Best US Presidential Lineup

[Undesired Walrus]

Which election (After 1900 if possible) do you believe had the best two candidates? Not in terms of just entertainment but in terms of substance, in which the two parties had selected the best, most competent, most intelligent politicians possible?

Have you ever been in the polling booth trying to decide who you would vote for not because they were equally bad but because instead, they were both equally good?

[leonAzul]

OK, I'll bite.

This last one. Despite the feeble (febrile?) vice-presidential candidate on the Republican side, both presidential candidates were worthy of the office. I wasn't eligible to vote back then, but the last time I felt that way was back in 1964 with Goldwater and Johnson.

[Undesired Walrus]

Didn't Goldwater have ties to the KKK?

[leonAzul]

Didn't Goldwater have ties to the KKK?

About as much as he raped and killed a young girl in 1990.

Nice try.

:/

[Undesired Walrus]

It wasn't a try, I'm honestly curious.

ETA: Ok, I see it was the KKK who endorsed Goldwater, not Goldwater being involved with the KKK.

[SpitfireIX]

I'm going to go with 1952 and 1956: Dwight Eisenhower vs. Adlai Stevenson.


And, trying to be objective, I'd say that it's far to early to be speculating about how history will judge Obama's presidency.

[Holler Hoojer]

That has to be 1912. There were two excellent candidates who lost and one good candidate, who won. President Taft, ex-President Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

That has to be 1912. There were two excellent candidates who lost and one good candidate, who won. President Taft, ex-President Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.

That was the first one that came to mind for me as well.

I would also submit as runners-up or honorable mentions (and I know, one of these is prior to 1900):

- 1796 and 1800 (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)

- 1960 (JFK and Nixon. This is ignoring what happened long after, of course. But Nixon was a brilliant candidate and a sadly flawed, but in many ways very smart President)

- 1992 - George Bush and Bill Clinton. (I think the first Bush is underrated, and was basically a decent president. Not great, but decent.)

[leonAzul]

It wasn't a try, I'm honestly curious.

ETA: Ok, I see it was the KKK who endorsed Goldwater, not Goldwater being involved with the KKK.

Sorry if I misread your intent.

He also immediately repudiated the endorsement.

[Freethinker]

- 1992 - George Bush and Bill Clinton. (I think the first Bush is underrated, and was basically a decent president. Not great, but decent.)

Sometimes the best man for the job is a decent, competent one.

Seems odd that so many presidential aspirants have major character flaws. Nixon's paranoia. Clinton's philandering.

[theprestige]

Sometimes the best man for the job is a decent, competent one.

Seems odd that so many presidential aspirants have major character flaws. Nixon's paranoia. Clinton's philandering.
Not any more odd than so many other people having major character flaws.

What would seem odd to me is a presidential aspirant who didn't have a major character flaw.

[skeptical]

That was the first one that came to mind for me as well.

I would also submit as runners-up or honorable mentions (and I know, one of these is prior to 1900):

- 1796 and 1800 (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson)

- 1960 (JFK and Nixon. This is ignoring what happened long after, of course. But Nixon was a brilliant candidate and a sadly flawed, but in many ways very smart President)

- 1992 - George Bush and Bill Clinton. (I think the first Bush is underrated, and was basically a decent president. Not great, but decent.)

Damn, you stole two of mine. :)

Nixon was a very good candidate and had great vision on some matters (China for example), but like you say was horribly flawed.

I agree with your assessment of Bush as well. I have developed a much more favorable opinion of him over the past decade. Having his son in office for 8 yrs probably helped him in my view by comparison.

I have to give the gold to the 1912 election though. Talk about drama. The old lion returns to the fray and costs his old party the presidency, setting the stage for "The American Century" when Wilson leads the US into WWI. The stakes don't get much higher than that.

[Undesired Walrus]

Would anybody agree that Bush versus Gore ala 2000 was the worst presidential lineup?

Agree on Nixon/JFK.

[marksman]

That has to be 1912. There were two excellent candidates who lost and one good candidate, who won. President Taft, ex-President Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson.

Agreed. Although Wilson's abysmal-ness may tip the scales.

Does when Washington and Monroe each ran effectively unopposed count?

I'll go with, in order,
Adams/Jefferson (1796/1800).
Eisenhower/Stevenson (1952/1956)
FDR/Dewey (1944)
Polk/Clay (1844)
Truman/Dewey (1948)
JFK/Nixon (1960)
Clinton/Bush (1992)

[Undesired Walrus]

Kerry/Bush was quite dire too.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Would anybody agree that Bush versus Gore ala 2000 was the worst presidential lineup?

Agree on Nixon/JFK.

I say Bush/Kerry was worse.

Bush/Dukakis wasn't exactly a barn burner either.

[TriskettheKid]

Politics aside, I'm a fan of Truman/Dewey in 1948.

Both men were, in my mind, fairly ideal when it comes to qualities I'd assert with being POTUS.

They had integrity, both personal and business, were accountable for their actions, etc. Admittedly, Dewey was EXTREMELY cautious to the point of impotent with his campaign, but I'm just looking at the candidates themselves.

[Foolmewunz]

Damn, you stole two of mine. :)

Nixon was a very good candidate and had great vision on some matters (China for example), but like you say was horribly flawed.

I agree with your assessment of Bush as well. I have developed a much more favorable opinion of him over the past decade. Having his son in office for 8 yrs probably helped him in my view by comparison.

I have to give the gold to the 1912 election though. Talk about drama. The old lion returns to the fray and costs his old party the presidency, setting the stage for "The American Century" when Wilson leads the US into WWI. The stakes don't get much higher than that.

Nitpick: Wilson's election in '16 was the set-piece for the entry into "The American Century", if you will - not the 1912 election. And 1916's not a bad candidate for this thread. Charles Evans Hughes had been a pretty good governor, served on the Supreme Court (and was later Secý of State and Chief Justice). He was just a crap campaigner, apparently. Wilson didn't even run against him - he ran against the Tafties and the Rooseveltians.

[headscratcher4]

I'll go contrary: Roosevelt vs. Hoover.

Hoover, a great administrator and humanitarian caught in a historic melt-down. The last president of the 19th Century. Smart guy who didn't understand the dawn of the modern media age and the mass man. Thought that smarts alone was enough for the job.

FDR: the embodiment of a modern politician. Loved the camera, loved politics, loved being the boss, loved the masses, knew how to play and win the inside game. The first real politician of the 20th Century media age.

It was the old way of doing things in Washington vs. a new way. It was mass culture vs. past culture.

For good and ill, a true turning point in American history.