Best US Presidential Lineup

Undesired Walrus · 12th September 2009, 03:23 PM

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 · 13th September 2009, 01:20 PM

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 · 13th September 2009, 01:44 PM

Didn't Goldwater have ties to the KKK?

leonAzul · 13th September 2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

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 · 13th September 2009, 03:58 PM

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 · 13th September 2009, 05:30 PM

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 · 13th September 2009, 06:04 PM

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 · 13th September 2009, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 14th September 2009, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Sorry if I misread your intent.

He also immediately repudiated the endorsement.

Freethinker · 14th September 2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

- 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 · 14th September 2009, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Freethinker

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 · 14th September 2009, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley

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 · 15th September 2009, 02:45 PM

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

Agree on Nixon/JFK.

marksman · 15th September 2009, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 15th September 2009, 04:55 PM

Kerry/Bush was quite dire too.

UNLoVedRebel · 16th September 2009, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

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 · 17th September 2009, 10:06 PM

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 · 23rd September 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by skeptical

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 · 23rd September 2009, 09:16 AM

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.

12th September 2009, 03:23 PM	#1
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Best US Presidential Lineup 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?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

13th September 2009, 01:20 PM	#2
leonAzul Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,802	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.
	__________________ The road to success is littered with the corpses of failure. Sometimes, it is what it is becoming. I'm a musician: I have no shame!

13th September 2009, 01:44 PM	#3
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Didn't Goldwater have ties to the KKK?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

13th September 2009, 02:45 PM	#4
leonAzul Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,802	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Didn't Goldwater have ties to the KKK? About as much as he raped and killed a young girl in 1990. Nice try. :/
	__________________ The road to success is littered with the corpses of failure. Sometimes, it is what it is becoming. I'm a musician: I have no shame!

13th September 2009, 03:58 PM	#5
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	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.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 13th September 2009 at 04:00 PM.

13th September 2009, 05:30 PM	#6
SpitfireIX Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 1,503	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.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

13th September 2009, 06:04 PM	#7
Holler Hoojer Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 422	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.

13th September 2009, 07:04 PM	#8
ARubberChickenWithAPulley Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Kentucky Posts: 1,805	Originally Posted by 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. 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.)
	Last edited by ARubberChickenWithAPulley; 13th September 2009 at 07:05 PM.

14th September 2009, 02:40 AM	#9
leonAzul Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,802	Originally Posted by 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. Sorry if I misread your intent. He also immediately repudiated the endorsement.
	__________________ The road to success is littered with the corpses of failure. Sometimes, it is what it is becoming. I'm a musician: I have no shame!

14th September 2009, 08:14 AM	#10
Freethinker Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,289	Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley - 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.
	__________________ “The stupid texts of the Bible - from which, be the talents of the preacher what they may, only stupid sermons can be preached” Thomas Paine

14th September 2009, 11:06 AM	#11
theprestige Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,096	Originally Posted by Freethinker 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.

14th September 2009, 11:07 AM	#12
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 895	Originally Posted by ARubberChickenWithAPulley 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.
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 895	__________________ Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding.- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial 1925 When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

15th September 2009, 02:45 PM	#13
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Would anybody agree that Bush versus Gore ala 2000 was the worst presidential lineup? Agree on Nixon/JFK.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

15th September 2009, 04:35 PM	#14
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 2,860	Originally Posted by 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. 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)

15th September 2009, 04:55 PM	#15
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,139	Kerry/Bush was quite dire too.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, Prime Minister of Britain, 1945

16th September 2009, 06:39 PM	#16
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 2,572	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus 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.

17th September 2009, 10:06 PM	#17
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,326	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.
	Last edited by TriskettheKid; 17th September 2009 at 10:08 PM.

23rd September 2009, 09:07 AM	#18
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 10,131	Originally Posted by skeptical 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.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Microsoft is NOT the Borg Collective... the Borg have better tech support. Eleri

23rd September 2009, 09:16 AM	#19
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 6,424	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.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson Last edited by headscratcher4; 23rd September 2009 at 09:18 AM.