# Which Losing Major Party Candidates Would Have Been Good Presidents? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 31, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929 "2012-07-31T05:34:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/1 "2012-07-31T05:34:49Z")
Inspired by the other thread. Please don’t include incumbents who lost but people who lost in the primaries can be included. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/2 "2012-07-31T10:18:15Z")
On this side of the Atlantic, I think David Davis, who lost to David Cameron for the leadership of the Tories, would have made a much better PM than Cameron. He’s not as slimy, and has a greater focus on civil liberties. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/3 "2012-07-31T10:28:06Z")
John McCain might have been a good president had he not been so beholden to the crazy side of his own party. McCain 2000 was an interesting candidate; Tea Party McCain 2008 with a side of Palin, not so much. He seems to have regained some of his ability to talk sense but it’s too little, too late. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/4 "2012-07-31T10:38:46Z")
Hilary Clinton or John McCain, I think could have been solid presidents on their own. What completely broke me off of supporting McCain, however, was the fact that this put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and she didn’t make a good impression with me at all. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/5 "2012-07-31T10:47:30Z")
George McGovern would have made a fabulous POTUS. Not just in comparison to Nixon. Fabulous in his own right. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/6 "2012-07-31T11:16:09Z")
Dewey would have been better than Truman, despite the romance which has grown up around Harry. I believe that Stevenson would have been a more effective Chief Executive than Eisenhower, and would have both kept us from getting entangled in Viet Nam and started the civil rights movement a decade earlier. And also, just off the top of my head, Wilson should never have defeated Taft - I blame Teddy for splitting the vote. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/7 "2012-07-31T16:02:38Z")
Classic version – Humphrey instead of Nixon in 1968. Millenial version – Gore over Bush in 2000. [QUOTE=DrFidelius] Dewey would have been better than Truman, despite the romance which has grown up around Harry. I believe that Stevenson would have been a more effective Chief Executive than Eisenhower, and would have both kept us from getting entangled in Viet Nam and started the civil rights movement a decade earlier. [/QUOTE] I’d counter that Truman gave the Civil Rights movement a tremendous boost by desegregating the armed forces and by supporting (or at least not blocking) the civil rights plank in the Democrats’ 1948 platform. Dewey was pro-civil rights, true, but I don’t think he would have done anything near as bold as Truman. So even a President Stevenson in 1953 would, at best, get the movement back to 1947 instead of ahead to 1964. I also worry that President Dewey would have given in to isolationist Republicans and pick Robert Taft as Secretary of State instead of George Marshall. ---
**Author:** ![oreally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ab992/32.png) [@oreally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oreally)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/8 "2012-07-31T16:38:53Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > John McCain might have been a good president had he not been so beholden to the crazy side of his own party. McCain 2000 was an interesting candidate; Tea Party McCain 2008 with a side of Palin, not so much. He seems to have regained some of his ability to talk sense but it’s too little, too late. Agreed. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think Gore might have as well. > [@DrFidelius](#): > > Dewey would have been better than Truman, despite the romance which has grown up around Harry. I believe that Stevenson would have been a more effective Chief Executive than Eisenhower, and would have both kept us from getting entangled in Viet Nam and started the civil rights movement a decade earlier. And also, just off the top of my head, Wilson should never have defeated Taft - I blame Teddy for splitting the vote. Agree on Wilson but couldn’t disagree more on the first 2. Truman and Eisenhower were both oustanding presidents and I question whether the other 2 would have been good at all - if anything, they were the “romantic” choices, not the logical ones. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/9 "2012-07-31T17:00:26Z")
I have no idea what the people in the other thread are thinking, but Mondale would have been a truly _much_ better PotUS than Reagan was. Balanced budget, no Iran-Contra, no banking crisis, etc. Ditto Carter in 1980. (The last PotUS to submit a balanced budget to Congress until Clinton. No need to raise taxes folks.) HHH in 1968. McGovern in 1972. Dukakis, Gore, even Kerry (which tells you how bad Bush II was). I have to go back to DDE vs. AES (times two) where the Dem lost and it was pretty much a wash. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/10 "2012-07-31T18:09:46Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > I also worry that President Dewey would have given in to isolationist Republicans and pick Robert Taft as Secretary of State instead of George Marshall. I don’t think its anymore likely than Eisenhower. I think Charles Evan Hughes in 1916 would have been a great President, a Progressive Republican and an experienced statesmen. Certainly far better than Wilson’s authoritarian domestic policies and post World War I conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/11 "2012-07-31T18:35:19Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I think Charles Evan Hughes in 1916 would have been a great President, a Progressive Republican and an experienced statesmen. Certainly far better than Wilson’s authoritarian domestic policies and post World War I conduct. Just the man I was about to name. Hughes served capably as Governor of New York, Secretary of State, and Supreme Court Justice, and IMO would have handled both the war and the peace better than Wilson. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/12 "2012-07-31T20:36:33Z")
Lifelong liberal and Democrat here. Basically, I’d never prefer a Republican prez over a Dem, and same for Congress and other more local elected folks. That said, I felt lukewarm toward Clinton. Great liberal there, but I just somehow felt he was a bit wishy-washy. And as much as I detested the Repub behavior w.r.t. Monicagate, I also felt that Clinton was surely guilty of, at least, some serious First Degree Stupidity there. And Bob Dole had a quite moderate reputation, and was widely thought to be relatively “squeaky clean”, IIRC. So: Clinton (incumbent) vs. Dole (Challenger) in 1996: I certainly wanted Clinton to win, but would not have been so terribly upset if Dole had won. From all that I could tell, he would have been an honest, reasonable, and only moderately conservative Repub prez. EXCEPT for one utter, total, absolute, non-negotiable DEAL KILLER: To-wit, the out-of-control radical Republican Congress that infested us in 1994 (the so-called Gingrich Revolution). Had Dole won (and assuming, as likely, that Congress wouldn’t change much), that Congress would have gone just ape-shit passing conservative anti-liberal legislation that I just would not have found tolerable. Far worse than anything Dole himself would have cared to see. But still, Dole would probably have signed a lot of it. If it weren’t for that, I felt that Dole could probably have been a decent and moderate (for a Republican) president. But with that Congress, NO WAY. ETA: Now, fast-forward to 2012. (You can see already where I’m going with this.) I was all gung-ho Obama in 2008. Now I think he’s a too, how to say this, UNassertive. Clinton redux? So I’m kinda lukewarm about him. But that Gingrich Congress of 1994 now looks like a paragon of political sensibility, compared to the absolute gonzo ape-shit berserkers there now. So there’s no Repub imaginable that I could find tolerable for Prez today, since any Repub, however reasonable, would be likely to sign many of the horrible bills that today’s Congress would produce. And that’s even if the Repubs had any chance of finding a reasonable candidate for this election, which they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/13 "2012-07-31T20:46:53Z")
(Sorry, missed edit window.) > [@Senegoid](#): > > If it weren’t for that, I felt that Dole could probably have been a decent and moderate (for a Republican) president. But with that Congress, NO WAY. And assuming (as I suspect is likely) that enough other voters, “independents” in particular, felt the same way, I think that the nature of that Congress may have changed the outcome of that election. With widespread “blahs” about Clinton, and widespread bi-partisan revulsion over Monicagate, and a moderate Repub candidate in Dole, I think Dole should have had a seriously strong chance of winning that election. Except for that Congress. I suspect that factor swayed a LOT of voters toward Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/14 "2012-07-31T21:13:28Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > And also, just off the top of my head, Wilson should never have defeated Taft - I blame Teddy for splitting the vote. Conversely, I’d rather have had Teddy again. ---
**Author:** ![oreally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ab992/32.png) [@oreally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oreally)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/15 "2012-07-31T21:39:44Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > I have no idea what the people in the other thread are thinking, but Mondale would have been a truly _much_ better PotUS than Reagan was. Balanced budget, no Iran-Contra, no banking crisis, etc. Ditto Carter in 1980. (The last PotUS to submit a balanced budget to Congress until Clinton. No need to raise taxes folks.) > > HHH in 1968. McGovern in 1972. Dukakis, Gore, even Kerry (which tells you how bad Bush II was). > > I have to go back to DDE vs. AES (times two) where the Dem lost and it was pretty much a wash. I’m not sure which is more of a :smack: here - Mondale over Reagan, Dukakais, Kerry, or Carter. cmon…even most hard-core Dems will look the other way and start whistling when these names come up. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/16 "2012-07-31T21:41:29Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > John McCain might have been a good president had he not been so beholden to the crazy side of his own party. McCain 2000 was an interesting candidate; Tea Party McCain 2008 with a side of Palin, not so much. He seems to have regained some of his ability to talk sense but it’s too little, too late. It’s made me wonder. Was he faking it in 2008 or in 2000? Maybe Tea Party McCain 2008 is the real McCain and he was only pretending to be Maverick McCain 2000 because he thought it would get him elected that year. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/17 "2012-07-31T21:43:56Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Conversely, I’d rather have had Teddy again. I agree. Wilson was a highly over-rated President. He was a racist (even by the standards of his time) and a hypocritical moralist. In terms of effectiveness, he failed in his two biggest goals - staying out of World War I and getting in to the League of Nations. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/18 "2012-07-31T22:11:45Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > (Sorry, missed edit window.) > > And assuming (as I suspect is likely) that enough other voters, “independents” in particular, felt the same way, I think that the nature of that Congress may have changed the outcome of that election. With widespread “blahs” about Clinton, and widespread bi-partisan revulsion over Monicagate, and a moderate Repub candidate in Dole, I think Dole should have had a seriously strong chance of winning that election. Except for that Congress. I suspect that factor swayed a LOT of voters toward Clinton. Dole ran against Clinton in 1996. Monicagate didn’t break until January 1998. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/19 "2012-07-31T22:20:44Z")
> [@oreally](#): > > I’m not sure which is more of a :smack: here - Mondale over Reagan, Dukakais, Kerry, or Carter. cmon…even most hard-core Dems will look the other way and start whistling when these names come up. I liked Carter, for what it’s worth. But I’m not convinced Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry would have been “good presidents”; certainly Kerry would have been preferable to Bush in that benign incompetence is preferable to active malfeasance, but I doubt he’d have been a noteworthy president by any standard. ---
**Author:** ![oreally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ab992/32.png) [@oreally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oreally)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929/20 "2012-08-01T01:43:57Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > I liked Carter, for what it’s worth. I do too and have liked him, a lot, for a long time. As a person (and ambassador) though, not a president. He was trustworthy, but not competent. > [@](#): > > But I’m not convinced Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry would have been “good presidents”; certainly Kerry would have been preferable to Bush Probably. Not that it’s much of a choice. But Kerry has the benefit of being a near total unknown in that regard. Mondale too, to be fair. But Dukaka? He just oozed incompetence. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-losing-major-party-candidates-would-have-been-good-presidents/629929.md?page=2)