Worst candidate ever

[Loach]

This is for you presidential historians. To me Trump is the worst candidate I can think of that has ever been the nominee of a major party. Lets take him out of it. And Clinton too for those who want to be contrarian. I have seen good arguments for James Buchanan to be called the worst president ever. Who is the worst presidential candidate ever and why? Losers aren’t remembered so I suspect someone worse than Buchanan lost somewhere back in history. Use whatever criteria you wish as long as you explain your reasons.

[Me_Billy]

As I recall they said there was a “Constitutional Crisis” with Nixon/Watergate and the Clinton impeachment…

But it seems to me Trump is wasting no time and having himself a “Constitutional Crisis” before even being elected!

This whole thing is unreal.

However some good could come from it in that many millennials are self-centered themselves. The reaction of the country to Trump’s narcissism might be a good lesson as to what happens when you disregard the feelings of other people. (Not a good idea!)

[Doyle]

#1 Trump, #2 Hillary Clinton a not too distant second.

A sad state of affairs.

BTW, I would have voted for Carter over either of these two.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Doyle

#1 Trump, #2 Hillary Clinton a not too distant second.

A sad state of affairs.

BTW, I would have voted for Carter over either of these two.

Carter, for real? He was a governor of a state and also had legislative experience. You can well disagree with his policies and his judgment, but he was a perfectly fine candidate, especially compared to Trump.

Let’s see: George Wallace is an easy one, right? [Edit: oops, he wasn’t ever actually the Democratic nominee, my bad]

Googling a bit, there’s Horatio Seymour:

Some men want to be President. Others do not. Seymour apparently despised the thought. He wrote a letter opting out of the race in 1856 when he was the leading candidate for the Democrat ticket. He did it again in 1860, and this time included his desire to not be nominated for Vice President as well. Then, in 1868, he was dragged out of the convention floor before he could voice his displeasure at being nominated. He eventually accepted the nomination, lost to Grant, and later refused election to the Senate in 1880 and declined to run for President as well.

Not a great candidate, but I like his style.

[Me_Billy]

Well the debate showed that Hillary can stand up to the worst bully and not get thrown off balance. A good thing for her!

[SaharaTea]

“Worst candidate ever” is subjective, but Trump does have the highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate in the modern political era (Clinton is #2).

I can’t think of anyone who was nastier than Trump though. Maybe George Wallace in 1968.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Wendell Wilkie is another candidate for worst candidate.

[clnilsen]

Seems Walter Mondale didn’t fare too well in 1984… 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

[Blue_Max]

As a quick answer to this:

Under the previous system where the runner up Presidential Nominee became Vice President, there were some very interesting administrative swings.

There was a full blown constitutional crisis over Thomas Jefferson versus Aaron Burr.

Burr was interested in treasonous plots against the United States and would later famously kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel. There was, of course, a constitutional amendment following this crisis and the possible chance of Burr actually becoming President.

…

Two other names I would consider adding:

**John C. Fremont **would likely have triggered the Civil War four years early but also lacked many of the strengths that Lincoln brought with him to the White House. If you want a plausible Confederate Victory in the Civil War, a President Fremont is a likely option.

William Henry Harrison famously died just a short while after his inaugural. Depending on how you score “Died quickly”, you can make a case for Harrison being a pathetic choice, although I’m not sure how fair that is.

It’s really rough to trump Trump on this list. There are a lot of choices for inexperience, corruption and cruelty to others, but all three of them together is rough, and the two names under consideration are basically both gigantic blunders unequal to the task.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Googling a bit, there’s Horatio Seymour:

Not a great candidate, but I like his style.

Um…

With the nomination forced upon him, Seymour committed himself to the campaign. He faced considerable challenges; his opponent, General Ulysses S. Grant, enjoyed the support of a unified Republican party and most of the nation’s press. While he generally adhered to the tradition that presidential nominees did not actively campaign, Seymour did undertake a tour of the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic states in mid-October. In his campaign Seymour advocated a policy of conservative, limited government, and he opposed the Reconstruction policies of the Republicans in Congress. Seymour’s campaign was also marked by pronounced appeals to racism with repeated attempts to brand General Grant as the “Nigger” candidate and Seymour as the “White Man’s” candidate.

Can I take that last part back?

[Doyle]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Carter, for real? He was a governor of a state and also had legislative experience. You can well disagree with his policies and his judgment, but he was a perfectly fine candidate, especially compared to Trump.

The point was that Carter will do down in history as one of the worst presidents in history… deservedly or not.

[GIGObuster]

@Loach

I have seen good arguments for James Buchanan to be called the worst president ever.

Uh, my impression is that Buchanan is also in the running for worst candidate, while he was running he influenced the supreme court to render their infamous Dred Scott decision and had made moves to have congress approve of tariffs that did have bad consequences.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-worst-president-james-buchanan-214252

Manufacturing boomed domestically, and then with foreign trade as well, since Europe had quelled many of its hostilities and American items were cheaper than those on the Continent.

Then the day before Buchanan took office, Congress passed what he wanted, the Tariff Bill of 1857, which lowered tariffs on a panoply of items from abroad—Buchanan wanted to stimulate foreign trade—but made American manufactured goods of the same sort less competitive.

Three days later came the real fatal blow, though, the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which fell on the shoulders of Buchanan. The case had wound through state and federal courts for at least a decade, but Roger Taney, the Supreme Court chief justice, and a fellow alumnus, with Buchanan, of small Dickinson College, wanted it settled.

Scott was a slave to a military man who at times was stationed not in his native Missouri, a slave state, but in the Northwest Territories, which were nonslave. After his master died, Scott brought the case that he should be free because he had lived in nonslave territory. Buchanan wanted to be a hero, and thought if the case could be decided broadly, it could settle the question of slavery in the Union for good.

Buchanan knew, too, though, that the court had five Southerners and four Northerners, and if the decision were split that way, it would be ineffective. He and Taney had apparently agreed to have a narrower decision, or remand the case back to the Appeals Court, if it were merely sectional, since they felt the need to have some sort of bipartisanship for the decision to be legitimate.

Ignoring the idea of separation of powers, though, Buchanan browbeat Robert Cooper Grier, another Dickinson alumnus and a justice from Pennsylvania, to go along with the majority opinion, which Taney would write. Eventually, a New York native, Justice Samuel Nelson, wrote a concurring opinion, making the vote even less sectional.

Currently Trump has not been shown to be directly involved with new laws proposed by the Republican party, the leadership is too wary of him, and so it is the Supreme court.

[Procrustus]

@Doyle

The point was that Carter will do down in history as one of the worst presidents in history… deservedly or not.

I don’t think historians take that much of a dim view of Carter. Somewhere in the middle, as I recall.

[Barkis_is_Willin]

David Duke appeared on the ballot in a handful of states in 1988 as the Populist Party candidate. He beats even Trump if we remove the major party requirement.

[Typo_Negative]

Pat Paulson

Although, if Pat were the Democratic Candidate, he would have a double digit lead right now.

[Doyle]

@Procrustus

I don’t think historians take that much of a dim view of Carter. Somewhere in the middle, as I recall.

I disagree. Also, I’m talking about recent times. And, I’m not going to go back to Buchanan or that far in the past. To me, the economy is cyclical and Carter got caught up in a bad time and Bill Clinton, a good.

[up_the_junction]

Well (a) he’s not a politician and (b) he’s not a Republican - he’s a reality tv star who built a fortune on Daddy’s fortune; you’d have to be some piece of work to be a worse Republican candidate for the presidency.

The point is, though, that Trump is a symptom of a wide and deep discontent with the US electoral system, as Sanders was also.

The USA has to find a way to get money and privilege out of the game and allow really competent, sincere people to compete on political platforms.

Right now the USA is a laughing stock around the world and a disgrace to democracy.

[BlankSlate]

Seymour’s campaign was also marked by pronounced appeals to racism with repeated attempts to brand General Grant as the “Nigger” candidate and Seymour as the “White Man’s” candidate.

Trump is so unhinged this might be a preview of his next rally.

[Loach]

@clnilsen

Seems Walter Mondale didn’t fare too well in 1984… 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

Sure he got steamrolled by the Reagan juggernaut but that doesn’t make him a bad candidate in the way others are being talked about. He was a senator, the Vice President, a Korean War vet, a good family man… Sure he was boring and didn’t inspire the country but he seemed like a decent guy with no scandals. Hardly the worst candidate ever.

I appreciate the efforts of some to discuss presidential campaign history instead of continuing the discussion of the current campaign.

[NDP]

@Barkis_is_Willin

David Duke appeared on the ballot in a handful of states in 1988 as the Populist Party candidate. He beats even Trump if we remove the major party requirement.

If were going to start including minor party and independent candidates over the last 228 years, I can guarantee you’ll find more than a few people who were worse than Duke.