Who would you have supported in all US presidential elections up to 1988?

duncanness said:

Initially, you asked me to explain my reasoning and I did. Then someone (you?) asked me to clarify and I did. Both times I expressed my reluctance to pursue this because it touches on very personal beliefs. My fears were confirmed. Mea culpa: I ought to have listened to my own instincts.

Click to expand...

Ok, if you don't want to pursue further in this discussion then I will drop it.

Divinespark said:

Ok, if you don't want to pursue further in this discussion then I will drop it.

Click to expand...

Thank you!

Divinespark said:

. I think you would be hardpressed to find a proponent of Manifest Destiny to openly state "God came down from Heaven and commanded me to conqueror the continent" but what some would believe is they were blessed/empowered by God to civilize/conqueror the land.

Click to expand...

I was thinking that before. It's close to what I was suggesting with Trial by Ordeal - the believe the good will defeat evil. However, I would not say "blessed/empowered." It is closer to permitted. God knows that nations war. Sometimes he intervenes. Sometimes he doesn't have to. Maybe it depends on who is the favorite and who is the underdog?

----

Just saying, it doesn't matter to me if one wants to argue on the basis of Manifest Destiny is secular destiny. As I wrote, man's lust for land is as old as man. But why wouldn't Reform Protestants think their history is not one of Bible-believers being advanced and saved by God's grace against Popery?
-The survival of Martin Luther vs the Pope's Holy Empire? (and yesterday was ML day).
-Storms leaping up to defeat their enemies at Leiden and the Armada.
-A miraculous storm-aided victory by Washington at Trenton. (more weather weapons)
-Washington's comment about winning the war that it is impossible not to see the hand of Providence in this.
-The victory of Protestant Texas over Catholic Mexico in1836.
-And what happened to the Dutch after throwing off the Pope - empire
-And what happened to the British after the Glorious Revolution - empire
And why wouldn't God give the Bible believers of North America empire? Do they not deserve "blessing" (Gen 12: 1-3) for welcoming in the Jews as the Dutch had before they created an empire, as Cromwell had before the British created empire?

Has anyone read any history books written in the 1800's that include this type of reasoning?

Code Blue said:

I was thinking that before. It's close to what I was suggesting with Trial by Ordeal - the believe the good will defeat evil. However, I would not say "blessed/empowered." It is closer to permitted. God knows that nations war. Sometimes he intervenes. Sometimes he doesn't have to. Maybe it depends on who is the favorite and who is the underdog?

Click to expand...

Well, I definitely think that Americans would consider themselves favored. You could certainly say Americans were permitted by the grace of God to find the "New World" and expand into it. I mean there were certainly impressions that God had created the Americas as a haven from European despotism.

Divinespark said:

Well, I definitely think that Americans would consider themselves favored. You could certainly say Americans were permitted by the grace of God to find the "New World" and expand into it. I mean there were certainly impressions that God had created the Americas as a haven from European despotism.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that rather tame and selective agreement, a very entertaining piece of careful weaving.

It still leaves the questions of whether Manifest Destiny is just another name for generic imperialism - or whether, if driven by Christian ethics, it affected what the conquest led to. I think in terms of Futurist statement about make use of useless land sounding like the kind of stewardship God ordained. On the other hand, it is a lot easier to rule over poverty and ignorance, like the Dark Ages. What did Americans make of Louisianan, of the west? Dark Ages or a model of ancient Israel, a land of self-governing tribes (called states), each with its own judge (called constitutional republicanism)? In which case, then Manifest Destiny would be some sort of opposite of Lebensraum (and then the non-generic labels would have significance).

Sorry, just a little improvising on a theme of whether it is possible to understand what people are doing if you can't put on a thinking cap that let's you think the way they do.

Almost before the Pilgrims went ashore, Winthrop told them: “America had been providentially chosen for a special destiny.” and “Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into Covenant with him for this work, we have taken out a commission.”
Of course, these days, this is a thinking cap no one wants to wear - no, no, no, they're all "deists."

Futurist said:

OK, but why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Is it because you are a poet and a dignified writer and thus want to express yourself with style?

Click to expand...

Kotromanic listed a number of options and, rather than address them all, I merely responded that this particular Maine etc., etc. Were I responding as a poet, I'd surely have done so in iambic pentameter and, were I a more dignified writer, I might have begun my response with something like "See here, my good man" etc. etc.

While James Blaine and I disagree on expansion policy, we both moved to Maine from other places and chose to stay. We also agree on architecture: the Blaine House (which is the official residence of Maine's governor) is a lovely building right in downtown Augusta.

Code Blue said:

Thank you for that rather tame and selective agreement, a very entertaining piece of careful weaving.

It still leaves the questions of whether Manifest Destiny is just another name for generic imperialism - or whether, if driven by Christian ethics, it affected what the conquest led to. I think in terms of Futurist statement about make use of useless land sounding like the kind of stewardship God ordained. On the other hand, it is a lot easier to rule over poverty and ignorance, like the Dark Ages. What did Americans make of Louisianan, of the west? Dark Ages or a model of ancient Israel, a land of self-governing tribes (called states), each with its own judge (called constitutional republicanism)? In which case, then Manifest Destiny would be some sort of opposite of Lebensraum (and then the non-generic labels would have significance).

Sorry, just a little improvising on a theme of whether it is possible to understand what people are doing if you can't put on a thinking cap that let's you think the way they do.

Almost before the Pilgrims went ashore, Winthrop told them: “America had been providentially chosen for a special destiny.” and “Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into Covenant with him for this work, we have taken out a commission.”
Of course, these days, this is a thinking cap no one wants to wear - no, no, no, they're all "deists."

Click to expand...

Well, my argument would be that Manifest Destiny is just a continuation of imperialism. I don't think that the religious angle/influence came into justification until the early 19th century. Before that period, yes there were people like John Winthrop thinking God had made this land for the Americans but to my knowledge, I have never seen him state that America should expand into the world. From what I have seen it is very much the idea to keep America shielded from the European influence. Now there is a very good book on this by Ernest Lee Tuevson called Redeemer Nation where he goes into detail about how this early idea of a God-given land is going to branch off and how eventually religion will be utilized justify the spreading of Judeo-Christian values to the world (particularly expounded upon the post-millenialist belief that America would bring about the kingdom of heaven) and that kind of coincides with Thomas Jefferson's idea of an Empire of Liberty. So I see the religious angle kind of flair up in a period after the initial premise of the Empire of Liberty.

Divinespark said:

Well, my argument would be that Manifest Destiny is just a continuation of imperialism. I don't think that the religious angle/influence came into justification until the early 19th century. Before that period, yes there were people like John Winthrop thinking God had made this land for the Americans but to my knowledge, I have never seen him state that America should expand into the world. From what I have seen it is very much the idea to keep America shielded from the European influence. Now there is a very good book on this by Ernest Lee Tuevson called Redeemer Nation where he goes into detail about how this early idea of a God-given land is going to branch off and how eventually religion will be utilized justify the spreading of Judeo-Christian values to the world (particularly expounded upon the post-millenialist belief that America would bring about the kingdom of heaven) and that kind of coincides with Thomas Jefferson's idea of an Empire of Liberty. So I see the religious angle kind of flair up in a period after the initial premise of the Empire of Liberty.

Click to expand...

As far as expand "into the world," you would get no dispute from me that the country became infected with same disease from which the pilgrims were trying to quarantine themselves. In my estimate the period incubation is approx 1860-1900. Thomas Jefferson surely never hinted that the only good Indian is a dead Indian. McKinley is something pivot point. I can never quite figure out if he is the last good guy or the first bad guy. lol That is, when Manifest Destiny went from a domestic manufacture to a leading export.

I found part of the Tuevrsn book, certainly not enough to sink my teeth in. Bounces around a lot. He talks about Protestantism not liking scholastic subtlety and metaphysical systems, and yet that is what he sounds like to me. Too much like an academic who is looking from the outside in. I like the old books, written by Protestants, looking from the inside out. At the risk of mixing metaphors, I have to walk in a man's footsteps to see things through his eyes. Teuvrson talks about Dafoe. It s better to read Dafoe.

I got about 40 pages out of this.

I can never get the application for Google Books to load. It always tells me - not in your country.

Code Blue said:

As far as expand "into the world," you would get no dispute from me that the country became infected with same disease from which the pilgrims were trying to quarantine themselves. In my estimate the period incubation is approx 1860-1900. Thomas Jefferson surely never hinted that the only good Indian is a dead Indian. McKinley is something pivot point. I can never quite figure out if he is the last good guy or the first bad guy. lol That is, when Manifest Destiny went from a domestic manufacture to a leading export.

I found part of the Tuevrsn book, certainly not enough to sink my teeth in. Bounces around a lot. He talks about Protestantism not liking scholastic subtlety and metaphysical systems, and yet that is what he sounds like to me. Too much like an academic who is looking from the outside in. I like the old books, written by Protestants, looking from the inside out. At the risk of mixing metaphors, I have to walk in a man's footsteps to see things through his eyes. Teuvrson talks about Dafoe. It s better to read Dafoe.

I got about 40 pages out of this.

Books (Product Price History & Deals at Amazon)

Check out the price history of products in the "Books" category and find the best deals on Amazon US.

www.kilibro.com

Redeemer Nation

Ernest Tuveson here shows that the idea of the redemptive mission which has motivated so much of the United States foreign policy is as old as the Republic itself. He traces the development of this element of the American heritage from its beginning as a literal interpretation of biblical...

books.google.co.vi

I can never get the application for Google Books to load. It always tells me - not in your country.

Click to expand...

I think there is some truth to the Wisconsin school (New Left Historians) in the sense of looking at McKinley as the culmination, and not an aberration, of American imperialist foreign policy. I wouldn't harp on economics as much as they do (they are kind of semi-Marxists) but it is certainly a factor. Anyways, concerning Jefferson, I agree with your assessment of his mentality. However, I think that Jefferson was under the impression that these savages would probably die out in the long run because of the multiplying effect of the Anglo-Saxon race. We would just basically out populate them and then our viewpoints would spread to new areas along with our settlers. That's why I think the Empire of Liberty is a bit more innocuous when compared to other imperial theories. It is kind of like benign cultural imperialism.

If you can get Tuevson at your library it's an interesting book.

This is an old thread but looks like a fun one to add my choices to and some reasons when not just based on preference of personality:
1789: George Washington
1792: George Washington
1796: Thomas Jefferson Mostly because i dislike john adams's anti french and pro english policies
1800: Thomas Jefferson
1804: Thomas Jefferson
1808: James Madison
1812: James Madison
1816: James Monroe
1820: John Quincy Adams
1824: John Quincy Adams Besides liking John Quincy i despise jackson
1828: John Quincy Adams ditto
1832: Henry Clay anyone but jackson
1836: William Henry Harrison opposition to jackson's pick
1840: William Henry Harrison ditto
1844: Henry Clay anti expansion of slave states or antagonism to mexico
1848: Zachary Taylor
1852: Winfield Scott
1856: John Fremont abolition
1860: Abraham Lincoln abolition
1864: Abraham Lincoln Continue the war and abolition
1868: Ulysses Grant
1872: Ulysses Grant
1876: Rutherford Hayes republicans were better then
1880: Winfield Scott Hancock because he's a favorite general of mine
1884: James Blaine i prefer his policies on the south
1888: Benjamin Harrison
1892: Benjamin Harrison
1896: William Jennings Bryan Filipino ancestry makes it so i would never vote for mckinley
1900: William Jennings Bryan ditto
1904: Eugene V. Debs would have voted socialist
1908: Eugene V. Debs ditto
1912: Eugene V. Debs ditto again
1916: Charles Evans Hughes wilson's pro kkk sympathies
1920: Warren G. Harding
1924: Robert La Follette support his policies over the others
1928: Norman Thomas he was a socialist
1932: Franklin Roosevelt New Deal
1936: Franklin Roosevelt ditto
1940: Franklin Roosevelt supported the majority of his foreign policy
1944: Franklin Roosevelt his war leadership was good
1948: Thomas Dewey
1952: Dwight Eisenhower world war 2 record
1956: Dwight Eisenhower ditto
1960: John F. Kennedy
1964: Lyndon Johnson Civil rights
1968: Hubert Humphrey not a republican
1972: George McGovern not a republican
1976: Jimmy Carter
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Walter Mondale not a republican
1988: Michael Dukakis not a republican

1789: George Washington, for the obvious reasons.
1792: George Washington.
1796: John Adams, due to my general agreement with the Federalists on foreign policy.
1800: Thomas Jefferson, switching my vote due to Federalist attacks on free speech and civil liberties via the Alien & Sedition Acts.
1804: Thomas Jefferson.
1808: Charles Pinckney, due to the Embargo Act's unsoundness.
1812: DeWitt ......., as the viable anti-war candidate.
1816: Probably James Monroe, as the Federalists have become unviable at this point.
1820: James Monroe.
1824: John Quincy Adams. Clay is more politically capable in some respects, but his compromises ultimately give too much ground for too little gain.
1828: John Quincy Adams. He's been a middling President at best, but with a corrupt authoritarian as his opponent, there's only one viable choice.
1832: Henry Clay, as the only viable alternative to Jackson available.
1836: William Henry Harrison. Technically there are a variety of candidates available due to the Whigs' unusual election strategy of that year, and I'd prefer Webster but he only really ran in one state.
1840: William Henry Harrison, the Panic has proven that Van Buren & co have to go.
1844: Henry Clay. He's a relatively feckless opponent of the Slave Power given his own involvement in the institution, but he does ultimately end up as a principled opponent of the Mexican War and is certainly a statesman.
1848: Zachary Taylor. For a Virginia planter, he was surprisingly strong on not backing the interests of slavers above all else, taking advice from the likes of William Seward and standing firm on California entering as a free state. Really the only President until Lincoln not serving as an agent of slavery's expansion.
1852: Winfield Scott. A vain strutting man in many respects, but a brilliant soldier and certainly the preferable alternative over a drunken doughface letting slavers control the government.
1856: John Fremont. I shudder to say it, because a civil war breaking out in 1857 with Fremont as President is not a pleasant prospect, but Buchanan is easily one of the worst two or three Presidents to ever occupy the office, and Fremont at least had the right politics.
1860: Abraham Lincoln. We are long past the point where equivocating on slavery is even politically defensible, and it was never morally defensible to begin with.
1864: Abraham Lincoln, the die is cast at this point.
1868: Ulysses S. Grant, as the candidate looking to preserve the fruits of victory and not rendering the war meaningless.
1872: Ulysses S. Grant, stay the course with Reconstruction.
1876: Rutherford Hayes, barely. At this point (earlier in political terms, but for presidential elections this will do as a demarcation point) the GOP is solidifying its identity as the party of big business and abandoning any real commitment to civil rights. Hayes is still better than Tilden here though and mainline Republicans are not terribly distinguishable from Bourbon Democrats on economic policy.
1880: James Garfield. Hancock is personally admirable in some respects but his Unionist war record doesn't change that he's running as the candidate of the former Confederacy and supporting the absolute political power of his former adversaries to take away the rights of millions of people.
1884: Grover Cleveland. Not a ton to like from either candidate here, but his anti-imperialist credentials and clean record compared to Blaine's record as an agent of railroads will sway me here.
1888: Benjamin Harrison. A surprisingly decent record on civil rights and race for a politician of the era, and lacking Blaine's more apparent corruption.
1892: Grover Cleveland. Harrison's administration failed at handling economic crisis and has proved to be a tool for moneyed men at this point, contrary to any promises of tariff reform. Not that Cleveland much improves the situation, but Harrison needed to go.
1896: William McKinley, reluctantly. The GOP from this point on is essentially entirely worthless on civil rights and McKinley is an imperialist, but Bryan's silver policies would probably have hurt urban workers as much as they would benefit agrarian workers.
1900: William McKinley.

More at a later point.

1904: Theodore Roosevelt. A strong President after a series of relatively weak ones and a progressive force within the context of the GOP of the day. He's an unreliable ally of actual progressives like La Follette of Wisconsin but at least moves with public opinion and doesn't always knuckle under to the likes of Nelson Aldrich and Joe Cannon.
1908: William Howard Taft, a continuation of Roosevelt's policies, though he will disappointingly side more with the old guard in the party than with La Follette and his allies and prove himself out of his depth politically.

1912: Theodore Roosevelt. A strange election with two of the three candidates being able to make some claim to the mantle of progressivism. Wilson will sign far more progressive legislation than Roosevelt did but that was largely a consequence of the changes in Congress brought about by people like La Follette. All three candidates are pretty terrible on civil rights but Wilson is the worst of the lot in that regard though Roosevelt shouldn't get a pass on refusing to include black delegations in the Progressive Party. Roosevelt being the biggest warmonger of the lot isn't something I'd actually praise, but he might have had the nation on better footing for when we did get involved than Wilson did.

1916: Charles Evan Hughes. Wilson's somewhat better on certain domestic issues but Hughes likely continues to sign progressive legislation, isn't as terrible on civil rights as Wilson, and probably doesn't bungle the post-war diplomacy as heavily.
1920: James Cox. This is largely because his opponent was Warren Harding who will be one of the worst Presidents of the century, but Cox seems to have generally been a decent politician judging by his governorship of Ohio.
1924: Robert La Follette on the Progressive Party platform. Admittedly I have not really been choosing third party candidates outside of the TR example, but the other choices here are Calvin Coolidge and his continuation of Harding's economic policies and a southern Democrat who opposed anti-lynching and anti-child labor laws. Given those options, I will take the actual champion of progressivism here.
1928: Al Smith, reluctantly. Another election where both candidates are rather conservative (or will become more so in the case of Smith) but he does have the better position on Prohibition and a decent political record up until this point.
1932: Franklin Roosevelt, without question. Hoover has been an unmitigated disaster and the country needs the New Deal.
1936: Franklin Roosevelt again, nothing major has changed in this regard, the country still needs Roosevelt's leadership and his reforms.
1940: Franklin Roosevelt, Willkie seems to have been an alright sort but pandered to isolationists whereas Roosevelt's internationalist vision is going to be needed.
1944: Franklin Roosevelt, World War II is still ongoing and it is best to stay the course with the successful leadership and policies of the administration, even if it is apparent that Roosevelt will not serve out his final term in full.
1948: Harry Truman. Aside from his successful international performance in implementing the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift, that civil rights plank in the platform and the desegregation of the military is a huge deal for the Democratic Party of the time. Truman has his faults but is a leader of some integrity and decisiveness.

1952: Dwight Eisenhower. I had to think about this one a bit because I am not much of an Ike fan as President and Stevenson would probably have done a good job, but Ike is a committed internationalist who governs pragmatically and was a good choice to handle the unresolved Korean War.
1956: Dwight Eisenhower. The candidates have not changed and Ike has had a successful first term, and somewhat surprisingly, Stevenson actually retreats on civil rights in this campaign as opposed to Eisenhower's administration at least publicly supporting the verdict of Brown vs Board of Education.
1960: John F. Kennedy. Despite his faults he proves to be a stronger supporter of civil rights on the campaign trail at this time than Richard Nixon and is as strong on substance as his opposite while offering fresher leadership.
1964: Lyndon Johnson. All the way with LBJ. Civil rights, education, healthcare, and anti-poverty efforts vs the segregationist-pandering and nuclear-warmongering of Goldwater.
1968: Hubert Humphrey. A longtime civil rights champion, in the waning days of the campaign Humphrey was able to break with Johnson on Vietnam and prove himself perhaps worthy of the Presidency in his own right.
1972: George McGovern. Nixon's a crook.
1976: Jimmy Carter. Ford's a good man but his pardon of Nixon was less of a national necessity and more of a shield from accountability for our political leaders IMO. Carter has better positions on a number of domestic policy issues though he ends up being fairly terrible at working with Congress, but despite the Iranian hostage crisis Carter actually ends up being a reasonably accomplished foreign policy President. It is interesting to note that had Ford won the election (which was extremely close), it is likely his party instead that would have suffered the consequences of the late 70s energy crisis and the Islamic Revolution, and that could have shifted the course of political history in the US by quite a lot.

1980: Jimmy Carter. Reagan's campaign opening up with a "states' rights" speech over the corpses of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman really says it all, and the economic policies are a hard no from me.
1984: Walter Mondale, for similar reasons as before.
1988: George H. W. Bush. Cutting against the grain of my previous run of choices but he does prove to be a very successful foreign policy President and governs pragmatically otherwise. His campaign tactics were absolutely revolting however.

My choices:

1788- Washington for obvious reasons and for being a very reasoned and pragmatic statesman.

1792- Washington for obvious reasons.

1796- Adams because I am generally more of a supporter of the Federalists on foreign, economic and especially military policy. Adams is a pragmatic statesman whom I admire at this point.

1800- Jefferson; Adams loses me with the Sedition Act, in particular.

1804- Jefferson, who has had a successful first term.

1808- Pinckney, because of the Republican adherence to the Embargo Act and economic measures.

1812- ......., for much the same reasons and for, if anything, probably being able to handle the War of 1812 better.

1816- Monroe, because of my disapproval of the Hartford Convention on the Federalists part and how broken they were at this point.

1820- Monroe because of no alternative.

1824- JQA. While I generally am actually a fan of Henry Clay and his compromises at this time (morally indefensible but still sound politics in terms of the climate of the time), Adams has great experience and seemed eminently qualified and pragmatic enough to handle top national office and more.

1828- Jackson, I hate to say it, largely due to JQA’s by now demonstrative ineffectiveness at handling his office and working with other politicians as a part of that role. Plus, while not necessarily corrupt, Adams making Clay Secretary of State under the circumstances in which he did was terribly clumsy political optics of the highest order. No fan of Jackson’s policies with regards to Indians and banks but he is definitely a strong leader who can breathe necessary new life into his office. Also love the Hunters of Kentucky song.

1832- Clay, due to my general liking for his pragmatic politics and disapproval of Jackson‘s Indian and bank policies.

1836- van Buren wins me over with his predecessors strong approach to the Nullification Crisis and for his own stated intention to revive the National Bank.

1840- Harrison, for how disastrous van Buren’s presidency has been.

1844- Clay, for his pragmatism and in being possibly the most qualified of all failed presidential contenders.

1848- Taylor, for the Whigs are still a viable enough of a force at this point and for a better approach towards the issue of slavery expansion. Taylor’s downside is that his persona, like Jackson’s, doesn’t really make for the most ideal statesman in a lot of ways.

1852- Pierce, without hindsight, and largely due to just how incredibly broken and ineffectual the Whigs are at this point and I doubt a now elderly Scott would be able to fix these political problems, in spite of how brilliant a general he has been. With hindsight, definitely Scott though just because of how unmitigatedly disastrous Pierce’s doughface policies would prove to be.

1856- Fremont, without hesitation. In spite of Buchanan’s much greater qualifications and Fremont’s lack of political or military competence , the nation needed a new direction by now in the form of just about any Republican administration to compensate for disastrous Democratic abandonment of Clayian-style compromises and their own complete and unmitigated accommodation of slaveholder interests, particularly in expansion.

1860- Lincoln, for similarly obvious reasons.

1864- Lincoln, to stay the course and not leave the country in the same state it had been in just prior to the Civil War. McClellan would have made it so the Confederacy re-entered the Union on their own terms, which essentially would have erased Lincoln’s progress.

1868- Grant, without question. In spite of his lack of political skills in Washington, he was still needed to fix the damage done by Johnson with regards to Reconstruction. He had great natural leadership skills besides. No knowing his difficulties without any hindsight.

1872- Grant, for the same reasons and because the corruption in his administration hadn’t really been known yet. Yellowstone was also founded at this time.

1876- Hayes, in a very tough choice, and for not yet knowing of the sacrifices Republicans would make in regards to Reconstruction prior to the election. With hindsight though and on a different day, Tilden probably would have gotten my vote for his better record on corruption and for my aversion to one party controlling any one Federal branch for too long.

1880- Garfield, for his qualifications and good ideas in terms of civil service reform. He also probably preserves a couple of important Civil Rights measures that Hancock would not have.

1884- Cleveland, without hesitation at this point. He has a wayyy better record on corruption, which was possibly the most pertinent issue at this point. That, and in ensuring that the US didn’t become a one-party state, for all intents and purposes.

1888- Harrison, for his promise and for the positive ways in which he differed from Blaine. Also like his approach towards Civil Rights and Civil War pensions.

1892- Cleveland, due to his pragmatism and consequent unlikelihood of rescinding most of Harrison’s progressive measures and for Harrison’s otherwise demonstrative ineffectiveness.

1896- McKinley, because his politics were more practical and because of Bryan’s wrong-headed and pandering support of bi-metallism.

1900- McKinley, for the same reasons and for the successes of the Spanish-American War.

1904- TR, for sure, because of his strong leadership abilities, adherence to conservation, and a number of other progressive policies.

1908- Taft, because he has both a good administrative mind and for his strength in trust-busting.

1912- TR, for much the same reasons as 1904. TR while slightly weaker on Civil Rights and trust-busting, was much stronger than Taft on conservation and natural leadership. Besides, why support someone like Taft at this point when he was lukewarm about being president? Wilson was possibly the strongest as an administrator but he was also the weakest on Civil Rights and mercurial on foreign policy. As such, TR was the best all-rounder.

1916- Hughes, who was stronger on Civil Rights and more pragmatic on foreign policy and ultimately not likely to be weaker on progressive policies , or at least wouldn’t have rescinded what Wilson had already accomplished. Would have likely been more successful in foreign policy.

1920- Cox, who could have repaired some of Wilson’s foreign policy errors and who was eminently more qualified and pragmatic than Harding. FDR as running mate helps too.

1924- Coolidge. I am not perfect with his economic policies but I can totally see why they seemed right for the time. He also just seems most qualified for national executive office of the 3. La Follette was an excellent legislator but it’s hard to see how he would have done as president.

1928- Smith. While I respect Hoover for the relief work he had accomplished in Europe, his stance on Prohibition at this point is just not something that I can square. Smith also has better executive credentials and leadership abilities than Davis and La Follette from ‘24.

1932- FDR, without a shadow of a doubt. Hoover has proven to be our worst since Buchanan, and while New Deal type policies are dubious in the long term, they were absolutely necessary for these times. Same thing with FDR’s leadership abilities.

1936- FDR, for the same reasons.

1940- FDR, for roughly the same reasons but this is much closer than the last due to a certain lack of comfort in one running for a third term, and the arguably corrupt court-packing FDR attempted. With the foreign issues going on though, staying the course is probably the safest bet.

1944- FDR, for the same reasons and without the hindsight of his swift physical decline.

1948- Truman, for his generally excellent proven leadership abilities and handling of critical foreign policy matters over in post-war Europe.

1952- Ike. Similar to 1884, it was important that the other major party held the Executive Branch once again. Eisenhower had already proven strong leadership and diplomatic abilities, and pragmatic sense to boot.

1956- Eisenhower, for the same reasons.

1960- JFK, because I really don’t think he was any weaker in substance than Nixon and he had better charismatic leadership abilities too. While both he and Nixon had poor morals, I don’t think Kennedy’s vices spilled over into his job functions as much as Nixon’s did. He also just provides all-around fresher leadership at this point than Nixon would have, whatever the case that be with JFK’s inflated reputation in some regards.

1964- LBJ, for what were pretty obvious reasons at that time. Some of LBJ’s War on Poverty measures, while arguably dubious in the long term, were understandably seen as necessary and beneficial in the context not his time.

1968- Humphrey, for, if anything, his greater honesty than Nixon and his stated intentions to repair the mistakes LBJ made with the Vietnam War.

1972- Nixon. For all of my problems with him, I still prefer his politics over the relative radicalism of McGovern at this point. This is reinforced with Nixon’s pragmatic approach to governance and his now-established diplomatic record.

1976- Carter, because I think new life needed to be awakened in the WH post-Watergate. He had proven experience as a governor as well. That said, I don’t necessarily think Ford made the wrong decision in pardoning Nixon, since that was the best way to put the drama behind us and going towards a fresh start- in addition to electing Carter. I also like Carter’s policies in regards to conservation measures.

1980- Reagan. While I’m not a particularly huge or unqualified proponent of trickledown economics, I can still see the benefits of it at certain times and it’s perfectly understandable that it was seen favorably at this point. I generally am more of a fan of Carter when it comes to foreign policy (in spite of the Iran Crisis, which he tried to mitigate with a rescue attempt and which wasn’t wholly his fault anyway) but, aside from conservation, he was such a disaster in most aspects of domestic policy and as a delegator and administrator, that it throws me into Reagan’s camp, more or less. Reagan’s political leadership skills were simply altogether superior, especially as far as far as we could see at this point and for the next three-fourths of his time as president. My support for Reagan is simply a less lukewarm version of my support for Jackson in 1828, in that it was largely predicated on the weaknesses of the one he was running against.

1984- Reagan, for having an altogether successful first term, even if I may not necessarily agree with all of the cuts he made.

1988- Bush, for a pragmatic outlook, handling of threatening foreign matters, executive experience, and for certain feckless qualities in his opponent.

Futurist said:

Even if Cleveland would have lost in 1884, the US would not have become a one-party state. After all, the Democrats already controlled the House for several years in the mid- and late 1870s as well as again starting from 1883 and Democrats would have had decent odds of winning in 1888, 1892, and/or 1896 even if Cleveland would have lost in 1884. Indeed, do you think that the US would have actually become a one-party state had Garfield survived his assassination attempt and won reelection in 1884? Frankly, I really don't think so!

Click to expand...

Not literally, but just functionally so in terms of the Executive Branch. 1884 was the Democrats' best chance in a lot of ways. If they lost that year, it might have made voters lose confidence in that party's ability to win national (as opposed to state and district just with the houses of Congress) elections. Who knows when Democrats actually would have controlled the Executive Branch again.

Those are good points there. I think the problem with the Democrats in 1876, and what held them back still at that point, was that enough people still held them as the party of the former Confederacy. That, and that, as you said, Blaine was a weaker candidate than Hayes. That sort of goes to my point though- if the Democrats couldn't even beat Blaine then what chance did they have? For all of Cleveland's strengths as an administrator, he probably wouldn't have been able to beat someone like Garfield just for his scandal and relative lack of charisma compared to Garfield.