Which Major Party Candidate Would Have Been the Worst?

[minlokwat]

Full title: Presidential Near Misses. Which Major Party Presidential Candidate Would Have Been the Worst Had He Won?

I know this is totally speculative and revisionist history so I imagine non-experts such as myself are free to have a go at it.

I’ll open with Walter Mondale. He ran a campaign with the promise to raise taxes if elected, this after barely coming out of the economic slump that was the 70’s. Had he won the election, which he lost in a landslide, he would have taken over from 1984 to 1988 which was still a turbulent and somewhat unstable time. I’m not saying Reagan exactly knocked it out of the park during his second term but I think Mondale would have been truly awful. “Where’s the beef?” indeed.

[Procrustus]

There are things to be admired about Berry Goldwater, but his election in 1964 would have been interesting, to say the least. I can't imagine how the civil rights movement would have played out from 1964 to 1968 with him in the White House.

I think Mondale would have been fine.

[markdash]

It would have been terrible if George W. Bush had been elected instead of Al Gore.

[Freddy the Pig]

John Charles Fremont, Republican of 1856. He was sincerely antislavery--maybe more so than Lincoln--and his opponent (Buchanan) was a total douche. But still, his election would likely have been a disaster. He was reckless, impulsive, and worked poorly with others. The South would most certainly have seceded if he had won, and I don't believe he would have had the patience and management skill to win the Civil War. I believe the United States would not exist today if he had won.

[RealityChuck]

Horace Greeley. He would have been dead when inaugurated.

[bup]

Aaron Burr.

[Rachellelogram]

Anyone who ever ran against FDR. I think his leadership is a key reason the US pulled out of the Depression and remained an economic superpower, as opposed to floundering and failing (both financially and wrt morale). He may have doggled a bunch of boons (or booned a bunch of doggles), but those boondoggles helped the morale of all the hardworking unemployed. They got back to work and were able to start putting food back on the table for their families.

Makes me wonder if Obama could pull off something similar within the next few years.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by markdash

It would have been terrible if George W. Bush had been elected instead of Al Gore.

I was going to say the worst one was elected . . . but of course he wasn't.

[handsomeharry]

IIRC, even LBJ said that McGovern was something of a nutcase. If an outgoing prez, of your own party, calls you a nut, I'm inclined to believe it.

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Horace Greeley. He would have been dead when inaugurated.

This is actually very interesting. Because he died after general election but before electoral college. So we would have had a president whom no layperson had voted for. (of course, we had that later with Ford, but that was special).

[Chefguy]

Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain. Take your pick.

[Little Nemo]

Nixon in 1960. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a near thing and there's no guarantee Nixon would have handled it as well as Kennedy did.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

John Charles Fremont, Republican of 1856. He was sincerely antislavery--maybe more so than Lincoln--and his opponent (Buchanan) was a total douche. But still, his election would likely have been a disaster. He was reckless, impulsive, and worked poorly with others. The South would most certainly have seceded if he had won, and I don't believe he would have had the patience and management skill to win the Civil War. I believe the United States would not exist today if he had won.

If that is your take, then you'd have to go with McClellan in 1864. He ran on the platform of ending the war and letting the CSA go.

[Siam Sam]

Originally Posted by minlokwat

Had he won the election, which he lost in a landslide, he would have taken over from 1984 to 1988.

Nitpick: He would have taken over from 1985 to 1989. I voted for him and am still sorry he did not win.

How about William Jennings Bryan? He was nomibnated enough times. Always seemed like a nut case to me.

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain. Take your pick.

I thought we were focusing on people who actually got the nomination and lost.

Walter Mondale is kind of the default winner for modern times.

But didn't William Jennings Bryan get the nomination? He was an idiot....frequently.

Not to mention how good a thing it was that Lincoln won his initial election. I have no idea what Breckinridge was like, but Lincoln was essential to this country still being whole.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by bup

Aaron Burr.

I was gonna say that, but my mouth was full of peanut butter.

[kunilou]

I dunno. I think Mondale would have been a better President than Dukakis.

But historically speaking, the worst 20th century pick would have been the 1940 Republican nominee, Wendell Willkie. Not that Willkie was a bad person or a notorious idiot. But Willkie died in October 1944, before the election. His running mate, Charles McNary, died the previous February, and there was no 25th Amendment at the time to provide for a replacement for McNary. The U.S. would have been stuck in the latter but still dicey stage of World War II with the Speaker of the House (Sam Rayburn) from the opposite party becoming President, no Republican candidate four weeks before the election and who knows who (Wallace? Someone we'd never heard of? Almost definitely not Harry Truman.) as the Democratic candidate.

[etv78]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

I was gonna say that, but my mouth was full of peanut butter.

:golf clap: very nice!

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by kunilou

who knows who (Wallace? Someone we'd never heard of? Almost definitely not Harry Truman.) as the Democratic candidate.

Probably not Wallace. His base was having been Roosevelt's VP but in the scenario you've described he wouldn't have been. And there were a lot of Democratic leaders who didn't like Wallace - he was extremely liberal (and this was back when a lot of conservatives were still Democrats) plus he was kind of flaky.

And Truman doesn't appear to have considered himself a Presidential candidate until Roosevelt asked him to run as Vice President. I think barring that, Truman would have been content to stay in the Senate for his entire career.

I'd suggest James Farley as a potential 1944 candidate. He was an important figure in the Democratic Party and he had presidential ambitions. He had been a strong supporter of Roosevelt in 1932 and 1936 but they broke in 1940. Farley opposed Roosevelt's decision to run for a third term (many thought that Farley felt 1940 was his year and Roosevelt should have stepped down after two terms). Farley's major political handicap was that he was a Catholic, which was still a significant disadvantage to a Presidential candidate in the forties.

[septimus]

If winners fit OP guidelines, I also go with GWB. Goldwater may have been zany, but at least he had integrity. A lot of things went bad during 2001-2009; the Cheney-Rove Administration deserves much blame. (That Cheney-Rove is the best name for this Administration gives an idea of what a terrible disappointment GWB was.)

Nixon in 1960. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a near thing and there's no guarantee Nixon would have handled it as well as Kennedy did.

A strong case can be made that both Cuba and Vietnam were due in large measure to JFK's arrogance and hypocrisy. That may be beyond the scope of this thread, but I couldn't let this go unanswered.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Besides Burr and Henry Wallace:

Any of the post John Adams Federalists (Pinckney, Clinton, King) who represented a party that was ridiculously obstructionist and also secessionist/New England regionalist assholes (ie trying to restrict the admission of new states so they'd never outnumber the 13 colonies)

Millard Fillmore in 1856, running for the American Party which was nativist and anti-Catholic

John Breckinridge in 1860 as the candidate of the Southern Democrats (ie slave power)

William Jennings Bryan in 1896, 1900, and 1908-rabid inflationist, prohibitionist, and as an added bonus advocated banning teaching evolution

George McGovern in 1972-wanted to cut defence spending by a third in the middle of the Cold War

Both Mondale in 1984 and Dukakis in 1988-outworn New Dealers who offered nothing new. If elected they'd have done little but damage the Democratic Party even more

Non-nominees:

Robert Taft who while a brilliant and principled man was an isolationist and opposed US involvment in the Cold War

Pat Buchanan in 1996. 'Nuff said.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

If that is your take, then you'd have to go with McClellan in 1864. He ran on the platform of ending the war and letting the CSA go.

That was the party platform but McClelland personally repudiated it-if elected he'd have continued the war to the finish. In addition since Lincoln ended up being assasinated some argue McClellan would have done a better job than Andrew Johnson.

[etv78]

That's damning McClelland with faint praise.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

John Charles Fremont, Republican of 1856. He was sincerely antislavery--maybe more so than Lincoln--and his opponent (Buchanan) was a total douche. But still, his election would likely have been a disaster. He was reckless, impulsive, and worked poorly with others. The South would most certainly have seceded if he had won, and I don't believe he would have had the patience and management skill to win the Civil War. I believe the United States would not exist today if he had won.

Losing the War, or the South, would hardly have ended the United States, any more than losing the States ended Britain.

For that matter, would Fremont have gone to war? I don't know too much about him, but it seems Southern secession would have given him the two things he wanted most: free states for white settlement on the frontier, and the excision of the slaveowning oligarchy from Congress and federal government.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Losing the War, or the South, would hardly have ended the United States, any more than losing the States ended Britain.

For that matter, would Fremont have gone to war? I don't know too much about him, but it seems Southern secession would have given him the two things he wanted most: free states for white settlement on the frontier, and the excision of the slaveowning oligarchy from Congress and federal government.

I agree with the choice. Fremont was an egomaniac who was convicted of several military charges after clashes with General Kearney in California, and engaging in duels. He was also court martialed during the Civil War. As noted, the man was reckless and impulsive in the extreme, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of others. He married the daughter of Thomas Hart Benton, who encouraged the behavior and who probably had visions of his very own puppet in the white house. The country would have been ill-served .

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Chefguy

The country would have been ill-served .

Oh, I'm sure. I was just amused by the hyperbolic "the United States would not exist today." The United States would have continued without the seceded states. When cooler heads prevailed, relations between the two countries would have been amicable, given the economic incentives and shared heritage (see US and Canada today).

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by septimus

A strong case can be made that both Cuba and Vietnam were due in large measure to JFK's arrogance and hypocrisy. That may be beyond the scope of this thread, but I couldn't let this go unanswered.

I figured the fairest way to answer the question was to assume outside events (especially foreign affairs) would have been relatively the same and consider how a different president would have handled those same events. I felt it would have been a cop-out to say, for example, that if Gore had been elected in 2000 there wouldn't have been a 9/11 attack or if Hoover had been re-elected in 1932 Hitler wouldn't have taken power in Germany. And by the same principle, I assumed Khrushchev and Castro would have followed a similar course to what they historically did in 1962.

For what it's worth, I agree that there was a lot of American arrogance and hypocrisy involved in Cuba. Both the Kennedy and the Eisenhower administration acted as if the United States owned Cuba and had a veto over Cuban affairs. And the Soviets justifiably accused us of hypocrisy when we made an issue out of their missiles in Cuba after we had already based our missiles in Turkey.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by kunilou

But historically speaking, the worst 20th century pick would have been the 1940 Republican nominee, Wendell Willkie. Not that Willkie was a bad person or a notorious idiot. But Willkie died in October 1944, before the election. His running mate, Charles McNary, died the previous February, and there was no 25th Amendment at the time to provide for a replacement for McNary. The U.S. would have been stuck in the latter but still dicey stage of World War II with the Speaker of the House (Sam Rayburn) from the opposite party becoming President.

Under federal law at the time, the Secretary of State (if eligible) became President. IMO that law made a lot more sense especially under wartime conditions.

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

If that is your take, then you'd have to go with McClellan in 1864. He ran on the platform of ending the war and letting the CSA go.

Well, yes . . . McClellan would have been bad too.

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Oh, I'm sure. I was just amused by the hyperbolic "the United States would not exist today." The United States would have continued without the seceded states.

Had secession been successful, I don't believe it would have been the last secession. There were other regional frictions in the US.

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

For that matter, would Fremont have gone to war?

Oh jeez yeah, probably without even waiting for the South to fire on Fort Sumter. Fremont never backed away from a fight. He started one in California even before we were at war with Mexico. Fremont thought Lincoln was much too timid and have should have fought more aggressively (with what resources, who knows) and freed the slaves much earlier.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

John Breckinridge in 1860 as the candidate of the Southern Democrats (ie slave power)

The danger with Breckinridge would have been not so much his election as his successor's election. If the Republicans had won in 1864, Breckinridge would have been in Buchanan's position as the incumbent for four transition months while the South seceded. Breckinridge might have been even worse than Buchanan--he might have recognized the Confederacy and given up the federal forts. Or maybe not--he was a Kentuckian and semi-loyal to the federal government until he was threatened with arrest in fall 1861. We'll never know.

[kunilou]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

Under federal law at the time, the Secretary of State (if eligible) became President. IMO that law made a lot more sense especially under wartime conditions.

Historical ignorance fought, thank you. However, assuming President Willkie had been running for reelection in 1944 the Republicans still would have lost the head of their ticket four weeks before the election.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by Freddy the Pig

Oh jeez yeah, probably without even waiting for the South to fire on Fort Sumter. Fremont never backed away from a fight. He started one in California even before we were at war with Mexico. Fremont thought Lincoln was much too timid and have should have fought more aggressively (with what resources, who knows) and freed the slaves much earlier.

Then there was the infamous "4th Expedition", conceived and led by Fremont to explore a route through the Rocky Mountains for a rail line. He deliberately chose early winter to start the expedition, with the logic that if they couldn't hike through in the winter, a rail line would never work. Despite warnings from people who knew better, including local Indians, they set out and were quickly trapped by vicious blizzard conditions. They ate all of their pack animals when food ran out, and it's suspected that there was cannibalism involved with the ten people who died. The man was a menace.