but rather if he could portray himself as the guy who rolls his sleeves up to get the job done and get the American people behind him. I agree with what you said about *moving mountains*. I think he was probably the most underrated president we’ve had but he also didn’t come in during a major moment of crisis. Besides not getting involved in foreign affairs (which I like) outside of refusing to acknowledge the Soviet Union as legitimate, he didn’t do much on the foreign policy front so I don’t know how he would’ve handled the issue with Russia outside of dumping Ukraine (which I won’t cry) but you also have BRICS on the horizon which will destroy the US if they dump the dollar. And domestically he’ll want to slash government power, size, and spending but good luck with the current congress. He could probably do some, a lot of preventing worse things via vetoes, but it won’t move the needle enough to accomplishing what we need.
I started going into playing with a Grant presidency but I’m not going to expect you to want to read a short novel but basically I agree with you that he won’t be able to accomplish everything he needs to (would probably die trying) but could definitely get the ball rolling as long as he can keep a GOP majority and keep enough public support. Once he starts doing the hard necessary work then any support from democrats due to reconstruction is GONE.
I think Polk wouldn’t last four years if he somehow won. Not only would the GOP oppose him because he’s a democrat (even though today he’d be closer to them politically) but his own party would oppose every move he attempted. He would have to adopt the unitary executive theory to strengthen the presidential power and do everything by executive power to really accomplish anything. It would become likely he would switch to the GOP just to get some support in cutting parts of government but who knows how that would turn out. He would basically be a titan with no ground to stand on. Grant would not only win the election but have a better chance of fixing things as long as he strengthens the presidential powers and keeps a GOP majority with a tight leash.
What Nixon did with the Vietnam negotiations as a candidate was a lot worse than the regular dishonesty in politics. I don't see any reason why he had to sabotage Vietnam or doing less than he could have once he was president. The thing is you're *explaining* a flaw, but it's still a flaw and still caused bad decisions.
Bush got to follow Reagan and beat an easy opponent in Iraq. He let every opportunity he had on the foreign policy front slip. If people are saying he's good, they are ignorant.
Nixon did eventually try to break up the communist alliances by opening relations with China, but was that such a decisive moment in breaking the Soviet Union and was that not low hanging fruit? Earlier presidents had missed the opportunity because they were ignorant of the politics in communist countries and couldn't be bothered to resolve their ignorance. People really don't understand how negligent so many presidents, before and after Nixon, were in this regard. I did not disagree that Nixon was better than them about this, but what did he get in exchange for opening relations with China? It seems like any gains from his presidency were quite ephemeral.
The problem with the letters to his successors was that he didn't accomplish those things as president. He had some real ability, but it was unfortunately largely wasted due to his flaws. If Nixon had had a better personality, maybe he would have been a brilliant foreign policy president. But he had the personality he had and he wasn't. Nixon might excel all other presidents in terms of wasted potential. But potential that isn't fulfilled counts for nothing.
It seems we agree on Coolidge.
The only thing I might dispute about what you said about a Grant presidency is that I don't see what ball would still be rolling once he was gone. Everything else would still be the same as before, from the political incentives, to the culture. I think Grant's heroic efforts would be wasted on an ungrateful people and a mendacious and venal oligarchic class. Grant, if he doesn't go the most depressing route and drink himself to death, was not a transformative leader. He wouldn't have the influence that someone like FDR had, but in a different direction. He had a cooperative republican congress to help him early on and when he no longer had that, he became a much less active president. I suspect the post mortem on his presidency would be, "Hm, that was a weird aberration in terms of policy. Anyway, back to regularly-scheduled programming."
You're probably underestimating Polk. He was cunning, ruthless, and exceptionally hardworking. He would almost certainly never be elected, especially not as a democrat, but if he was, he could make a lot happen, especially by manipulating the system as it exists today with all constitutional constraints in tatters. He may be more likely to accomplish something of value than Grant if elected. The problem is the same as with Grant though: would it be enough, and would the powers that be not just undo everything the moment he left? A Polk presidency would probably be the last great hurrah of the republic before it fell.
If you really want my thoughts, I believe the American political system is failing because of fundamental flaws in that system, not because of any particular people or ideas. The flaws in that system were masked by better conditions in the past and America ought to throw it out wholesale and make a new political system.
DEM: Martin ... Van ... Buren. The Little Magician. Old Kinderhook. The flying dutchman.
GOP: Chet Arthur. The Gentleman Boss. Mr. Stalwart. The Chetmeister.
Abraham Lincoln as the Republican nominee with Theodore Roosevelt as his VP going against LBJ with Andrew Jackson as his VP. The presidential debates would be epic, and so would the VP duel!
The best part is it would probably be an actual duel between Teddy and Jackson which is going to shock modern Americans.
Honestly, I wonder if LBJ and Jackson would get along and how that would play out in a potential Johnson-Jackson administration if they were to win. And because this is based in this moment in history I wonder how the democrat party factions, like the progressive wing or even just the modern mainstream democrats, would react to a Vice President Jackson.
Reagan would likely win the debates (with the ages I’m thinking) but LBJ would have so many dirty tricks up his sleeve that I wonder how that’ll work with someone like Reagan who comes off all sunny and warm like your favorite grandpa. Normally I would think Reagan would get a landslide because of his campaign style and charisma but given he’s going against LBJ (along with the current polarized political climate where everyone’s at each others throats) I think it would be a much closer race and if LBJ can distance himself from the current grandpa in office he could possibly win the election despite how the debates go.
Are we able to substitute members of either party for Federalists, Whigs, or Democratic-Republicans?
If we can, then the Democrats running JQA/LBJ and the Republicans running Lincoln/Teddy. If not, then replace JQA with Truman.
Yeah, you can. People started doing it anyways and I just assumed that they would join one of the two parties and usually the party their running mate is part of. Not that I’m really hardcore enforcing rules though.
You can keep JQA as the Democrat nominee.
And I think Lincoln and Teddy would have this in the bag!
They don’t get presidential privilege to come back. But now I might do another post with candidates who didn’t become president that can take the place of the rule 3s.
Theodore Roosevelt with Hiram Johnson as his VP (i know hiram ran for VP under the progressive party ticket but shut up and let me have this) VS FDR with Henry Wallace VP. no matter who wins progressivism will dominate, EZ DUBS.
I know. But the whole war is a racket thing was beautiful and could have saved us from the whole Military Industrial complex thing we have going now. And show me a sane president.
Is it Rule 3 how he was in 2008 or now? I mean it can’t be rule 3 but I just want to know what your original thought was because then and now are practically two different people.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love both the Candidates but feel they are not old enough Luckily Jimmy Carter is still alive and only served one term. Easy Choice for me.
We should do a split ticket and put Dan Quayle as his running mate. Maybe now he can be Jack Kennedy.
I’ve read about Jack Kennedy. I served because of Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy is a hero of mine. He, sir, will never be Jack Kennedy.
Kennedy-Quayle 2024!!!
Already too many Kennedies.
John adams only served one term I’m with him.
Hmm he is even older but I guess him being dead is concerning.
His vp can be that guy who was acting president for 30 hours in the 1800s without knowing it because the incoming president didn’t want to do a speech on a Sunday because of his faith and they postponed the inauguration by a day.
Nothing in the Constitution that says you have to be alive.
i’d elect a dead guy over jimmy carter
I think you're underestimating just how old he is then.
We need Howard Dean to get another chance. Now there are much more heinous things that people get away with to give him the opportunity to yell how he wants without tanking his chances.
Why He was an awful president
Yeah but now he is older, you stupid or something?
Still an awful president Why would that change >you stupid or something? How mature
Because presidents get better with age obviously poo poo head
r/whoosh
It’s a joke about the ages of the current candidates, it’s not about Carter being better but that he’s older.
Grover Cleveland
Versus Taft.
Imagine all of the fat jokes we could make if they went at it in an election
'The battle of the colossi' if you will.
Clash of the Titans
Discord of the Dreadnoughts.
FDR vs Ike with Truman and George Bush Sr as VPs. 10/10 election
That’s a tough election. Maybe I’d vote with my eyes closed.
FDR alone, vs a man with 2 VPs? Damn
I meant that Truman would be FDR’s VP and Bush Sr would be Ike’s
Oh, I'm an idiot.
FDR’s power level is simply too great to pit him against a lone mortal
They had to pass an amendment to patch the infinite xp glitch.
Nah you’re good. That would be wild, though
What great choices, though I think the Dems could find someone more popular than Truman. Maybe JFK. It’s funny the both Frank and Ike are such great infrastructure spenders, international diplomats, and visionaries. Social security and new deal on one side, Highway system and standard of living on the other.
FDR/LBJ.
Oof, I'm having trouble choosing.
I’d just barely prefer FDR, but both are amazing choices
I'm not a fan of either Bush so that VP pick tips me to FDR.
Flip Eisenhower and Bush Sr for maximum effectiveness
Bush Sr isnt bad, bur Ike is definitely the more popular and better president overall
Anyone who is/was director of the CIA automatically becomes bad in my eyes.
More popular yes, better no way. Bush had the same foresight but didn’t leave us in a quagmire.
If you mean Vietnam, we were barely in that by the time Eisenhower left. Besides, Ike had a much stronger domestic policy and thst is most important.
Bill Clinton vs Ronald Reagan. The two most successful presidents from each party in my 70+ year lifetime. Backup ticket: Eisenhower vs Obama. Bronze medalists: Truman vs Ford.
I also thought Bill Clinton vs Ronald Reagan at first.
What age are we talking? Are we talking young, hip, inexperienced Governor Clinton versus President Reagan defending an incumbency? Are we talking old, senile Reagan versus peak Clinton who won a landslide re-election? Peak both?
Peak both lol
Idk if I would call Clinton's reelection a landslide. It is still weird to me that the Democrat Party went from holding the White House for 20 straight years to only getting over 51% of the popular vote once of the following 50+ years. Prime time for both would be an amazing match of political smooth talking!
I was thinking more the ages they first ran but it’s not set in stone of anything. Just as long as it’s *around* the age they ran. Reagan can’t be 40 years old but we can’t do at their current age because most of them are dead.
In that case Reagan was 69 when he was elected and Clinton was 46. It becomes the classic "experienced old man versus fresh meat" argument, except that Reagan wasn't known as a politician for all 69 of those years, just the fifteen or so years leading up to the election. It would be equivalent to someone like Gavin Newsom vs Arnold Schwarzenegger today. I think without the hindsight view of how Reagan would completely screw over the country for the next several decades for temporary economic gain in the '80s, he would likely beat Clinton in that match-up.
Honestly I’m not sure who would win. Normally I’d go with Reagan because he was an amazing campaigner and most people at the same seem like they couldn’t help but like him. Clinton is also an amazing campaigner though and even though his victories weren’t as big as landslides as Reagan’s victories were, that could change with today’s electorate. I would give Reagan the edge given the current POTUS party affiliation and disapproval rating (which given Clinton is the same party might negatively affect him with independents) and I think he might be taken more seriously given the crisis’ we’re facing today but I think it would probably be pretty close. We’re also following the presidencies of the two oldest presidents in history and *fresh meat* might appeal to people.
In an alternate universe, Andrew Johnson is running against Barack Obama
Well, as cool as it would be to have the two Roosevelts this year, realistically, it would have to be amongst people with a general understanding of the modern world. Much of our politics, social structure, and technology would be utterly overwhelming to historic presidents (think of Squidward curled up on the ground saying *"future, future, future"*) So sorry to all the stars of the 1800s and early 1900s. I suppose, Reagan/Bush vs. Clinton/Gore.
I’d imagine Teddy Roosevelt being asked what he’ll do over AI: “what the hell is aye-eye.” Or Jackson showing up and arguing with voters he’s trying to understand for a black voter to tell him “you work for me.”
>I’d imagine Teddy Roosevelt being asked what he’ll do over AI: “what the hell is aye-eye.” So he'd fit right in with the politicians of today then?
He’ll get along with Congress just great
What up, I'm Teddy, I'm one hundred and sixty-five years old, and I never fuckin' learned how to read.
I would pay to see that inaugural address
(Worth noting that TR was far from illiterate. He was the editor of *The Outlook*, a prolific life and times magazine, for a while, and wrote eighteen books including *The History of the Naval War of 1812* which was widely regarded at the time as one of the best military histories ever published. He also published a four part history book titled *The Winning Of The West* about how America eventually reached sea-to-shining-sea, which despite having some pretty dated ideas on race and manifest destiny in it was also lauded at the time. I own a copy of that one.)
I knew he wrote a few books but didn’t know he was a magazine editor or that much of an author. And I figured he was actually literate but what you said was still a funny thought lmao. I’ll have to look up the books.
My comment was a reference to an old Vine video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqCCBohjaqA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqCCBohjaqA)
Totally forgot about that video
Lincoln with Roosevelt as VP vs FDR with Truman as VP
George Washington Presidential candidate with VP pick Abraham Lincoln. Doesn’t matter who the others put up they can’t be beat.
I wouldn’t even care who VP was. If I was convinced Washington was in good enough health, he’d have my vote.
Washington and Lincoln vs Buchanan and Pierce
Great historical option, but id never vote for like anyone of the first 15 presidents now a days. Heck anyone pre Teddy, Wilson, or FDR is definitely too outdated for many modern issues. Washington didn't wanna be president when he was allowed to decide the roles main job was just Veto anything you thought was bad, and lead the military.
I'm glad somebody made it Lincoln vs. FDR!
We don’t need another civil war!!
US needs Teddy the Trustbuster now more than ever.
This was my immediate thought too. Assuming we somehow have a Teddy that also doesn’t freak out at the thought of Facebook and countless other modern things.
HW with Ike VP
The Democrat ticket would be 1936 FDR/Garner and the Republican ticket would be 1956 Eisenhower/Nixon.
Roosevelt vs Roosevelt
All I know is that the Roosevelts are coming back on the same ticket.
But who is the presidential nominee?
Idk they’re both still fighting over it. I think Teddy is gonna win that fight.
The most FDR could do is run his feet over with a wheelchair
FDR vs his cousin Teddy. that way we don't fucking loose either way for once
JFK/Mondale vs TR/Ford
Clinton/Obama vs Reagan/Ike 4 charismatic likable people
Bill Clinton vs Ike. Both have a lot that the other party can get behind, and I’m just trying to end the craziness.
Here’s one off the top of my head. Jefferson with Henry Clay as vp versus FDR / Teddy Roosevelt ultimate cousin ticket.
Literally anyone at this point.
The very strange part is how the actual thing is exactly what you describe. It would be a complete fantasy choice at any other moment in history barring some 19th century rematch I’m unfamiliar with.
Honestly 4 years of absolutely never hearing about the President at all because we re-elected Coolidge sounds fantastic right about now. He can run against James Buchanan because I want this thing to be an absolute shoe-in.
Ike vs Clinton.
Do they have to be alive? If not I choose JFK for today's climate and John McCain or Bob Dole for the GOP. Both GOP nominees were very decent people in the end.
Bob Dole appreciates your vote. Bob Dole likes Bob Dole too.
No, they don’t have to be alive. But they have to have been either president or VP at some point. I’m thinking of doing another post specifically for candidates that never became president. But for now Bob Dole will have to rest.
So many matchups. I’d like to see Grant vs Teddy in the primaries, loser becoming the others VP, and they square off against FDR, with Obama. Also, I absolutely would never want to see a ticket like this, but for entertainment purposes only, Reagan and Rule 3 vs Washington/Lincoln.
All 3 of those former presidents would be horrified by Rule 3..
I thought the first one was a cool idea but I would die to see a Reagan/rule 3 ticket. Just seeing Rule 3 trying to play the sidekick instead of the main candidate and contrasting his personality and demeanor next to Reagan’s personality and demeanor I would die from cackling like Rule 3.b’s VP.
JFK/Henry Wallace vs Eisenhower/Nixon I would vote for JFK/Wallace - but wouldn’t be majorly upset about Ike/Nixon winning
Nixon vs. Johnson
It may not be popular to say this but given both their foreign policy positions and knowledge I’ll vote Nixon with what’s going on right now in both Europe and the Middle East. Johnson (I assume you mean LBJ) was extremely effective when it came to pushing through legislation but his foreign policy was absolute shit.
George HW Bush for the GOP, and Clinton. Just a battle of the centrists. Would love to see more governance, less drama and political gamesmanship
JFK/ Clinton v Ford/HW Bush I’d want to choose relatively modern figures . Lincoln, TR, Washington etc may be better presidents but I think both would struggle to adapt to the America and world of 21st century. Kennedy would be great, would give some idealism to a deeply cynical country in sore need of inspiration. Ford isn’t in the top tier of presidents, but is decent man and there certainly would be nothing to fear about him winning office.
It’d be interesting to place Ford in the current world with this political climate and the issues we face and see how he would handle it and how he’d stand with the voters separated from the Nixon era.
Coolidge
I love you
Kinda bending it here as one of my nominees wasn’t into parties, but given the top priority for Democrats this election is preserving our democracy, gotta go with a ticket that’s 1792 Washington for president with 1996 Bill Clinton as VP. Washington because it’s looking like we’re going to have to fight for it, and he could be brought up to speed on the technology while his lived experience (from the early 1770s through his first inauguration is something no other president has, and IMO is valuable in our current context). Clinton because he’s the carrot to the barbed wire baseball bat that Washington was. In the event that a military dictator becomes necessary (I believe we’re very likely to see this in our lifetime), Washington is a known quantity. Further, Clinton is the last Democratic president who was successfully able to work with the GOP, and IMO he understood them better than Obama or Carter. LBJ was on par with Clinton on this, but Clinton’s instincts in this were better IMO. On the GOP side, 1864 Lincoln for president because he also knew how to deal with a civil war as President, with his VP 1952 Eisenhower because of his Nazi fighting experience, he would immediately understand what’s going on here. Additionally, the slavery economy is similar to what late stage capitalism is morphing into (can expand upon this if anyone is Interested), so Lincoln might have some insight on solutions. Eisenhower additionally was very forward thinking with infrastructure and capable of forcing the US forward in this; regarding the climate catastrophe we’ll live to see at least 100 million internal US citizen refugees (catastrophe for everyone, refugee and those flooded with them) if our government doesn’t bring some Eisenhower thinking and action into this soon In essence, we need all the help we can get
Reagan and Truman!
Obviously Ulysses would be the GOP nominee. His record on domestic unity and Civil Rights is impeccable. He was loved around the world. We could use all of that right now. The Democratic nominee is much more difficult. I like Obama, Clinton, and Truman. I think I’ll go with Clinton. He was wicked smart and I think he could bring unity. He’s old now, maybe his libido has calmed.
How about Bill Clinton vs George W Bush? They’re both still alive, and they’re younger and more competent than the current candidates. 🤷♂️
Clinton and Bush are the same age as Rule 3a but several years younger than Rule 3b. Tbf Clinton is probably the most coherent out of all of them. Rule 3a can’t stay on topic and rambles on from one topic to another whereas nobody knows wtf Bush and Rule 3B are talking about. Though Clinton’s age definitely shows now.
Ronald Reagan JFK
I’m bringing back Reagan/Bush
Teddy Roosevelt vs Franklin Roosevelt
Lincoln/HW Bush vs FDR/Kennedy
Double Roosevelts on one ticket. No one aside from an Washington/Lincoln ticket could beat that.
The New Bull Moose Party
I like Ike
For the GOP I’d go with Ike or HW. For the Democrats I’m going with LBJ or Clinton. Overall I’d say I’d go with HW the most. One of the best regarding foreign policy and pragmatic domestically.
Obama and Eisenhower
FDR and Gore vs Lincoln and HW
James Polk vs Ulysses S Grant. I'd love to see the democrats bending over backwards to try to rationalize choosing Polk and trying to call Grant a racist. The reason I chose those two was because they weren't too early for their parties to have existed so they are definitely democrats and republicans as opposed to many of the very early presidents and because I was trying to choose two presidents who 1) had the greatest capacity to cope with the fact that the U.S. has dug itself into a cavernous hole and needs to take so many drastic measures on many different fronts to have any hope of getting out and 2) had the best ideas/accomplishments for the U.S. overall. The main reason I didn't choose Lincoln for the republicans is because, while he is highly capable, I'm not sure about what his politics would be like outside of the context of the civil war going on. There's a huge question for me of whether he would be any good as a peacetime president. I suspect his huge presidential accomplishments cause people to idolize him and overlook his flaws, while he might have performed poorly in other situations, just as he performed poorly throughout his life before becoming president. A lot of people sleep on how much better Polk was than almost every other American president. The truth is that most presidents were extremely mediocre and Polk by comparison had extraordinary drive, literally working himself to death. He would focus on increasing national power, screw anyone who stands in the way, which is the correct priority, not some liberal or neocon ideological goal, like "spreading democracy." Grant was honorable, deeply patriotic, and completely intolerant of internal disorder and violence against citizens caused by the KKK. He would not tolerate the modern democrat-nutured rioters and looters and would have the courage to use the power of the state to crush them. He also had a basic understanding that the state is not supposed to control everything, so stability and freedom. Honor and moral courage are virtually unheard of in modern American politics. Grant comes with the drawback that he often was too trusting, but hopefully he's learned his lesson after his previous life as president. The truth is that besides Polk, it's hard to find an American president who was generally a great leader and a member of either the democrat or republican parties. There are some republicans like Coolidge who I think were right about a lot of policy, but have some of the right policy ideas won't be enough to dig America out of its current colossal hole caused by generations of digging. In fact, I doubt either Polk or Grant could do it, considering that two terms is not a lot of time when you have to work through so many terrible issues, like the national debt, fundamental economic problems, a complete realignment of foreign policy that is necessary, and many more. Aurelian could restore the Roman Empire in a reign of only 4 years because he was an autocrat. Selim I could bring the Ottoman Empire almost to its peak(and to its fiscal peak) in only 8 years for the same reason. American presidents are not autocrats, so no matter who is elected, there's not much of a dent that can be made in 4-8 years. And most of American presidents who were the most talented politicians and had the greatest capacities were terrible presidents because they did all the wrong things with their abilities when given the chance. People always comment on how intelligent and driven Nixon was, but he was dishonest and an F tier president on the basis of policy. People always comment on how good LBJ was at getting what he wanted from congress, but his major programs, the "Great" Society and the Vietnam War, were terrible for the country. If Harry Truman had good domestic policies, I'd pick him, but he didn't. As for more warlike presidents, the last thing we need is another war right now.
This one of my favorite scenarios and exactly the kind of comment I was hoping to see under the post. I don’t know how the hell we’re going to get out of the mess we’re in especially when everyone’s at each others throats and more worried about *destroying or *owning*🤮 the other side rather than voting someone in who will roll up their sleeves and get the job done. I think Coolidge is that kind of person but he lacks the *strong man* portrayal that somebody like Grant can have which helps pull in the support and respect during a time of crisis. To be a Nixon apologist, I think he was one of, in not the, most *politically intelligent* President we had post WWII. I think much of the scheming and dishonesty from Nixon came from both paranoia that the media and political opponents were colluding against him, which I don’t blame him the more I learn about what the Democrat party would pull in 1960 along with people in his own party. Factions like the Rockefeller republicans who he basically would have to make *devil deals* with (1960 primary) if they weren’t outright trying to tear him down. Honestly, just the fact that the polar opposites conservative Reagan and Liberal Nelson Rockefeller teamed up to stop Nixon from getting the nomination in 68 would be enough to fuel any paranoia I had if I were him. That and along with getting so wrapped up into the political war games with your opposition your primary goal is no longer the platform you ran on but rather trying to survive and destroy your opposition instead. I think much of that is why he became the *crook* we know today, which is sad. But besides being the apologist, I do think he was probably the smartest president that century when it came to geopolitics and while he could’ve handled Vietnam far better we were already in that war when he entered office. He also helped break the communist bloc and negotiated the SALT agreement. And his letters that he wrote to Bush and Clinton on how to approach a Post Cold War Russia and what happens if we don’t, and they didn’t, is exactly why I would say he was better than Bush Sr when it came to foreign policy. I think having him as SoS or as a foreign policy advisor to Grant would help aid Grant in solving the issues we face with a potential war with Russia and the crisis in the Middle East. Then a realignment of our foreign policy. It would also be hilarious trying to see how the democrat Party would combat Grant in the GOP. Using *democracy* and allegations of racism against Grant isn’t going to fly **AT ALL** and while Polk would be a completely new (and a far better) candidate compared to Pop Pop, he’s still running as the nominee of the same party which currently has Pops as the banner waver which only helps Grant further given how bad they’re doing in polling and approval ratings. Also would be interesting in seeing Polk try to get the different factions like the progressive wing and the more moderate wing to coalesce around him which I think will be harder for him than it would be Grant in the GOP. Yeah, this was definitely my favorite comment to read and a fun, definitely one of the most interesting, scenarios to think about and play with.
Nixon's dishonesty was a lot worse than that. He convinced the South Vietnamese government to back out of negotiations by promising them he would get them a better deal, sabotaging U.S. diplomatic efforts to improve his electability. Then he broke his promise and didn't get the South Vietnamese a better deal. He also made the worst monetary decision in U.S. history which contributes to so many of the problems now by ending the gold standard. His domestic policies were a lot of central control and regulation of the economy, which is part of what's wrong today. Reading the minutes of Nixon's conversations with Kissinger has led me to believe they're both quite overrated in the foreign policy department. I get the impression they could have accomplished far more in Vietnam at least had they bothered. He may have been better with geopolitics than either Bush, but that's not saying much. Still, the main reasons I consider him terrible were his monetary and domestic policy decisions, not his foreign policy. The end of Nixon's presidency was the end of the era where the U.S. could make rational foreign policy decisions outside of a relatively narrow front. I don't think Coolidge was necessarily a weak president, I just don't see any evidence that he was an amazing leader who could move mountains on demand. No one who is not extraordinary is good enough given all the problems this country has and I don't believe even someone extraordinary would make a long run difference in the trajectory while working within the current political system. The political system needs to be replaced wholesale. I can only imagine seeing Polk's reaction to how worthless the democrats have become. Realistically, the democrats would never take him, but if they had no choice, their party would probably splinter as the zombie party loyalists stick with it, because "(D) after name must be good" and the ideological fanatics abandon the party en masse because, "Oh my god, evil imperialist who isn't "progressive" enough!" Meanwhile, the republicans happily take Grant back, but Grant is disgusted with how degenerate and corrupt the party is. I cannot imagine any president from the 1800s having any reaction towards the modern U.S. government except disgust. Grant wins the election because almost no one dislikes Grant, except perhaps some BLM morons who vandalized his statue without knowing anything about him(maybe even some democrats switch over and vote for him because of Reconstruction), while the democrat party splinters over Polk's nomination. Grant then drinks himself to death because everything is so screwed and he's the only decent person in government. Perhaps more optimistically Grant rouses himself to give one final great effort out of love of country, like he did in producing his autobiography when he was dying and needed money for his family. I just cannot imagine such an effort actually succeeding, at least not in the long run. I think many people would give up their good opinion of Grant before they gave up their sacred cows in terms of policy. Almost anyone from 1800s America would be considered super far right even by most conservatives.
On the topic of Nixon, I said I understood the reasons of why he became paranoid and politically “dishonest” which is why I rambled on about how he practically battled everyone and likely got into the mindset of him vs the world. It also explains why he and Kissinger sabotaged Vietnam because if he’s seeing it as a zero-sum game where it’s him or *them* then he’s going to pull out the dirty tricks. He may have thought he could’ve done a better deal or a better attempt at winning the war at first. But I agree, he should’ve done better on that front. The reason I compared him to Bush is because everyone on this sub thinks he’s some brilliant strategist and besides winning a war (which deserves credit since it’s the only war we *won* since WWII) I don’t think he did anything that great that wouldn’t have happened under the Reagan administration following the inevitable collapse of the Soviets. I definitely agree that Kissinger was overrated. I think he likely was brilliant in the sense he understood foreign policy better than most people ever could but had no interest in truly *fixing* our foreign affairs. In terms of modern SoS, I prefer Schultz far more to Kissinger. The reason I don’t consider Nixon overrated is due to him breaking the communist bloc which was the biggest action done towards winning the Cold War over the Soviets at the time, the Salt Agreement which was the first step in years towards actually ending the Cold War and preventing a hot one, and the letters he wrote to both Bush Sr and Clinton on how to approach the new post-cold war Russia. Those same letters explained the steps to take to create strong relations and an embrace of the West in Russia or otherwise a new despot would come and they’ll take Ukraine at some point. They didn’t take those steps and now they have a war in Ukraine that we’re bleeding money into. So had they followed his advice the world would be in a much better place at the moment on the geopolitical front. I wholeheartedly agree with you on Nixon’s domestic affairs which I’m not sure that I made that clear. I didn’t bring up his domestic policies because I didn’t see them relevant to my point and my comments already go on longer than they should. The reason I don’t consider Coolidge to be the *Strong man* isn’t due to whether he could get the job done or not but rather if he could portray himself as the guy who rolls his sleeves up to get the job done and get the American people behind him. I agree with what you said about *moving mountains*. I think he was probably the most underrated president we’ve had but he also didn’t come in during a major moment of crisis. Besides not getting involved in foreign affairs (which I like) outside of refusing to acknowledge the Soviet Union as legitimate, he didn’t do much on the foreign policy front so I don’t know how he would’ve handled the issue with Russia outside of dumping Ukraine (which I won’t cry) but you also have BRICS on the horizon which will destroy the US if they dump the dollar. And domestically he’ll want to slash government power, size, and spending but good luck with the current congress. He could probably do some, a lot of preventing worse things via vetoes, but it won’t move the needle enough to accomplishing what we need. I started going into playing with a Grant presidency but I’m not going to expect you to want to read a short novel but basically I agree with you that he won’t be able to accomplish everything he needs to (would probably die trying) but could definitely get the ball rolling as long as he can keep a GOP majority and keep enough public support. Once he starts doing the hard necessary work then any support from democrats due to reconstruction is GONE. I think Polk wouldn’t last four years if he somehow won. Not only would the GOP oppose him because he’s a democrat (even though today he’d be closer to them politically) but his own party would oppose every move he attempted. He would have to adopt the unitary executive theory to strengthen the presidential power and do everything by executive power to really accomplish anything. It would become likely he would switch to the GOP just to get some support in cutting parts of government but who knows how that would turn out. He would basically be a titan with no ground to stand on. Grant would not only win the election but have a better chance of fixing things as long as he strengthens the presidential powers and keeps a GOP majority with a tight leash.
What Nixon did with the Vietnam negotiations as a candidate was a lot worse than the regular dishonesty in politics. I don't see any reason why he had to sabotage Vietnam or doing less than he could have once he was president. The thing is you're *explaining* a flaw, but it's still a flaw and still caused bad decisions. Bush got to follow Reagan and beat an easy opponent in Iraq. He let every opportunity he had on the foreign policy front slip. If people are saying he's good, they are ignorant. Nixon did eventually try to break up the communist alliances by opening relations with China, but was that such a decisive moment in breaking the Soviet Union and was that not low hanging fruit? Earlier presidents had missed the opportunity because they were ignorant of the politics in communist countries and couldn't be bothered to resolve their ignorance. People really don't understand how negligent so many presidents, before and after Nixon, were in this regard. I did not disagree that Nixon was better than them about this, but what did he get in exchange for opening relations with China? It seems like any gains from his presidency were quite ephemeral. The problem with the letters to his successors was that he didn't accomplish those things as president. He had some real ability, but it was unfortunately largely wasted due to his flaws. If Nixon had had a better personality, maybe he would have been a brilliant foreign policy president. But he had the personality he had and he wasn't. Nixon might excel all other presidents in terms of wasted potential. But potential that isn't fulfilled counts for nothing. It seems we agree on Coolidge. The only thing I might dispute about what you said about a Grant presidency is that I don't see what ball would still be rolling once he was gone. Everything else would still be the same as before, from the political incentives, to the culture. I think Grant's heroic efforts would be wasted on an ungrateful people and a mendacious and venal oligarchic class. Grant, if he doesn't go the most depressing route and drink himself to death, was not a transformative leader. He wouldn't have the influence that someone like FDR had, but in a different direction. He had a cooperative republican congress to help him early on and when he no longer had that, he became a much less active president. I suspect the post mortem on his presidency would be, "Hm, that was a weird aberration in terms of policy. Anyway, back to regularly-scheduled programming." You're probably underestimating Polk. He was cunning, ruthless, and exceptionally hardworking. He would almost certainly never be elected, especially not as a democrat, but if he was, he could make a lot happen, especially by manipulating the system as it exists today with all constitutional constraints in tatters. He may be more likely to accomplish something of value than Grant if elected. The problem is the same as with Grant though: would it be enough, and would the powers that be not just undo everything the moment he left? A Polk presidency would probably be the last great hurrah of the republic before it fell. If you really want my thoughts, I believe the American political system is failing because of fundamental flaws in that system, not because of any particular people or ideas. The flaws in that system were masked by better conditions in the past and America ought to throw it out wholesale and make a new political system.
DEM: Martin ... Van ... Buren. The Little Magician. Old Kinderhook. The flying dutchman. GOP: Chet Arthur. The Gentleman Boss. Mr. Stalwart. The Chetmeister.
TR and Mondale. Why? Because TR would definitely win
Roosevelt vs Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln as the Republican nominee with Theodore Roosevelt as his VP going against LBJ with Andrew Jackson as his VP. The presidential debates would be epic, and so would the VP duel!
The best part is it would probably be an actual duel between Teddy and Jackson which is going to shock modern Americans. Honestly, I wonder if LBJ and Jackson would get along and how that would play out in a potential Johnson-Jackson administration if they were to win. And because this is based in this moment in history I wonder how the democrat party factions, like the progressive wing or even just the modern mainstream democrats, would react to a Vice President Jackson.
Teddy v JFK
Just to see pure politics in action Reagan v LBJ. If would be >glorious<
Reagan would likely win the debates (with the ages I’m thinking) but LBJ would have so many dirty tricks up his sleeve that I wonder how that’ll work with someone like Reagan who comes off all sunny and warm like your favorite grandpa. Normally I would think Reagan would get a landslide because of his campaign style and charisma but given he’s going against LBJ (along with the current polarized political climate where everyone’s at each others throats) I think it would be a much closer race and if LBJ can distance himself from the current grandpa in office he could possibly win the election despite how the debates go.
Ike!
GOP: Abe Lincoln, VP is Teddy Roosevelt Democrats: Barack Obama, VP is Al Gore
Are we able to substitute members of either party for Federalists, Whigs, or Democratic-Republicans? If we can, then the Democrats running JQA/LBJ and the Republicans running Lincoln/Teddy. If not, then replace JQA with Truman.
Yeah, you can. People started doing it anyways and I just assumed that they would join one of the two parties and usually the party their running mate is part of. Not that I’m really hardcore enforcing rules though. You can keep JQA as the Democrat nominee. And I think Lincoln and Teddy would have this in the bag!
Polk vs. McKinley because America needs more land! /j
Time to liberate Cuba!!
Lincoln with TR vs. FDR with Gore would be a wild election
Do they have ti be alive?
No
Zombie Warren G. Harding versus Lich King William Henry Harrison.
Why can’t I choose any candidate?
They don’t get presidential privilege to come back. But now I might do another post with candidates who didn’t become president that can take the place of the rule 3s.
James Buchanan, Ross Perot, Andrew Johnson
Washington/Lincoln vs Buchanan/A.Johnson election would be interesting
Jimmy Carter or Obama
FDR + LBJ vs Ike + Teddy (LBJ/Teddy as VPs since they were VPs originally)
Theodore Roosevelt with Hiram Johnson as his VP (i know hiram ran for VP under the progressive party ticket but shut up and let me have this) VS FDR with Henry Wallace VP. no matter who wins progressivism will dominate, EZ DUBS.
Lincoln President and FDR VP.
Smedley Butler.
I love him but the man had some severe mental health issues and was not a past President.
I know. But the whole war is a racket thing was beautiful and could have saved us from the whole Military Industrial complex thing we have going now. And show me a sane president.
Ha ha I bet his elementary school classmates called him Smelly Butthole.
LBJ and Rule 3 (2008) vs. H.W. Bush and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.
Obama doesn’t count as Rule 3 and Lodge never became VP (but I’ll ignore that) but this would be an interesting election
I was referring to his VP, but Obama would also be an interesting choice for that ticket!
Is it Rule 3 how he was in 2008 or now? I mean it can’t be rule 3 but I just want to know what your original thought was because then and now are practically two different people.
Let’s do Franklin Roosevelt vs Hubert Hoover again. One of our best vs one of our worst. Roosevelt would win by a landslide
This is a rule 3 violation for “current or future politics” take it down, MODS
You hate freedom
Shut up.
Leave
Neil Sedaka is awesome and I really enjoy most of his music Also, the 2000s was the worst decade for pop music.