# Petraeus 2016! **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 7, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185 "2011-07-07T14:30:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Profound\_Gibberish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Profound\_Gibberish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profound_Gibberish)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/1 "2011-07-07T14:30:24Z")
America has often relied on it’s war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different. I believe he would be able to bring both sides together–no matter what party he allies with–due to his background and record of achievement. He would also be the only one that could even possibly reign in the massive spending at the DOD. He would need a VP with a solid economics & government background (i.e a Senator, Congressman, or non-crazy Governor) to balance out that potential weakness. I really don’t know much about his opinions on social issues, economics, or anything else–that what this forum is for. He would be 64 if elected, 72 after two terms. As healthy as he is he could keep up. So what do you think? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/2 "2011-07-07T14:38:57Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > America has often relied on it’s war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different. Here’s hoping that’s post-war. I’m not sure I would count on that. And in any case the U.S. hasn’t elected (or nominated) a general since Eisenhower won in '57. Given the way opinions about war have changed, I don’t think history would be with him. I do think **Qin Shi Huangdi** would be with you even though Petraeus is about to become part of the Obama administration. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/3 "2011-07-07T15:58:07Z")
Eisenhower was the most famous man in the country, with the possible exception of Truman himself. I’m not going to spend even a minute discussing his role in WWII and how he was perceived. Before Eisenhower, the last president who was a general was Harrison. And we were in the middle of the Korean War in 1952, which the public wanted Eisenhower to solve. Eisenhower was the ultimate special case. Modern America wants a civilian leader over the military. That’s in addition to the political skills needs to wage an endless campaign though primaries and caucuses. Does any career military man have that? Eisenhower didn’t bother to campaign in 1952 in the modern sense. He hadn’t declared any pledge to run when supporters entered his name into the New Hampshire primary. He won there, but nominations were still won at the conventions. Can anyone see the American people dragging Petraeus into office?\* The silly season for 2016 has officially begun. 🙂 - True, Eisenhower was secretly in the crowd helping with the dragging. But that was a different world. ---
**Author:** ![Profound\_Gibberish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Profound\_Gibberish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Profound_Gibberish)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/4 "2011-07-07T16:12:11Z")
Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/5 "2011-07-07T16:28:58Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it. Taylor, Jackson. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/6 "2011-07-07T17:02:22Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it. Nobody said there wasn’t. I said it hasn’t happened in 50-odd years and **Exapno Mapcase** said it’s happened once in the last 120 years, and the one time it did happen, circumstances were so different they were hardly comparable. I think the days of people asking retired war heroes to govern are long over. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/7 "2011-07-07T17:08:20Z")
Six out of 44 is hardly a precedent. Also, it’s a stretch to call Harrison or Jackson a post-war president. True, they were elected after wars had been fought, but it wasn’t an immediate thing. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/8 "2011-07-07T17:18:39Z")
I think first we need to wait and see whether he even wants to run. ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/9 "2011-07-07T17:35:48Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > I believe he would be able to bring both sides together–no matter what party he allies with–due to his background and record of achievement. I seriously doubt Jesus could bring both sides together.😛 And I’m fairly sure I won’t be around in 2016 to care. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/10 "2011-07-07T17:44:15Z")
> [@Foggy](#): > > And I’m fairly sure I won’t be around in 2016 to care. **Foggy** , you should talk to a qualified professional. Whether you do that or not, you’re welcome to post about your feelings and your problems in the right venue, and this isn’t it. Please don’t do this again. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/11 "2011-07-07T18:46:12Z")
> **[List of presidents of the United States by military rank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank)** > > The United States Constitution names the president of the United States the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. Many presidents, however, also served in the military before taking office; all but 13 of the 45\[a\] persons to become president have served. > Of the 32 presidents with military service, 31 have been commissioned officers, of whom five began their careers as regular officers (Jimmy Carter transferred to the Naval Reserve after five years in the Navy). There have been... We have a long history of military men in the presidency. Military service is discussed in almost every campaign. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/12 "2011-07-07T18:54:15Z")
I don’t think military men are particularly suited for politics. A guy like Petraeus is used to giving an order and seeing it carried out. Put him in the White House and he’d quickly learn that it doesn’t work that way. Could he bring the political factions together? As a Republican, maybe. As a Democrat, no way. Republicans are interested in cooperation with the president if and only if he’s of their party. If not, they would much prefer that the ship of state sail straight into the reef so that they could control the wreckage. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/13 "2011-07-07T19:10:32Z")
Exactly how many times does Petraeus have to say he’s not running before people stop speculating on him running? He’s on the record multiple times saying he has no intention of running and has no interest in doing so ever. Do people really want to elect someone whom they refuse to believe when he makes an absolute statement? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/14 "2011-07-07T19:17:13Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > > [@dbx820](#): > > > > Washington, Grant, Harrison, Eisenhower. Certainly a precedent for it. > > Taylor, Jackson. And Harrison (the grandfather, who was rather better known as a general than his grandson). ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/15 "2011-07-07T20:41:56Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > So what do you think? I think it’s been floated before, and that “sources close to Petraeus” said he has absolutely zero interest in politics. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/16 "2011-07-07T21:19:57Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I think it’s been floated before, and that “sources close to Petraeus” said he has absolutely zero interest in politics. I’d say this [source](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAhq_JS1R2M) is pretty dam close. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/17 "2011-07-07T22:36:50Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [List of presidents of the United States by military rank - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_military_rank) > We have a long history of military men in the presidency. Military service is discussed in almost every campaign. Military, yes. Commanding generals, no. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/18 "2011-07-07T23:46:42Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > Exactly how many times does Petraeus have to say he’s not running before people stop speculating on him running? > > He’s on the record multiple times saying he has no intention of running and has no interest in doing so ever. > > Do people really want to elect someone whom they refuse to believe when he makes an absolute statement? How many times? Until he runs.:):):), then no more speculation and time to find a running-mate. I nominate Ron Paul for VP. ---
**Author:** ![Foggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foggy/32/1082_2.png) [@Foggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foggy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/19 "2011-07-08T05:43:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > **Foggy** , you should talk to a qualified professional. Whether you do that or not, you’re welcome to post about your feelings and your problems in the right venue, and this isn’t it. Please don’t do this again. I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![Recovering\_Republican](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@Recovering\_Republican](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recovering_Republican)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185/20 "2011-07-08T11:24:35Z")
> [@dbx820](#): > > America has often relied on it’s war generals to preside over the country post-war. This is no different. > > I believe he would be able to bring both sides together–no matter what party he allies with–due to his background and record of achievement. He would also be the only one that could even possibly reign in the massive spending at the DOD. > > He would need a VP with a solid economics & government background (i.e a Senator, Congressman, or non-crazy Governor) to balance out that potential weakness. > > I really don’t know much about his opinions on social issues, economics, or anything else–that what this forum is for. He would be 64 if elected, 72 after two terms. As healthy as he is he could keep up. > > So what do you think? I think the general is an impressive guy, with a lot of accomplishments. I think he’s probably too good for politics. But do Generals make good presidents? Meh, not so much. Ike was a decent president, probably seriously underrated, but most people remember him for that WWII thing he did. Grant was a great General and an awful president. Jackson was a great president, but would never be tolerated today. Then you have the “also a general” guys who followed Grant, who were generals, and really, only the history majors remember them today. Then you have “Old Rough and Ready” and “Old Tippecanoe”- guys who got elected and died in office. I guess that’s the problem when you have the word “Old” in your name. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/petraeus-2016/588185.md?page=2)