That fat bastard*!
Vote Taft.
(Actually, that’s pretty awesome but I had been wanting to get rid of Taft eventually).
Nice diversity of candidates so far:
JFK 4
Taft 3
McKinley 2
Monroe 2
I expect the pro-JFK votes will converge on a single candidate before the end of the round.
The story goes that, when Taft was governor of the U.S. territory of the Philippines, he mentioned in a telegram to T.R., “Went for a ride this morning and I feel wonderful!” T.R. is said to have replied, “How is the horse?”
That probably had less to do with Taft and more to to with TR’s immense personal popularity.
Some Presidents (Piece, A. Johnson) have failed to re-gain their party’s nomination after completing a term. I’d think coming in third is a better showing than not even being permitted to run, but YMMV.
ETA: I guess I should acknowledge the abysmal presidential performance of the two aforementioned candidates, in contrast to the fact that Taft is still in the running and is the only remaining president who did so poorly in his re-election effort.
I’m wanting to drag LBJ into the mix for the abysmal handling of the Vietnam War (and also for being a bigger hound dog than Kennedy and Clinton combined) but I can see he’s not going to get the traction this round, so:
McKinley
Yeah. I wasn’t saying I was surprised he hadn’t been voted OUT yet, I just was surprised that no one had thrown him a single vote (as far as I can recall) before this round.
McKinley
It’s probably because he’s just so cuddly. Like ol’ Grover, you just have to love the big guys!
Tell ya what, next round, I’d be down with that.
“Hey! Hey! L-B-J How many kids did you kill today?”
JFK.
I look forward to seeing who the pro-JFK team settle for.
McKinley
I’m going to vote for LBJ. His domestic policies(Medicare, Civil Rights Bill) were pretty good, but his gross mishandling of the Vietnam War put him first on the chopping block, IMHO.
Let me see if I understand. There are four classes of Presidents: Good, Bad, Irrelevant, and the Jekyll-and-Hydes. Reagan and Jackson, two obvious Jekyll-Hydes, are gone and good riddance.
Chester A. Arthur may be the classic Lake Wobegon above-average President; eliminating him means the Doper Consensus is that remaining Jekyll/Hydes had more Jekyll than Hyde.
But did they? Kennedy was an arrogant womanizer, with Mafia connections, possibly pursuing Vietnam for political purpose. And LBJ’s only accomplishment – passing Civil Rights and Great Society – was a mixed blessing: For one thing it led to the unholy alliance between rural American populism and Wall St. business interests, which have proved disastrous. (And it really is too bad JFK neglected to tell confused Lyndon that Vietnam was just a “boys having fun” project scheduled for abandonment after 1964 election.)
Am I allowed to vote in advance? I’ll vote for JFK till he’s gone; then do the same for LBJ.
Hasn’t come up; I’m going to make a snap ruling that, no, you need to vote in each election.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy has overstayed his welcome.
I concur, but it’s really Curtis LeMay’s call. It’s his thread.
Doing that will further-err completely-inhibit new posters from voting. We already have a small insular pool, many of the amateur (and professional) historians (and other various SD pundits) on this board have yet to chime in with a single vote, and as a consequence a small bloc of voters can really skew the results.
I give approval to Tom’s policy.
I’m not sure if my vote will count, I’ve been voting on and off, but if this counts, then my vote will be the first for, in my opinion, a rather mediocre President. Well, actually, I don’t know about mediocre, but… average. His presidency was rather uneventful. He did handle the Cold War well, but… still… Eisenhower.
Easy to choose.
JFK