1788
George Washington Virginia No Party

1792
George Washington Virginia Federalist

1796 Presidential Election
John Adams Massachusetts Federalist
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Democratic-Republican

1800 Presidential Election
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Dem.-Rep.
Aaron Burr New York Dem.-Rep.

1804 Presidential Election
Thomas Jefferson VA George Clinton NY Democratic-Republican
Charles Pinckney SC Rufus King NY Federalist

1808 Presidential Election
James Madison VA George Clinton NY Dem.-Rep.
Charles Pinckney SC Rufus King NY Federalist

1812 Presidential Election
James Madison VA Elbridge Gerry MA Dem.-Rep.
DeWitt Clinton NY Jared Ingersoll Federalist

1816 Presidential Election
James Monroe VA Daniel Tompkins NY Dem.-Rep.
Rufus King NY John Howard MD Federalist

1820 Presidential Election
James Monroe VA Daniel Tompkins NY Dem.-Rep.
John Q. Adams MA Richard Rush PA Dem.-Rep

1824 Presidential Election
John Q. Adams John Calhoun* Democrat-Republican
Andrew Jackson John Calhoun* Democrat-Republican
William Crawford Nathaniel Macon* Democrat-Republican
Henry Clay Nathon Sanford* Democrat-Republican

1828 Presidential Election Results
Andrew Jackson John Calhoun* Democrat
John Q. Adams Richard Rush National Republican

1832 Presidential Election Results
Andrew Jackson/ Martin Van Buren* Democrat
Henry Clay / John Sergeant Nattional Republican
William Wirt / Amos Ellmaker Anti-Masonic

1836 Presidential Election
Martin Van Buren / Richard Johnson* Democrat
William Harrison / Francis Granger Whig
Hugh White / John Tyler Whig
Daniel Webster / Francis Granger Whig

1840 Presidential Election
William Harrison John Tyler Whig
Martin Van Buren Richard Johnson* Democrat

1844 Presidential Election
James Polk George Dallas Democrat
Henry Clay Theodore Frelinghuysen Whig
James Birney Thomas Morris Liberty

1848 Presidential Election
Zachary Taylor Millard Fillmore Whig
Lewis Cass William Butler Democrat
Martin Van Buren Charles Adams Free Soil

1852 Presidential Election
Franklin Pierce William King Democrat
Winfield Scott William Graham Whig
John Hale George Julian Free Soil

1856 Presidential Election
James Buchanan John Breckenridge Democrat
John Fremont William Dayton Republican
Millard Fillmore Andrew Donelson American (Know-Nothing)/Whig

1860 Presidential Election
Abraham Lincoln / Hannibal Hamlin Republican
John Breckenridge / Joseph Lane Democrat (Southern)
John Bell / Edward Everett Constituional Union
Stephen Douglas / Herschel Johnson Democrat (Northern)

1864 Presidential Election
Abraham Lincoln Andrew Johnson [Union]
George McClellan George Pendleton Democrat

1868 Presidential Election
Ulysses Grant Schuyler Colfax Republican
Horatio Seymour Francis Blair Jr. Democrat

1872 Presidential Election
Ulysses Grant Henry Wilson Republican
Horace Greeley B. Gratz Brown Democrat

1876 Presidential Election
Rutherford Hayes William Wheeler Republican
Samuel Tilden Thomas Hendricks Democrat

1880 Presidential Election
James Garfield Chester Arthur Republican
Winfield Hancock William English Democrat
James Weaver Benjamin Chambers Greenback

1884 Presidential Election
Grover Cleveland Thomas Hendricks Democrat
James Blaine John Logan Republican
Benjamin Butler Absolom West Greenback
John St.John William Daniel Prohibition

1888 Presidential Election
Benjamin Harrison Levi Morton Republican
Grover Cleveland Allen Thurman Democrat
Clinton Fisk John Brooks Prohibition
Alson Streeter Charles Cunningham Union-Labor

1892 Presidential Election
Grover Cleveland Adlai Stevenson Democrat
Benjamin Harrison Whitelaw Reid Republican
James Weaver James Field Populist
John Bidwell James Cranfill Prohibition

1896 Presidential Election
William McKinley Garret Hobart Republican
William Bryan Arthur Sewall* Democrat

1900 Presidential Election
William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt Republican
William Bryan Adlai Stevenson Democrat
John Woolley Henry Metcalf Prohibition

1904 Presidential Election
Theodore Roosevelt Charles Fairbanks Republican
Alton Parker Henry Davis Democrat
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist
Silas Swallow George Carroll Prohibition

1908 Presidential Election
William Taft James Sherman Republican
William Bryan John Kern Democrat
Eugene Debs Benjamin Hanford Socialist
Eugene Chafin Aaron Watkins Prohibition

1912 Presidential Election
Woodrow Wilson Thomas Marshall Democrat
Theodore Roosevelt Hiram Johnson Progressive (Bull-Moose)
William Taft Nicholas Butler Republican
Eugene Debs Emil Seidel Socialist
Eugene Chafin Aaron Watkins Prohibition

1916 Presidential Election
Woodrow Wilson Thomas Marshall Democrat
Charles Hughes Charles Fairbanks Republican
Allan Benson George Kirkpatrick Socialist
James Hanly Ira Landrith Prohibition

1920 Presidential Election
Warren Harding Calvin Coolidge Republican
James Cox Franklin Roosevelt Democrat
Eugene Debs Seymour Stedman Socialist

1924 Presidential Election
Calvin Coolidge Charles Dawes Republican
John Davis Charles Bryan Democrat
Robert LaFollette Burton Wheeler Progressive

1928 Presidential Election
Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis Republican
Alfred Smith Joseph Robinson Democrat

1932 Presidential Election Results
Franklin Roosevelt John Garner Democrat
Herbert Hoover Charles Curtis Republican
Norman Thomas James Maurer Socialist

1936 Presidential Election Results
Franklin Roosevelt John Garner Democrat
Alfred Landon Frank Knox Republican
William Lemke Thomas O'Brien Union

1940 Presidential Election Results
Franklin Roosevelt Henry Wallace Democrat
Wendell Willkie Charles McNary Republican

1944 Presidential Election Results
Franklin Roosevelt Harry Truman Democrat
Thomas Dewey John Bricker Republican

1948 Presidential Election Results
Harry Truman Alben Barkley Democrat
Thomas Dewey Earl Warren Republican
J. Strom Thurmond Fielding Wright State's Rights
Henry Wallace Glen Taylor Progressive

1952 Presidential Election Results
Dwight Eisenhower Richard Nixon Republican
Adlai Stevenson John Sparkman Democrat

1956 Presidential Election Results
Dwight Eisenhower Richard Nixon Republican
Adlai Stevenson Estes Kefauver Democrat

1960 Presidential Election
John Kennedy Lyndon Johnson Democrat
Richard Nixon Henry Lodge Republican

1964 President Election
Lyndon Johnson Hubert Humphrey Democrat
Barry Goldwater William Miller Republican

1968 Presidential Election
Richard Nixon Spiro Agnew Republican
Hubert Humphrey Edmund Muskie Democrat
George Wallace Curtis LeMay American Independant

1972 Presidential Election
Richard Nixon Spiro Agnew Republican
George McGovern R. Sargent Shriver Democrat
John Schmitz Thomas Anderson American Independant

1976 Presidential Election Results
Jimmy Carter Walter Mondale Democrat
Gerald Ford Robert Dole Republican

1980 Presidential Election Results
Ronald Reagan George Bush Republican
Jimmy Carter Walter Mondale Democrat
John Anderson Patrick Lucey Independant
Ed Clark David Koch Libertarian

1984 Presidential Election Results
Ronald Reagan George Bush Republican
Walter Mondale Geraldine Ferraro Democrat

1988 Presidential Election Results
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican
Michael Dukakis Lloyd Bentsen Democrat

1992 Presidential Election Results
William Clinton Albert Gore Democrat
George Bush J. Danforth Quayle Republican
H. Ross Perot James Stockdale UWSA

1996 Presidential Election Results
William Clinton Albert Gore Democrat
Robert Dole Jack Kemp Republican
H. Ross Perot Pat Choate Reform

Sorry for the lousy formating, but for some reason, my browser has made posting this looooong thread a pain in the butt. It keep reseting everytime I'd add some extra HTML commands.

I've been awake all night, so I'll gonna be napping now. Hope to see some thought-provoking responces when I get back in a few hours (and there better be-- considering how hard it was to post this vanity!)

One more side note: We didn't elect Presidents using the "modern day" method until 1804, and they didn't follow "modern day campaigns" as we know them today, until 1840.

Keep this in mind while you evaluate.

Mostly good choices, but I'll take exception for 1872. It was apparent by then that despite U.S. Grant's personal likability, he had surrounded himself with corruption and scandal. Horace Greeley was both well-qualified and well-prepared to lead. Were it not for the union occupation of the south and widespread disenfranchisement of former Confederates, Grant might have been sent packing.

As it was, Grant's corrupt administration very nearly cost the well-qualified and decent Rutherford B. Hayes the election four years later.

Thanks for putting up this list. Only two errors that I noted.

George Washington was not a "Federalist" in his second election. He was adamantly opposed to political parties, and said so in his Farewell Address to the American People. Also, he was not the only candidate in his elections. Other people received Electoral Collage votes in his years.

The Democratic-Republican Party existed only during the two terms of Thmas Jefferson, and then fragmented. The next election marked the first appearance of the Democratic Party. The election of 1824 was a non-party one, since the Democrats had no single candidate but instead had four candidates from different regions of the country running for President.

Trust me, I know these things. I wrote a Supreme Court brief for Anderson v. Celebrezze, 1983, cited with approval by the Court in ruling for Anderson that he had a right to be on the ballots as an independent in 1980.

I hope you have, or at least have read, Sven Petersen's A Statistical History of US Presidential Elections, If not, find it and read it. He has a chapter on close elections pointing out, for instance, that Wendell Wilkie would have defeated FDR in the Electoral College with a change of less than 1% of the popular vote. He gives several other examples including Seymour. (I wrote an article on that, published in Long Island Newsday entitled, "Recarving Mount Rushmore.")

Glad to see I am not alone as a "presidential election nut." No offense meant.

The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob,
cyberCongressman from Western Carolina

Click here for Billybob's latest, "An Open Letter to Al (not that one)." The next one is, "The Logic of a Wet Paper Bag."

Click here if you like really good -- or really bad -- videos and DVDs..

Thanks for putting up this list. Only two errors that I noted.

George Washington was not a "Federalist" in his second election. He was adamantly opposed to political parties, and said so in his Farewell Address to the American People. Also, he was not the only candidate in his elections. Other people received Electoral Collage votes in his years.

The Democratic-Republican Party existed only during the two terms of Thmas Jefferson, and then fragmented. The next election marked the first appearance of the Democratic Party. The election of 1824 was a non-party one, since the Democrats had no single candidate but instead had four candidates from different regions of the country running for President.

Trust me, I know these things. I wrote a Supreme Court brief for Anderson v. Celebrezze, 1983, cited with approval by the Court in ruling for Anderson that he had a right to be on the ballots as an independent in 1980.

I hope you have, or at least have read, Sven Petersen's A Statistical History of US Presidential Elections, If not, find it and read it. He has a chapter on close elections pointing out, for instance, that Wendell Wilkie would have defeated FDR in the Electoral College with a change of less than 1% of the popular vote. He gives several other examples including Seymour. (I wrote an article on that, published in Long Island Newsday entitled, "Recarving Mount Rushmore.")

Glad to see I am not alone as a "presidential election nut." No offense meant.

The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob,
cyberCongressman from Western Carolina

Click here for Billybob's latest, "An Open Letter to Al (not that one)." The next one is, "The Logic of a Wet Paper Bag."

Click here if you like really good -- or really bad -- videos and DVDs..

I don't think I can go back much farther than 1964 with any certainty. Although, I imagine I would have voted for Jefferson, against Lincoln, for Silent Cal and against FDR. Here it goes:

1964 Goldwater/Miller
1968 Wallace/LeMay (AIP)
1972 Schmitz/Anderson (AIP)
1976 Would've stayed home and banged my face against the wall
1980 Reagan/Bush
1984 Reagan/Bush
1988 Paul/Marrou (Libertarian)
1992 Perot/Stockdale (UWSA)
1996 Browne/Jorgensen (Libertarian)
2000 Buchanan/Foster (Reform)

bold off?

It's just amazing when you look that far back in history and see Strom Thurmond in 1948, still presiding over the U.S. Senate! He has been around a heck of a long time.

Gotta go with Thurmond in '48, and Wallace in '68.

There were two key elections in which the course of American and world history could have been changed for the better: 1948 and 1952. Had George Patton not died in Germany in 1945, he might well have retired soon thereafter and entered domestic politics, perhaps to run for the governorship of his home state of California in 1946 and then for president in 1948. With his personal popularity, far greater than that of MacArthur or even Eisenhower, he would have made a far stronger GOP candidate than Thomas Dewey did. Given his conservatism and Virginian lineage, Patton might have wrought a Republican revolution in the South 32 years before Reagan. Most likely, Strom Thurmond would not have run as an independent had Patton been a candidate. He would have also retained what were then the "rock-ribbed" GOP strongholds in the Northeast and Upper Midwest, not yet thoroughly corrupted by liberalism, enabling a clear victory over Truman.

A Patton administration would have purged the State Department of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ivy League types who had appeased Stalin in 1945 and who would have later decided on a "no win" war in Korea. The Soviet Union would have been successfully confronted and impelled to withdraw from what would become the Warsaw Pact, as the U.S. had a nuclear monopoly and conventional superiority. Even if Mao had conquered China, a Patton administration would have supplied the Nationalists with the means to continue the struggle. Moreover, a State Department staffed with conservatives would not have encouraged Britain, France, et. al., to abandon their colonial empires, to be replaced in many cases by Marxists and brutal dictators.

Domestically, the New Deal legislation would have been repealed. The budget would have been balanced, and Federal spending severely curbed. Liberal academia would have been denied the Federal funding they received to pursue their agenda. Possibly someone like Clarence Manion, the Constitutionalist dean of the Notre Dame law school, would have become Chief Justice, rather than Earl Warren. A Manion-led Supreme Court would not have done the damage to states' rights that the Warren Court did. Indeed, such a court would have restored the precedents of the conservative Federal courts, such as the "Nine Old Men" derided by FDR.

None of these actions would have necessarily prevented this nation's cultural and moral decline. We would have probably suffered the effects of Kinsey's sexual studies, Hugh Hefner's "Playboy philosophy," the "Beat Generation," rock and roll, Timothy Leary's evangelism for drug use, and the hippie movement. However, the Federal government would not have been a silent partner in the long march of secular humanism and its handmaiden, liberalism, through this nation's institutions. Our main foreign foe would have been placed at bay and perhaps even overthrown after Stalin's death.

Patton's death in Germany precluded this from happening.

Fixed?

Good job ;)

smart ass....hehehe.

I'm a fan of The Big O™

fixed?

HELP..........

Excellent work...are ya feelin' a bit blue this mornin'??

HELP..........

Put a garbage can over it!

you are funny.

The Big O™ is my kind of conservative!

Now that is going to far! Don't make me start talkin' smack about Leo Strauss.

UNCLE!

As for me I most strongly disagree with two of your selections for POTUS. I do believe that Franklin Pierce is perhaps the most maligned of US Presidents. his strict views on the rights of states kept the Union together without a war. Likewise Breckenridge may have done the same. Slavery would have been abolished and we would have avoided the bitterness engendered by the Reconstruction era.

Stay well - Yorktown

Patton's death in Germany precluded this from happening.

There are still open questions about the exact nature of the "accident" that killed Patton.

Stay well - Yorktown

I am familiar with the accusations that General Patton's spinal injury from an automobile wreck was no accident. Additionally, there are questions relating to his treatment at the hospital where he died. There may be no resolution to this issue, barring complete revelation of the medical records or a decades old document showing up inadvertently.

It was well known that Patton was vehemently opposed to Communism and liberalism. His popularity among the troops and the general public was also well known. Patton lacked the Olympian demeanor of Douglas MacArthur, and would have thrived in the rough and tumble of domestic politics. His stomach for a fight was a characteristic that Robert Taft lacked, as evidenced by his failure to respond effectively to the Eisenhower campaign in 1952. Unlike Joseph McCarthy or Richard Nixon, Patton was not a professional politician, and his motives would not have been as suspect.

One can play the "what if" game ad nauseam, but the elections of 1948 and 1952 could have shifted the American body politic back to limited government, national sovereignty, and free market economics had the right man been elected. Patton could well have been that man.

Teddy Roosevelt in 1912

Ronald Reagan in 1976.

>> I don't think I can go back much farther than 1964 with any certainty. Although, I imagine I would have voted for Jefferson, against Lincoln, for Silent Cal and against FDR. Here it goes

Well, the point of the thread was to be imaginive and try to picture yourself in eras that are long since past, but I agree it's very difficult to accurately say who you vote for when you go back to a totally different America in the 1800s. I had a lot of trouble picking people running in the pre civil war era, which the excertion of Andy Jackson (who I view as the last TRUE "conservative" Democrat to be elected President).

You pick some interesting choices, in your willing to go 3rd party (I generally avoided it except in cases where I equally can't stand BOTH parties candidates, such as the 1856-- Fremont would a be a liberal Republcian by today's standards, and Buchanan was a joke was with no backbone or principles, so I went with Millard Filmore, who was mildly conservative on social issues but anti-slavery)

>> 1964 Goldwater/Miller <<

Agreed. Probably the most conservative Republican ticket between Coolidge and Reagan. He was a lousy campaigner, though.

>> 1968 Wallace/LeMay (AIP) <<

Nope. Can't go with ya on this one. Wallace claimed to be a conservative but he showed his true colors on some economic issues, and he proved everyone's suspercions correct in 1976 when he rejoined the Democrat Party in 1976 and endorcing Carter. Best go with Nixon.

>> 1972 Schmitz/Anderson (AIP) <<

Nope, this "substitute" candidate after Wallace was shot ended up even even more marginalized than him. Ironically, the American Indepedant Party kept becoming MORE conservative without Wallace, but their support ebbed more and more. They were down to 4000 votes by 1980.

>> 1976 Would've stayed home and banged my face against the wall <<

LOL. I would have voted for Ford, but for the sole reason to keep Carter from winning. And I would feel gulity afterwards.

>> 1980 Reagan/Bush 1984 Reagan/Bush <<

I think we can all agree on this one.

>> 1988 Paul/Marrou (Libertarian) <<

Would have been tempting, but if I was around in '88, I would have tried to get Pete DuPont nominated over Bush in the GOP primary.

>> 1992 Perot/Stockdale (UWSA) <<

No way. Perot was Count Taxula. This is the first election I remember clearly, and Perot struck me a nut back then.

>> 1996 Browne/Jorgensen (Libertarian) <<

Nope. Dole. Sadly, only one that had a chance to stop Clinton.

>> 2000 Buchanan/Foster (Reform) <<

Considering that option, until he joined the Reform Party.

What do you guys think?

Well here is the list of elections in which I would have voted for the loser:

1828, 1832. No and no to Andy Jackson, probably our most overrated president.

1848. Fillmore was a flop, but I don't know anything about Cass

1852. Pierce was a flop, and I know enough about Scott to prefer him.

1856. 3 absolutely disasterous choices. Probably the worst offering of candidates in American history.

1876. Grant needed his butt booted. I don't know as much as I should about Greeley, but he would have to be pretty gamey to not be preferable.

1888. Cleveland should have been re-elected and Harrison should not have been elected to anything.

1916. Close call. I guess Hughes since Wilson got sick, and was too stubborn about compromising, thereby tanking the US's participation in the League of Nations.

1920. Harding was totally unfit.

1944. FDR was great, but he was dying, and hurt the country by hanging around for Yalta.

1960. JFK is the next most overrated president after Jackson, and Nixon wasn't as scar tissued at that point in his life.

1976. There was no reason to dump Ford, and Carter proved to be, well, Carter.

1992. There was some reason to dump daddy Bush for getting bored with the job, and being totally uninterested in domestic issues, but in this case the dumping left one in the dumpster with the dumpee.

That's it folks. Americans have by and large made the right decisions. They get a B+ overall.

>> It's just amazing when you look that far back in history and see Strom Thurmond in 1948, still presiding over the U.S. Senate! He has been around a heck of a long time.<<<

>> Gotta go with Thurmond in '48, and Wallace in '68. <<

I expected alot of support from Thurmond on this forum because he is one of the few politicians in today's soecity that was involved in major elections of another era. The fact he ran against Truman in 1948 makes him essentially a living legend.

1948 would have been a tough election for me to decide, had I lived back then. The only candidate I ruled out instantly was Henry Wallace, who actually broke away from the Democrats because he thought they were too CONSERVATIVE under Roosevelt-Truman. Wallace was a far, far, far left socialist-communist who was dumped from the V.P. slot by FDR in 1944 because he was too "contraversal".

Truman was probably the most "conservative" post-WWII Dem candidate, but this really not saying much. The liberal wing of the Democrats thought he was too conservative, the conservative wing thought he was too liberal. Basically that makes him a moderate Democrat, a la a modern day Gary Condit. He get high points for firing FDR's socialist cabinet due to them being "damned liars", but his "fair deal" program is New Deal-light, and therefore I could not support him.

As for Thurmond, the problem is that we are all thinking of the Strom Thurmond of today. As governor of South Carolina in 1948, I think he was more libertarian-leaning than conservative. He had always been feuding with the liberals in the Democratic Party, but his 1948 campaign was basically a "single issue" campaign ('stop federal interferance in state programs'), with a heavy regional taint. He didn't make any attempts to appeal to midwesterns or rocky mountain folk, and unfortuantely, his campaign had some racist overtones.

In the end, I'd have to hold my nose and voted for Dewey, who was tough on crime and down-to-earth. His showing in 1944 made people widely believe he WOULD have defeated Truman in 1948, but a last minute surge for Truman changed all the predictions on election day.

In all likelyhood, the 1948 campaign would have resulted in a conservative win had the GOP nominated someone to the right of Dewey, and captured back some of the "border" southern states (Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky), etc., that had gone GOP in the 20s. But that subject would make a whole different thread, now wouldn't it? ;-)

I picked Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1884 because a corrupt "Progressive" (19th century codeword for liberal) candidate won the nomination of the Republican Party. If you look into history books, alot of Republicans from that era abandoned their own party's candidate and did likewise. They were known as "mugwumps"-- conservative Republicans of the 19th century. If I had been alive back then, I'd be a registered "Mugwump", as stupid as the same sounds. ;-)

Cleveland, at least, was conservative on social issues, but most of the Democratic Party at that time was run by the John Altgeld socialist-wing that controlled the labor unions. Altgeld Democrats controlled state parties, Clevland took control of the national party, and the Democrats had an inner-party bloodbath.

Enter Benjamin Harrison, a conservative Republican who was the grandson of President W.H. Harrison, and you can see why GOP won back the white house in 1888. Both candidates in 1888 were likeable and somewhat conservative, but I'd go with Harrison.

1892 saw Cleveland make a comeback because--this probably sounds familar-- the economy was bad under the incumbant president. Cleveland won back some Republican votes by abandoning his party's "silver standard" and went with the conservative gold-standard in American's currency. The only reason I wouldn't have voted for him is that he picked a liberal running mate (Adali Steveson) to appease the left-wing of his party, and being an Illinoian, I personally CANNOT STAND any of the Stevensons. They're all snotty liberal intellectuals-- and the first one almost became president when Cleveland nearly died from cancer of the jaw.

But Cleveland was a class act, he went so far as to endorce Republican William McKinley over his own party's nominee for sucessor (nutcase William J. Bryan). If Cleveland had been a little more honest with himself, he probably would have switched parties by that time. ;-)

It's pretty clear where your party allegiances lie.

The mixture of Whigs and Democrats in the 40s and 50s is intriguing though. By today's standards those candidates all look alike, but party passions ran high in those days as well. Still, the Whigs deserve better than most historians give them credit for.

The great question mark is Lincoln. He was a very admirable president in my book, but would the country have been better off with one of the compromise candidates? The argument against Lincoln is the war and its dead. The argument in favor is that conflict had been put off for years and would come in any case, so why not have someone able at the helm? A question that won't ever be resolved.

Hancock and Tilden in the 70s and 80s, were pretty decent for Democrats -- and Hancock, so far as I know was an upstanding citizen with no dirt in his personal past. The GOP of those days could have used some shaking up, but the Dems also had some unsavory associations themselves. A long ruling party needs some shaking up to keep them honest, but the results of a defeat can be devasting.

The other thing is the men who never got to run. Robert Taft comes to mind.

Thanks for the question. 1828, I would have preferred JQA over Jackson. 1872, Greeley over Grant (of course Greeley died in mid-campaign), 1888: Cleveland over Harrison (Cleveland was far more conservative than Harrison and a great president. We could use another Grover Cleveland in the White House.), 1916: Hughes over Wilson, 1944: Dewey over FDR, 1964-76: Anybody over who we had running, 1996 and 2000: I think we all know who I think should have won. :)

I didn't catch that Webster was a relative! That helps to explain some things. Though I still think the Whigs get a bum rap.

Popular novelist Irving Stone wrote a book called "They Also Ran" with portraits of all losing Presidential candidates from Fremont to Dewey or Stevenson. Basically, his picks were the opposite of yours -- he disliked all Republicans except Lincoln and TR.

My personal favorite losing presidential candidate was Alton B. Parker, Chief Judge of New York's Court of Appeals. The Democrats nominated the conservative Parker as a sacrificial lamb to run against Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Parker had no luck. Even Wall Street prefered the "insurgent candidate of the party of reaction to the reactionary candidate of the party of insurgency," as one liberal journalist put it. Parker's quest for the Presidency would have a certain quixotic appeal -- except that it wasn't any sort of quest.

The greatest tragedies were 1856, 1912 and 1964. Not that Fillmore or Taft or Goldwater were great picks, but the alternatives were pretty bad. Sentimental favorite -- Al Smith. Regardless of politics it was good to have someone who came as far he did on the ballot. Losing candidate who deserved most to become President -- Charles Evans Hughes. How good a president he would have been is up in the air, but Wilson had already done a lot of harm and was to do more in his second term. If nothing else, Hughes had seriousness and devotion to the public good.

Can't really comment on Patton, because he died before those elections. I did hear that Douglas MacArthur considered a simular approach after he was fired by Truman. MacArthur was an unabased conservative Republican, and I as I understand it, he was the party's keynote speaker at the '48 convension (or was that '52?).

As it was though, MacArthur didn't want to run against a fellow WWII general, so he stepped aside when they drafted Ike. The conservative alternative was then Bob Taft, who wasn't much a fighter, but he was still clearly to right of Eisenhower.

Can't really comment on Patton, because he died before those elections. I did hear that Douglas MacArthur considered a simular approach after he was fired by Truman. MacArthur was an unabased conservative Republican, and I as I understand it, he was the party's keynote speaker at the '48 convension (or was that '52?).

As it was though, MacArthur didn't want to run against a fellow WWII general, so he stepped aside when they drafted Ike. The conservative alternative was then Bob Taft, who wasn't much a fighter, but he was still clearly to right of Eisenhower.

There is a lot of anti-Lincoln sentiment on this forum (sadly), but the only way I can see myself voting against Lincoln would be if Sam Houston won the nomination of the "Constutional Union" party. As it was, they nominated John Bell, a centrist who stood for little else than "uniting the country", and claiming he could comprimse all the regional problems that were ensuing at that time.

Under no circumstances would I vote for Breckenridge. I don't know what's with some people here who think slavery would have ended under his adminstration, as Breckenridge was the only unabashedly PRO-slavery candidate. Since I think of the slavery issue as the 19th century equilvent to the abortion issue today, I would avoid voting for either a pro-slavery or pro-abortion person UNLESS they were the ONLY candidate capable of beating a socialist candidate.

Douglas was a "moderate" Democrat, and actually was a lot closer to Lincoln's views than either of them would like to admit too. Their big disagreement was over the slavery issue. Lincoln was anti-slavery expansion and Douglas was neutral.

During this era, some people tried to draft Texas Governor Sam Houston as the nominee of the Union Party because he was a conservative southern Democrat, one who was believe secession was constitutional, but NEVERTHELESS was ANTI-confederate (he argued--correctly IMO-- that Texas was a soverign, indepedant state once it seceeded and should have no ties or loyalities to the confederacy.) He was was also venimately anti-slavery.

Lincoln, I think, would be a "moderate" Republican by today's standards. I reject all the labels that he was a "marxist" or liberal, etc. The "radical" Republicans of that era WERE liberal, wanted to expand the federal government greatly to "conquer" the south, and so forth-- and Lincoln NEVER got along with them. He vetoed half the stuff they sent him. The radicals got angry at Lincoln, they considered running one of their own to oppose him in the 1864 primary, but they had to get onboard once the public sided with Abe.

Then in 1864, Lincoln's Democrat "opponent" was a joke-- their party nominated George McClellan, a failed union general and a coward. Lincoln nullified the Democrats support by picking a moderate southern Democrat as his running mate, so the ticket would be non-partisan. It worked.

BTW, I do not and have not ever voted straight Republican. However, seems fairly obvious to me that they nominate the better candidate in 90% of elections.

Morning BUMP. What do YOU think?

Moring BUMP. Any interest in this thread?

One last BUMP-E-ROO to get my thread up to 40!

I voted for Bush and because I also realize that NO politican is going to do everything I think he should , on the whole picture I am ok with the things he has done. NOT ALL ! But most of the things Bush has done so far.

BUT, if I could vote for Rush Limbaugh that would be the very BEST man for the job.

Thanks for the ping BB.

Before more fully embracing conservatism I would have said that I wished Humphrey and McGovern had been elected president. Now, I'm starting to wish Goldwater and maybe even Wallace had won.

I'm glad you've seen the light, and I agree with Goldwater...but I can't see why a black American would consider George "the racist Democrat" Wallace. This is the guy who stood in the front of the doorway of the University of Alabama in 1963 trying to deny enterance to black students who were LAWFULLY admitted to the school. He did "apologize" later, but that was just to get back support from the national DNC when he returned to office in the 70s and 80s. Wallace actually got increasing liberal over the years (then again, so did Goldwater, but for difference reasons-- ol' Barry remarried and his younger liberal wife turned him in a wussy old man. ;-)

Ah. I think Henry Clay was far and away the better man in 1836 and for the other years he ran for President. Webster? The man had no chance whatsoever outside of New England.

One quick evenin' BUMP if anyone is interested is still interested in this thread.

...but I can't see why a black American would consider George "the racist Democrat" Wallace. This is the guy who stood in the front of the doorway of the University of Alabama in 1963 trying to deny enterance to black students who were LAWFULLY admitted to the school. He did "apologize" later, but that was just to get back support from the national DNC when he returned to office in the 70s and 80s...

I think I'm more inclined to support Wallace now in part because I did take his "repentance" at his word. More importantly, he was saying some things about busing and other aspects of forced integration that should have been better heeded at the time. I'm simply not an integrationist and feel that folks should be free to associate with whoever they will.

I think I'm more inclined to support Wallace now in part because I did take his "repentance" at his word. More importantly, he was saying some things about busing and other aspects of forced integration that should have been better heeded at the time.

I'm not trying to offend my friends in Alabama, but George Wallace was a racist. I couldn't believe when he, as the governor of a state in this republic, denied admission to blacks at a public school.

I'm simply not an integrationist and feel that folks should be free to associate with whoever they will.

Of course. Because we are a free, market oriented, constitutional republic which is the reason diverse cultures and peoples can become great as one.

Now, if only the sheeple would learn economics.

5.56mm

Most southern DEMOCRATS (note the disclaimer, I didn't say most southerners) have historically been racists.

FORCEING blacking people to "intergrate" to white schools via busing is one thing-- it should not be allowed.

VOLUNTARY intergration is quite another. To deny people to voluntary intergate with whomever they want is violating the U.S. constiution.

This is also why I would vote for Strom Thurmond if he was running for President today, but not if he were running in 1948.

>> The other thing is the men who never got to run. Robert Taft comes to mind. <<

Maybe we start a whole new thread: "Historically speaking, who SHOULD have been NOMINATED for President? (but wasn't)" ;-)