Taft.
LBJ
Monroe. Coasting on the doctrine, spearheaded by Quincy, shouldn’t get you this far.
LBJ
Clinton
Taft
Polk doesn’t seem to be going anywhere this round, so I’ll switch my vote to Taft, who really doesn’t seem like a top 10 President.
In an alternate universe in which LBJ won the Democratic nomination in 1960 and then won in both 1960 and 1964, I think it’s quite possible that he would’ve been able get the Great Society legislation (or much of it) through Congress. JFK’s assassination had a lot to do with it, but so did Johnson’s own dawning recognition that the Civil Rights Movement was the wave of the future and that it was in the national interest to address its concerns (his civil rights credentials pre-1963 were better than most officeholding Southerners, but still not all that great). His legislative skills are deservedly legendary, and would’ve been brought to bear regardless.
However, his handling of the Vietnam War would’ve been, all in all, worse than JFK’s, I think. JFK had an appreciation of counterinsurgency techniques (e.g. the Green Berets and the Peace Corps) and a skepticism of military conventional wisdom (the harsh lesson of the Bay of Pigs) that LBJ lacked. In our alt-history Johnson Administration, LBJ would probably still have waited until 1965 or so to begin a massive military buildup in Vietnam, and it probably still would’ve turned out as badly.
Eisenhower
Since Cleveland isn’t getting any traction, I’m switching to Taft. I think LBJ is getting shafted.
A vote I really don’t get - Eisenhower is top 5, for me.
Long national nightmare of peace and prosperity, again; the interstate highway system; got out of the war he was in to start with, and didn’t get into new ones. Generally managed the Cold War well.
Against him: The 1953 coup in Iran was unjust and had very bad long-term effects. Sent advisors to Vietnam, but I put more blame on those who later escalated. Didn’t publically stand up to Joe McCarthy. Had Nixon as his Veep.
None of these seem to me to stand up to the positives, at this point.
Good to see more voters as we start going into the top 30%.
Taft for me.
I am swayed by the pro-LBJ camp (for this round, at least) and will switch from LBJ to Taft.
If you think Eisenhower was great than so was Nixon. He continue most Eisenhoweran policies.
So he was riding coattails then of Ike, and adding in corruption to boot. 
I’m switching from Monroe to Taft.
Let’s see. Unlike Nixon, Eisenhower presided over a period of general prosperity and brought the messy war he inherited to a more-or-less successful conclusion within a year of taking office. Unlike Eisenhower, Nixon deliberately inflamed racial tensions for his own electoral advantage and was corrupt and paranoid.
Other than that, they were exactly the same.
Morning vote count:
Taft 9
LBJ 7
Clinton 3
Eisenhower, Polk 1
I’ll join in for LBJ.
After all the other Great Powers (except for maybe Portugal, of all places) had given up on third world hegemony, LBJ soldiered on in Vietnam. For a good dissertation on what a cluster**** it became from a military, ostensibly conservative viewpoint, see Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam.
That, and I see the unintended consequences of the Great Society every day. Not that I probably wouldn’t have supported it at the time, but the next time you watch Idiocracy, think of the consequences of providing a soft landing for people who have children they can’t afford. Damn, I’ve got some right-wing in me.
Props for the good he did, but we could easily say the same about Reagan or any number of the folks we’ve eliminated. We’re approaching the top ten, and LBJ doesn’t belong there.
On Idiocracy: