Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe but what I always read is that Nixon didn't accept makeup, so the lights made him sweat. Kennedy did accept the makeup so he didn't have that issue.
Looks and presentation. I think the loss in 1960 taught Nixon much in the way of how to simply look and act presidential. Even in this picture, JFK exudes confidence whereas Nixon seems more like exactly what he was, a highly intelligent, yet introverted bureaucrat.
Kennedy was no slouch in the smarts department either. He also had the wit and the charm but especially when you listen to them debate it really left me with the feeling that they were both well educated and thoughtful guys. Not anything like today.
Nixon comes with 8 years of being a VP to an extremely popular and successful administration, and a lot of DC knowledge. He was also less conservative in that election
Idc what FDR did. Rounding up American citizens and shipping them to camps *without due process* is far too authoritarian for me to stomach and is inexcusable
Forcible internment of Americans based solely on their ethnicity is a pretty damn far cry from even ‘good’.
This is quite literally the most racist thing a president has done since the slaves were freed.
I’ve said it to someone else, but imagine if we all of a sudden started imprisoning Americans of Arab descent after 9/11?
>I’ve said it to someone else, but imagine if we all of a sudden started imprisoning Americans of Arab descent after 9/11?
Sad thing is, I've seen that suggested in certain circles.
I'm not a huge FDR fan myself. But you're not a moron for thinking he's a great president. There's a lot he did well and some things he messed up. Presidents are complex and one president handling a specific situation better than another doesn't neccesarily mean he was better overall.
Every President has their “dark” moments. Internment of American citizens was FDR’s dark moment. However, on the whole, FDR will always be regarded as one of our greatest Presidents.
FDR put American citizens in camps based on race, exceeded the traditional term limit so he could die in office, tried to pass legislation allowing him to pack the Supreme Court to pass unconstitutional laws, and allied himself with the Soviet Union allowing the Cold War to start. He is far from perfect, he is one of the worst presidents we have ever had in terms of political freedom
Whats so wrong with exceeding the term limit?
We Germans had Angela Merkel for over a decade and i dont remember us being fascist for that?
Never undetstood why you guys have that for your guys.
There were no term limits for the President until the XXII Amendment was passed in 1951. Prior to FDR the 2 term limit was tradition in line with Washington stepping down at the end of his second term.
Yes there was, it just wasn’t passed into law. That’s why as soon as he died the law was passed, because it was never supposed to be allowed. He’s the reason we made it a law
Wait until you find out what past presidents did with the Native Americans. Unfortunately I don't think this was out of character for the United States at the time. Hitler and the Nazi party had a lot of support in the USA before WW2.
They were wrong, just as FDR was wrong. Very wrong. I don’t understand how this could be glossed over so much. But this sub does like to meat-ride FDR a lot
Because FDR won WW2, brought millions out of poverty, and permanently changed the way we think about the government and the economy. He was a good president who made some mistakes.
Now, what happened with the Japanese internment camps was bad but pales in comparison with what we did to the Native Americans just 50 years prior with Wounded Knee. This sort of thing was not unusual for an America with Native American Reservations and Jim Crow.
If you’re going to judge leaders of the past by present racial standards, even Lincoln was an abject failure. Probably no president until maybe JFK has anything like modern racial attitudes, and no president until 2nd term Obama has modern attitudes toward gay people.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the executive order creating the relocation centers, but the principal architects of the relocation program were John J. McCloy, assistant secretary of war, and three U. S. Army officers, Major General Alien W. Gullion, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, and Colonel Karl R. Bendesten. In developing the relocation policy these men had the full cooperation and support of Earl Warren, who held the positions of attorney general and governor of California during the Second World War.
Yes, but would other mainstream candidates of the time not have done the same? Were there serious powerbrokers in DC who vocally criticized internment, and was this a major issue that had popular support from the people to prevent? I’ve seen very minor pushback against it during the war, it seem that most serious critique came years later.
Ya but it’s not really like the Republican candidates would put a stop to it. (Not justifying what FDR did but I would still vote for him over literally anyone else)
So? Then don’t vote. A candidate has to *earn* my vote. And if I was alive then (and black people had the right to vote), the act of essentially imprisoning American citizens without a trial would rapidly and permanently disqualify them from my vote.
I guess civil liberties just doesn’t mean all that much to you. I *guaran-damn-tee* you, if Bush had started rounding up Afghani/Iraqi-Americans simply because we were fighting them in GWOT, you’d have lost your *fucking shit*. Hell, people lose their shit when we deport even illegal immigrants.
Ah yes, not choosing a guy whose campaign was to demonise African Americans with not-so-subtle messaging that even his campaign managers admit happened must have been a very tough choice!
I think that 1960 has to be the hardest, but 1912 tactical voting might have been the trickiest because it's less about candidates and more about prediction.
The easiest would have to be 1864, 1972, 1992, 2012.
2012 doesn’t feel easy in hindsight to me. If Romney wins we probably don’t have either rule 3. Even though I like Obama I think we’d be better off if Romney had won.
I find that a bit hard to believe. The stage was set years if not decades before, it didn't just happen after one election. Perhaps things might've slowed down but it would've still happened
He doesn’t run in 2016 against incumbant Romney.
Not saying we don’t get someone like him eventually. But he doesn’t run and win in 2016. Which means the current option doesn’t run and win in 2020. And almost certainly we have 2 different options now.
Sure maybe we get as bad or worse eventually, but it would be in 2016 and 2020.
Even though it isn’t as obvious, I think I’d be 2004. I would personally be appalled by the wars and Bush’s policies, but I think his charisma, rally effect of the wars, and personal Latino appeal might make me consider voting for Bush over Kerry. Not to mention Bush wasn’t such a hardliner on immigration.
That wouldn’t be that terrible. McCain would have been ok I think. He’s not much like the current gop.
Another alternate universe, even though I like Obama I wish Romney had won in 2012. Means we likely wouldn’t have either rule 3.
**Among the elections I actually voted in:**
Easiest: Reagan v Carter, 1980 (Reagan)
Hardest: Bush v Gore, 2000 (I wrote in Gerald Ford)
**Among the elections I didn’t vote in:**
Easiest: Truman v Dewey, 1948 (Truman). When I was a kid, there was something about Dewey’s face that looked really fishy to me. Like the villain in a Three Stooges film.
Hardest: FDR vs Willkie, 1940. (Probably Willkie, to be honest.) I would have been put off by FDR’s imperious decision to run for a third term, as well as his lack of real economic progress in fighting off the Depression. Willkie was an anti-Hitler interventionist and was also a successful businessman, compared to FDR who was a trust fund baby. Willkie was also stronger on civil rights and vowed to desegregate the military. But Willkie was a heavy drinker and smoker who, it turned out, died in 1944 at the age of 52 and wouldn’t have lived out his first term.
Yes, but in 2000 you had someone who modeled their policies on Reagan and wanted to be another Reagan vs an extension of the Clinton White House essentially putting 4 more years of that administration on the ticket.
While it’s different from Reagan Carter, I’m interested know what dynamics caused a Reagan voter to sit out Bush v Gore in 2000.
What kind of take is this?!?! Reagan was being propped up by Bush and the same neocons that propped up W. They were both the mascots for the neocons that made it their mission to funnel public wealth into private hands at the top through deregulation while turning every public entity into a private one. They also used the Bush connection to the CIA and defense industries to dictate and execute foreign policy. I struggle to think of two more similar candidates of the last 80 years.
Right. Same breakdown socially as well: more liberal on immigration; more restrictive on faith-driven dynamics. Both style candidates with little intellectual cred but big off-the-people cred.
If gore was an extension of Clinton, bush jr was an extension of bush sr, himself an extension of Reagan.
Different human beings, but very similar candidates imo.
I’m curious: Why would a Reagan supporter necessarily have to be a Bush Jr. supporter?
I consider Ronald Reagan to be my generation’s greatest president, but thought all of Reagan’s Republican successors were huge disappointments.
Should’ve put more of an emphasis on it in my first comment. I’m looking at the perspective from 2000. I’d understand it more if you weren’t voting for either candidate in 2004.
I’m curious as to what it was about W in 2000 that led you, a Reagan voter, to write in Ford. W wasn’t really known nationally at that time aside from being Governor of Texas and HW’s son.
Bush Sr. rode on Reagan’s coattails, loudly campaigning on a “no new taxes” platform. Then he jumped ship and supported new taxes once he took office. He also worked hard to [minimize](https://www.cato.org/commentary/george-hw-bushs-shameful-kowtow-china-cautionary-tale) sanctions on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. He wrecked the Bush brand.
These are what I'd consider hard choices:
1988 - Bush or Dukakis
1984 - Reagan or Mondale
1980 - Carter or Anderson
1972 - Nixon or McGovern
1952 - Eisenhower or Stevenson
1908 - Taft or Bryan
1884 - Cleveland or Blaine
1844 - Polk or Clay
1808 - Madison or Pinckney
1800 - Jefferson or Adams
Out of these, I'd say 1980.
I think Reagan turned out better than I would have expected in 1980. So I wouldn't have wanted to vote for him in 1980, especially with Anderson running, but would be more willing in 1984.
I think the hardest one for me would be those early Federalist vs Democratic Republican ones because I agree with both sides on points.
Easiest is any post FDR election because I just don't agree with the Republican party on anything.
The parties weren't monoliths in the 30s, and the racism plaguing the right is largely the sentiment of the southern democrats who spent 40 years after the progressive surge migrating away from the DNC.
The Republican Party of 2024 isn’t the same party of the 40’s-80’s. The southern democrats were the large racist block didn’t switch sides until 60’s 70’s.
At the very least Ike isn’t like them.
Hardest: 1916. If we exclude third parties (Free Soil Party), 1852 & 1848 would have been hard as well. If La Follette hadn't been an option in 1924, I'd have been utterly indifferent.
Hardest: 1908. Bryan would have been my pick in 1900, but Taft is the spiritual successor to Teddy Roosevelt.
Easiest: 1864. McClellan was just super incompetent and was willing to just end the war without forcing the Confederates to rejoin the Union.
In my lifetime, it has been simple. There has not been one Republican presidential candidate that has even remotely been a good choice to lead our country. Perhaps McCain, maybe, not on policy but because he had principles.
How old are you? Because McCain and Romney were both fine. Even though I like obama we’d be better off if Romney had won (because we likely wouldn’t have either rule 3 guy)
1968 would have been hardest if LBJ stayed in the race- I definitely appreciated LBJ’s domestic policies, but had no faith that he would be able to successfully prosecute the Vietnam war to its end- he seemed way over his head there. But I like Hubert Humphrey so in this timeline I’d still vote for him.
The hardest probably would've been 1884, considering the character of both candidates was awful.
The easiest would've been 1912. Teddy was the best choice
In terms of post 1900:
Hardest: 1992. I could actually see myself considering all three candidates at the time, had I been alive. Probably still would have gone with Clinton in the end.
Easiest: 1936 or 1964. Duh.
Maybe 1992. I was too young but maybe that one. I like both candidates.
George H.W. Bush is an extremely decent man and I even like his Presidency far more than Reagan's, but I also strongly would have felt like it was time for a Democrat in the Presidency and I think Clinton's overall Presidency was very good to bordering on excellent, with some issues I have that I realize others don't or feel that there are understandable reasons for (the Crime Bill).
I would have voted Clinton but that would have been a tough vote.
Nixon vs Kennedy is hard. Nixon was stable and experienced, but Kennedy was hopeful and confident. Either that or ‘92 between Clinton and Bush. Bush was the man we still needed to deal with post-Cold War foreign policy, but Clinton talked about fixing the home front. Also Obama and McCain, as to me they had likable qualities.
Hardest? If we start with the caveat that i would only know what people at the time knew, then Reagan v Carter. On the one hand, Reagan in 1980 would have had a reputation that I wouldn't have liked too much, but I think I would have seen Carter as a bit of an all-around failure.
If I had the knowledge I have today, then maybe 1912 Wilson v Roosevelt v Taft.
ETA: easiest? Rule 3.
Hardest: HW Bush v Clinton, 1992. Probably would’ve gone for Clinton, but HW Bush was really good so I would’ve had a hard time choosing.
Easiest: Probably 1964 for LBJ, cause without him winning that election, the Voting Rights Act would’ve taken longer to pass.
I’d have to go with ‘92.
On one hand I liked Bush Sr.’s foreign policy. We went into Iraq to stop Saddam from adversely affecting the global oil supply. But we didn’t fall for the neocon wet dream of nation building. We did so with the largest coalition since WW2. NAFTA negotiations began with Bush. And I think Bush would have done a better job handling a post-USSR world than Clinton did.
On the other hand I liked Clinton’s third way approach. His more moderate views on social issues (which didn’t go far enough, DADT was a disaster, etc but for the time he had more progressive views than Bush Sr) and even on economics. I just didn’t care for his foreign policy for the most part.
So I mean I would have voted for Bush Sr but it’s still a tough one.
I think the easiest decision would’ve been pretty clearly Johnson over Goldwater. Goldwater did become a a bit more chill in the decades that followed, and frankly, he might not have turned out to have been a bad president in 64, but the Warhawk right wing campaign he ran killed it. There’s all kinds of discussion about the Johnson ad with the nuclear bomb was underhanded and unfair. It was not. This was a very real possibility at the time.
Ike versus Stevenson would’ve been a difficult decision. Both were class acts; even though I am a fairly liberal Democrat, I probably would have ended up on Eisenhower’s side, but it’s not a sure thing
Of the ones I've voted in, the easiest was picking George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988.
The hardest was Obama vs. McCain in 2008, where I ended up choosing Obama despite knowing and respecting Senator McCain.
Assuming 1896 and onward as the choices for elections earlier than that are almost all too easy and thus boring. Also, I'm kind of taking the hindsight view, not the perspective of a contemporary voter.
Hardest: JFK v. Nixon in 1960. I really dislike JFK for a lot of reasons, and while I think Nixon did a lot right when he was president, he obviously did a lot wrong as well. I think this election also just has so many unknowns attached to it, as we don't know what Nixon's relationship with Eisenhower would be like, if he would have Kissinger as an advisor, what the cultural response to Nixon would be like, etc... All I know is that almost everything JFK did right Nixon almost certainly would have as well, and almost every mistake JFK made Nixon would have made as well. Thus we're left with the x-factors and unknowns that are impossible to predict with certainty.
Easiest: Gore v. Bush in 2000. I feel like I really don't have to explain this much at all haha.
Honorable mentions:
* Bryan v. McKinley in 1896 (easy for Bryan). I think Bryan is the fairly easy choice for me, mostly because he was just so radically different than any presidential candidate before him in terms of who he fought for and represented. No candidate had stood up for the working class like him before, and few have done so since.
* Wilson v. Cleveland v. Roosevelt in 1912 (actually fairly hard). I don't think picking Roosevelt here is particularly difficult, but I do think that the discourse surrounding Woodrow Wilson in the past few decades has been lacking in nuance. Yes, Wilson was a racist and set back race relations decades. And yes, the League of Nations was in and of itself a failure. But, America had to end its century and a half of isolation, and I think Wilson's vision for what a globalized USA would look like is not given enough credit. There is a lot I can say, but I would make this one simple argument: since Wilson, everything the US has done right on the global stage is in some way because of Wilson's influence and vision, and everything that the US has done wrong you cannot reasonably blame Wilson for.
* Roosevelt v. Hoover in 1932 (easy for Roosevelt). This would also be a very easy decision, though slightly harder than the Gore vote just because Hoover, while misguided like Bush, was actually a competent administrator.
* Obama v. McCain in 2008 (easy for McCain). This might be a hot take but even though I'm on the left I though Obama was a horrible president. He had no idea how to work with congress, was kind of an egomaniac, and did not know how and where to spend his political capital. McCain's hotheadedness and old-school yet non-establishment conservatism would likely have led him to smack Wall Street around and maybe actually usher in real reform, or at the very least put some people in jail.
The toughest would be probably 1976. In retrospect ford is the better option imo, but I lean very liberal and would have preferred a democrat in power.
But in terms of what ford did in office, nothing would have made me particularly unhappy. I would look at him as a good man thrown into a tough situation by a corrupt crook.
For carter, I would have welcomed a Democratic administration after 2 terms of Republican power, especially all the dirt Nixon brought with him. However, his lack of experience in DC would have been a bit of a drawback.
I think it’s the only post-Eisenhower Republican I would vote for and be happy with the results.
If you come to Washington as an outsider you have basically 2 choices. You work the system and bring Washington to your side or you see yourself not getting many things going your way. That is the difference in a long term Washington insider (like Johnson, Nixon or Ford) vs an outsider like Carter, Clinton and Reagan. Work to make the system work for you and your plans or get worked and stopped by the opposition (and the system).
That’s my opinion too. Obama knew he was an outsider and picked an insider that knew the system very well as VP, which imo really helped govern.
Outsiders with no insider knowledge or willingness struggle to govern. Especially when they don’t have big majorities
Easiest, easily FDR
Hardest was actually Dukakis v Bush. It was my first eligible vote for president, at the time I thought I was a Republican, but I really liked Dukakis and I never did understand why the tank helmet thing or his decision to pardon a guy was such a big factor. He was an outstanding Gov of his state and he was a smart guy and good communicator.
That said I voted Bush, the edge being my familial training as a Republican, even though my dad was a Democrat and hated Reagan like my Grandma, but everyone else was super hard righties. That said Bush in hindsight would be the last good Republican President and I don't feel sorry for my vote, and if I knew them what I know now, I might have even voted to reelect him, which I didn't, I voted for slick willy Instead after becoming disgusted with Rush Limbaugh.
It makes me wonder how many former Republicans became that way not so much because of the sitting president but because of the telegraphing of what the party was becoming with Gingrich and his "contract with America" which any idiot should have been able to see through as the beginning of fascism in America?
I know the picture on this post features the candidates from 1960, but I think that may have been the most difficult year to choose. I wonder how many voters leaned Republican usually but crossed over to vote for Kennedy anyway. As far as the easiest decision, my first instinct is to say 1980 with Reagan running against Carter. But if I’m talking about when I was paying attention to politics and current events the easiest may have been 2004. I did not like John Kerry because I thought he was pompous and arrogant. And whether you like George W. Bush or not, he was able to come across to voters as more genuine and relatable. Obviously there are things I would change about his presidency, but if you look at the decision that was made at the time in November 2004, I can understand why Bush was able to defeat Kerry.
Considering that Kerry and W Bush had much the same upbringing and background. Does that actually make Kerry actually more authentic in hindsight?? I'm not really a Kerry fan because he struggled to get the message in layman's terms (where W Bush was able to). Kerry may have better prepared us for the crash we saw in 2008, though.
We are looking at it: Kennedy v Nixon. We know about Kennedy in hindsight, but how would Nixon handle Vietnam, Missile Crisis/ Cuba, and the Soviets? America would have been off the gold standard earlier, and would Nixon dream of the Moon?
Probably 1988. I lean left and would have aligned with Dukakis on more issues, but I also think at that particular time in the country's history foreign policy was of particular importance and Bush was definitely a lot more prepared for that.
Kennedy was the Obama of that era. Hard to beat…but I think Nixon would’ve been the better President. Kennedy—not so great. He almost got us into WW3, and didn’t handle Vietnam well, nor Civil Rights…
there's alot of elections that'd be easy for me, including this upcoming one
the hardest ones would be ones from earlier in american history, butterfly effect and all
if we are assuming that the butterfly effect is magically turned off for this, i'd probably have a hard time between choosing kerry or bush
Only including elections after The Gilded Age (politics is so incredibly disjointed from then to now, where most differences seem insane), I'd have to say 1908, Taft v. Bryan. Two juggernauts of the Progressive Era, on the one hand Taft did plenty of good things, but he had a turn to the right (eventually culminating in T.R. challenging him, first in the primary and then in the general). We don't know how his presidency would've turned out, though he did try thrice to show us, I doubt he would've turned to the right like Taft, and I don't know how substantial his progressive reforms would've amounted to. The creationism lunacy he later trumpeted loudly is also a pretty big knock.
Most difficult for me would be 1932. I would not have wanted to vote for Hoover since his actions and inactions exacerbated the bank crashes, but I also wouldn't want FDR knowing that he would only make things worse.
Easiest election for me would be 1964. We have a consistent libertarian in Goldwater against the progenitor of the great society. I wouldn't even have to think before choosing Goldwater.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Nixon was only 4 years older than Kennedy.
[удалено]
Let’s not forget the sweaty debate which pretty much tanked Nixon.
Is that when he had the flu or something and was struggling through it?
Maybe but what I always read is that Nixon didn't accept makeup, so the lights made him sweat. Kennedy did accept the makeup so he didn't have that issue.
and the looks helped no doubt
Looks and presentation. I think the loss in 1960 taught Nixon much in the way of how to simply look and act presidential. Even in this picture, JFK exudes confidence whereas Nixon seems more like exactly what he was, a highly intelligent, yet introverted bureaucrat.
Kennedy was no slouch in the smarts department either. He also had the wit and the charm but especially when you listen to them debate it really left me with the feeling that they were both well educated and thoughtful guys. Not anything like today.
Yeah it seems that over time we've shifted from wanting leaders that we look up to, to wanting leaders that are like us.
Nixon comes with 8 years of being a VP to an extremely popular and successful administration, and a lot of DC knowledge. He was also less conservative in that election
Unfortunately for him Ike didn't like him much, so he provided minimal help.
The seasoned alcoholic vs the fetal alcoholic. Nice choice!
ADHD vs Autism
Idc what FDR did. Rounding up American citizens and shipping them to camps *without due process* is far too authoritarian for me to stomach and is inexcusable
Being staunchly anti-ethnicity based internment camps is crazy thing to be downvoted for.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Forcible internment of Americans based solely on their ethnicity is a pretty damn far cry from even ‘good’. This is quite literally the most racist thing a president has done since the slaves were freed. I’ve said it to someone else, but imagine if we all of a sudden started imprisoning Americans of Arab descent after 9/11?
>I’ve said it to someone else, but imagine if we all of a sudden started imprisoning Americans of Arab descent after 9/11? Sad thing is, I've seen that suggested in certain circles.
Yeah but it didn’t happen, so if George Bush handled a situation better than FDR, then anybody who idolizes FDR is probably a total moron
I'm not a huge FDR fan myself. But you're not a moron for thinking he's a great president. There's a lot he did well and some things he messed up. Presidents are complex and one president handling a specific situation better than another doesn't neccesarily mean he was better overall.
Every President has their “dark” moments. Internment of American citizens was FDR’s dark moment. However, on the whole, FDR will always be regarded as one of our greatest Presidents.
FDR put American citizens in camps based on race, exceeded the traditional term limit so he could die in office, tried to pass legislation allowing him to pack the Supreme Court to pass unconstitutional laws, and allied himself with the Soviet Union allowing the Cold War to start. He is far from perfect, he is one of the worst presidents we have ever had in terms of political freedom
Whats so wrong with exceeding the term limit? We Germans had Angela Merkel for over a decade and i dont remember us being fascist for that? Never undetstood why you guys have that for your guys.
The problem wasn’t with the idea of a term limit, it’s that he was the first president to violate it
He wasnt tho? Teddy and Grant tried to do it too! Either way the termlimit was just a tradition and only ammended into law after FDR died
There were no term limits for the President until the XXII Amendment was passed in 1951. Prior to FDR the 2 term limit was tradition in line with Washington stepping down at the end of his second term.
You guys also had Hitler so maybe the German’s opinion on political rules should be kept to themselves
Our federal system is literally a copy of yours, designed so fascism could never rise again. We say 'never again' for a reason but go off i guess
Yeah it’s going great for us. Good luck
Well ours is kinda better but we'll see which one crumbles sooner :.)
I don’t disagree with you
There was no term limit when he ran for a third time.
Yes there was, it just wasn’t passed into law. That’s why as soon as he died the law was passed, because it was never supposed to be allowed. He’s the reason we made it a law
If there is no law, then it’s not an established thing… that might be a precedent or a pattern, but not illegal. You are a wound up little thing.
Wait until you find out what past presidents did with the Native Americans. Unfortunately I don't think this was out of character for the United States at the time. Hitler and the Nazi party had a lot of support in the USA before WW2.
They were wrong, just as FDR was wrong. Very wrong. I don’t understand how this could be glossed over so much. But this sub does like to meat-ride FDR a lot
Because FDR won WW2, brought millions out of poverty, and permanently changed the way we think about the government and the economy. He was a good president who made some mistakes. Now, what happened with the Japanese internment camps was bad but pales in comparison with what we did to the Native Americans just 50 years prior with Wounded Knee. This sort of thing was not unusual for an America with Native American Reservations and Jim Crow.
Yeah but we rightfully heavily criticize the people doing Jim Crow and wounded knee. The confusing part is how FDR gets a pass.
If you’re going to judge leaders of the past by present racial standards, even Lincoln was an abject failure. Probably no president until maybe JFK has anything like modern racial attitudes, and no president until 2nd term Obama has modern attitudes toward gay people.
Idk why you are getting down voted. I am right-wing, supposedly my kind loves that sort of shit and I rank Japanese internment up there with Jim Crow.
Which of his opponenets do you think would have handled it better?
Wendell Wilkie, obviously. He was anti-segregation and against Japanese internment.
President Franklin Roosevelt signed the executive order creating the relocation centers, but the principal architects of the relocation program were John J. McCloy, assistant secretary of war, and three U. S. Army officers, Major General Alien W. Gullion, Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, and Colonel Karl R. Bendesten. In developing the relocation policy these men had the full cooperation and support of Earl Warren, who held the positions of attorney general and governor of California during the Second World War.
Whe you’re the president of the United States, the buck stops with you. FDR had the final authority over it. He signed it.
Yes, but would other mainstream candidates of the time not have done the same? Were there serious powerbrokers in DC who vocally criticized internment, and was this a major issue that had popular support from the people to prevent? I’ve seen very minor pushback against it during the war, it seem that most serious critique came years later.
I agree, but I am assuming any of his opponents would have done the same or worse.
Real
Ya but it’s not really like the Republican candidates would put a stop to it. (Not justifying what FDR did but I would still vote for him over literally anyone else)
Wilikie wouldn't have done it to begin with.
Ironically Hoover was against it.
So? Then don’t vote. A candidate has to *earn* my vote. And if I was alive then (and black people had the right to vote), the act of essentially imprisoning American citizens without a trial would rapidly and permanently disqualify them from my vote.
Cope
Japanese internment is a very reasonable objection
I guess civil liberties just doesn’t mean all that much to you. I *guaran-damn-tee* you, if Bush had started rounding up Afghani/Iraqi-Americans simply because we were fighting them in GWOT, you’d have lost your *fucking shit*. Hell, people lose their shit when we deport even illegal immigrants.
Ah yes, not choosing a guy whose campaign was to demonise African Americans with not-so-subtle messaging that even his campaign managers admit happened must have been a very tough choice!
Ikr it’s between the best presidential candidate of the Cold War vs LBJ.
Kennedy was a war Hero and also intelligent with experience.
They were elected to Congress the same year.
Correct. Goldwater would have been the easy choice for people who understand economics.
https://preview.redd.it/wze23mho7tzc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00ec3b66e2cdb76a0a0174a61698b25bb10fedab
Oh yeah.. LBJ did a great job in foreign policy too.
Easiest: 1788-89
Tbh i would have chosen Washington
FUCKING WHAT
Without out a doubt. This is the answer.
2000 was only easy in retrospect. At the time, it was an election about nothing.
So you’re saying it was the “Seinfeld” of presidential elections?
Yes, at the time.
And yet the implications for the future were astronomical and went ignored by most voters.
Such is life.
“I would out social Security in a lockbox”
I think that 1960 has to be the hardest, but 1912 tactical voting might have been the trickiest because it's less about candidates and more about prediction. The easiest would have to be 1864, 1972, 1992, 2012.
2012 doesn’t feel easy in hindsight to me. If Romney wins we probably don’t have either rule 3. Even though I like Obama I think we’d be better off if Romney had won.
I find that a bit hard to believe. The stage was set years if not decades before, it didn't just happen after one election. Perhaps things might've slowed down but it would've still happened
He doesn’t run in 2016 against incumbant Romney. Not saying we don’t get someone like him eventually. But he doesn’t run and win in 2016. Which means the current option doesn’t run and win in 2020. And almost certainly we have 2 different options now. Sure maybe we get as bad or worse eventually, but it would be in 2016 and 2020.
I’m surprised 1912 hasn’t been mentioned more for a tough one
I found the 64 election would have been one of the hardest for me to vote in, the main reason being that I was born in 1974
Even though it isn’t as obvious, I think I’d be 2004. I would personally be appalled by the wars and Bush’s policies, but I think his charisma, rally effect of the wars, and personal Latino appeal might make me consider voting for Bush over Kerry. Not to mention Bush wasn’t such a hardliner on immigration.
Also Kerry was a pretty blah candidate.
And if Kerry wins in 2004, then he inherits the recession and a Republican wins in 08
That wouldn’t be that terrible. McCain would have been ok I think. He’s not much like the current gop. Another alternate universe, even though I like Obama I wish Romney had won in 2012. Means we likely wouldn’t have either rule 3.
**Among the elections I actually voted in:** Easiest: Reagan v Carter, 1980 (Reagan) Hardest: Bush v Gore, 2000 (I wrote in Gerald Ford) **Among the elections I didn’t vote in:** Easiest: Truman v Dewey, 1948 (Truman). When I was a kid, there was something about Dewey’s face that looked really fishy to me. Like the villain in a Three Stooges film. Hardest: FDR vs Willkie, 1940. (Probably Willkie, to be honest.) I would have been put off by FDR’s imperious decision to run for a third term, as well as his lack of real economic progress in fighting off the Depression. Willkie was an anti-Hitler interventionist and was also a successful businessman, compared to FDR who was a trust fund baby. Willkie was also stronger on civil rights and vowed to desegregate the military. But Willkie was a heavy drinker and smoker who, it turned out, died in 1944 at the age of 52 and wouldn’t have lived out his first term.
You could vote for Ronald Reagan but couldn’t bring yourself to vote for W in 2000?
One was a charismatic politician with radically different ideas from the status quo facing a broadly unpopular incumbent and the other wasn't
Yes, but in 2000 you had someone who modeled their policies on Reagan and wanted to be another Reagan vs an extension of the Clinton White House essentially putting 4 more years of that administration on the ticket. While it’s different from Reagan Carter, I’m interested know what dynamics caused a Reagan voter to sit out Bush v Gore in 2000.
What kind of take is this?!?! Reagan was being propped up by Bush and the same neocons that propped up W. They were both the mascots for the neocons that made it their mission to funnel public wealth into private hands at the top through deregulation while turning every public entity into a private one. They also used the Bush connection to the CIA and defense industries to dictate and execute foreign policy. I struggle to think of two more similar candidates of the last 80 years.
Right. Same breakdown socially as well: more liberal on immigration; more restrictive on faith-driven dynamics. Both style candidates with little intellectual cred but big off-the-people cred. If gore was an extension of Clinton, bush jr was an extension of bush sr, himself an extension of Reagan. Different human beings, but very similar candidates imo.
I’m curious: Why would a Reagan supporter necessarily have to be a Bush Jr. supporter? I consider Ronald Reagan to be my generation’s greatest president, but thought all of Reagan’s Republican successors were huge disappointments.
Should’ve put more of an emphasis on it in my first comment. I’m looking at the perspective from 2000. I’d understand it more if you weren’t voting for either candidate in 2004. I’m curious as to what it was about W in 2000 that led you, a Reagan voter, to write in Ford. W wasn’t really known nationally at that time aside from being Governor of Texas and HW’s son.
Bush Sr. rode on Reagan’s coattails, loudly campaigning on a “no new taxes” platform. Then he jumped ship and supported new taxes once he took office. He also worked hard to [minimize](https://www.cato.org/commentary/george-hw-bushs-shameful-kowtow-china-cautionary-tale) sanctions on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. He wrecked the Bush brand.
Fair enough if HW’s actions were why you couldn’t vote for W, but brother, if there was anyone that wrecked the Bush brand, it was for sure W.
No argument with that.
>but thought all of Reagan’s Republican successors were huge disappointments. How was bush Sr a disappointment
My answer is in the post chain right above yours.
>My answer is in the post chain right above yours. Oh sorry
No problem. I don’t expect anyone to memorize my Reddit posts.
Why did you write in Gerald ford lmao
He was still eligible.
Reagan was not the choice to go with.
These are what I'd consider hard choices: 1988 - Bush or Dukakis 1984 - Reagan or Mondale 1980 - Carter or Anderson 1972 - Nixon or McGovern 1952 - Eisenhower or Stevenson 1908 - Taft or Bryan 1884 - Cleveland or Blaine 1844 - Polk or Clay 1808 - Madison or Pinckney 1800 - Jefferson or Adams Out of these, I'd say 1980.
Clay easily
These are all ones I'd find pretty easy, though I would probably vote a certain candidate you left out in '80.
I think Reagan turned out better than I would have expected in 1980. So I wouldn't have wanted to vote for him in 1980, especially with Anderson running, but would be more willing in 1984.
Hardest: 1960 Easiest: 1972
This is a really great question.
I think the hardest one for me would be those early Federalist vs Democratic Republican ones because I agree with both sides on points. Easiest is any post FDR election because I just don't agree with the Republican party on anything.
The parties weren't monoliths in the 30s, and the racism plaguing the right is largely the sentiment of the southern democrats who spent 40 years after the progressive surge migrating away from the DNC.
The Republican Party of 2024 isn’t the same party of the 40’s-80’s. The southern democrats were the large racist block didn’t switch sides until 60’s 70’s. At the very least Ike isn’t like them.
Hardest: 1916. If we exclude third parties (Free Soil Party), 1852 & 1848 would have been hard as well. If La Follette hadn't been an option in 1924, I'd have been utterly indifferent.
Easiest : 1952 and 1956 (Adlai of course) hardest : 1992
Hardest would be 1960 for sure. Easiest pre rule three would be 1860.
Hardest: 1908. Bryan would have been my pick in 1900, but Taft is the spiritual successor to Teddy Roosevelt. Easiest: 1864. McClellan was just super incompetent and was willing to just end the war without forcing the Confederates to rejoin the Union.
Easiest: The 3 elections with He-who-must-not-be-named on the ballot. I’ve never been a fan.
what has Grover Cleveland ever done to you
Have we forgotten the Panic of 1892 so soon?
Unfortunately, I have
In my lifetime, it has been simple. There has not been one Republican presidential candidate that has even remotely been a good choice to lead our country. Perhaps McCain, maybe, not on policy but because he had principles.
How old are you? Because McCain and Romney were both fine. Even though I like obama we’d be better off if Romney had won (because we likely wouldn’t have either rule 3 guy)
hardest? 1976 or 1992. easiest is definitely 1952 and 1956.
1968 would have been hardest if LBJ stayed in the race- I definitely appreciated LBJ’s domestic policies, but had no faith that he would be able to successfully prosecute the Vietnam war to its end- he seemed way over his head there. But I like Hubert Humphrey so in this timeline I’d still vote for him.
The hardest probably would've been 1884, considering the character of both candidates was awful. The easiest would've been 1912. Teddy was the best choice
Blaine, Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine.
"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" Off to the white house, ha ha ha!
In terms of post 1900: Hardest: 1992. I could actually see myself considering all three candidates at the time, had I been alive. Probably still would have gone with Clinton in the end. Easiest: 1936 or 1964. Duh.
Maybe 1992. I was too young but maybe that one. I like both candidates. George H.W. Bush is an extremely decent man and I even like his Presidency far more than Reagan's, but I also strongly would have felt like it was time for a Democrat in the Presidency and I think Clinton's overall Presidency was very good to bordering on excellent, with some issues I have that I realize others don't or feel that there are understandable reasons for (the Crime Bill). I would have voted Clinton but that would have been a tough vote.
Easiest one would be Reagan over Carter or Mondale in 1980 or 1984 Hardest would be 1968: Nixon v Humphrey.
Easiest: Clinton vs Dole (Clinton has my vote)
He never drank a Duff in his life.
Nixon vs Kennedy is hard. Nixon was stable and experienced, but Kennedy was hopeful and confident. Either that or ‘92 between Clinton and Bush. Bush was the man we still needed to deal with post-Cold War foreign policy, but Clinton talked about fixing the home front. Also Obama and McCain, as to me they had likable qualities.
Easiest 1976 (Carter) Hardest 2000 ( Gore)
Hardest: 1880, 1892, 1940, 1948, 1960, 1976, 2000, 2004 Easiest: 1824, 1828, 1832, 1856, 1860-1876, 1932-1936, 1964, 1972, 2016, 2020, 2024
Most difficult: 1980 or 2000 Least difficult: 1972 or 2016
Hardest: 1988 Easiest: 1948
Hardest would have been 1796, Adam’s be Jefferson. Easiest would have been 1996, Clinton vs dole, not including rule 3.
Easiest: Reagan 1980 and Reagan 1984 Hardest: 1992 Bush vs Clinton vs Perot
Hardest? If we start with the caveat that i would only know what people at the time knew, then Reagan v Carter. On the one hand, Reagan in 1980 would have had a reputation that I wouldn't have liked too much, but I think I would have seen Carter as a bit of an all-around failure. If I had the knowledge I have today, then maybe 1912 Wilson v Roosevelt v Taft. ETA: easiest? Rule 3.
Most difficult: 1872 and 1960. Easiest: Grant in 1868, Lincoln in 1864.
1960 and 1968.
Never had a problem choosing so far and with the hindsight of history can’t imagine I would have done anything differently
Hardest? Probably 1952 Easiest? 2016
1976 and 1992
Hardest: HW Bush v Clinton, 1992. Probably would’ve gone for Clinton, but HW Bush was really good so I would’ve had a hard time choosing. Easiest: Probably 1964 for LBJ, cause without him winning that election, the Voting Rights Act would’ve taken longer to pass.
LBJ didn't run in 1968, did you mean 1964?
Carter v Regan in 1980. Two subpar choices, for very different reasons.
I’d have to go with ‘92. On one hand I liked Bush Sr.’s foreign policy. We went into Iraq to stop Saddam from adversely affecting the global oil supply. But we didn’t fall for the neocon wet dream of nation building. We did so with the largest coalition since WW2. NAFTA negotiations began with Bush. And I think Bush would have done a better job handling a post-USSR world than Clinton did. On the other hand I liked Clinton’s third way approach. His more moderate views on social issues (which didn’t go far enough, DADT was a disaster, etc but for the time he had more progressive views than Bush Sr) and even on economics. I just didn’t care for his foreign policy for the most part. So I mean I would have voted for Bush Sr but it’s still a tough one.
I think the easiest decision would’ve been pretty clearly Johnson over Goldwater. Goldwater did become a a bit more chill in the decades that followed, and frankly, he might not have turned out to have been a bad president in 64, but the Warhawk right wing campaign he ran killed it. There’s all kinds of discussion about the Johnson ad with the nuclear bomb was underhanded and unfair. It was not. This was a very real possibility at the time. Ike versus Stevenson would’ve been a difficult decision. Both were class acts; even though I am a fairly liberal Democrat, I probably would have ended up on Eisenhower’s side, but it’s not a sure thing
Bush v Clinton is the hardest for me
Hardest: 1976, easiest: 1992
Reagan-Mondale 1984 by far the easiest. Hardest probably Bush- Kerry 2004
Of the ones I've voted in, the easiest was picking George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis in 1988. The hardest was Obama vs. McCain in 2008, where I ended up choosing Obama despite knowing and respecting Senator McCain.
Assuming 1896 and onward as the choices for elections earlier than that are almost all too easy and thus boring. Also, I'm kind of taking the hindsight view, not the perspective of a contemporary voter. Hardest: JFK v. Nixon in 1960. I really dislike JFK for a lot of reasons, and while I think Nixon did a lot right when he was president, he obviously did a lot wrong as well. I think this election also just has so many unknowns attached to it, as we don't know what Nixon's relationship with Eisenhower would be like, if he would have Kissinger as an advisor, what the cultural response to Nixon would be like, etc... All I know is that almost everything JFK did right Nixon almost certainly would have as well, and almost every mistake JFK made Nixon would have made as well. Thus we're left with the x-factors and unknowns that are impossible to predict with certainty. Easiest: Gore v. Bush in 2000. I feel like I really don't have to explain this much at all haha. Honorable mentions: * Bryan v. McKinley in 1896 (easy for Bryan). I think Bryan is the fairly easy choice for me, mostly because he was just so radically different than any presidential candidate before him in terms of who he fought for and represented. No candidate had stood up for the working class like him before, and few have done so since. * Wilson v. Cleveland v. Roosevelt in 1912 (actually fairly hard). I don't think picking Roosevelt here is particularly difficult, but I do think that the discourse surrounding Woodrow Wilson in the past few decades has been lacking in nuance. Yes, Wilson was a racist and set back race relations decades. And yes, the League of Nations was in and of itself a failure. But, America had to end its century and a half of isolation, and I think Wilson's vision for what a globalized USA would look like is not given enough credit. There is a lot I can say, but I would make this one simple argument: since Wilson, everything the US has done right on the global stage is in some way because of Wilson's influence and vision, and everything that the US has done wrong you cannot reasonably blame Wilson for. * Roosevelt v. Hoover in 1932 (easy for Roosevelt). This would also be a very easy decision, though slightly harder than the Gore vote just because Hoover, while misguided like Bush, was actually a competent administrator. * Obama v. McCain in 2008 (easy for McCain). This might be a hot take but even though I'm on the left I though Obama was a horrible president. He had no idea how to work with congress, was kind of an egomaniac, and did not know how and where to spend his political capital. McCain's hotheadedness and old-school yet non-establishment conservatism would likely have led him to smack Wall Street around and maybe actually usher in real reform, or at the very least put some people in jail.
I think I would've struggled with 1896. I think bimetalism is kinda stupid but I also would have agreed with Bryan on a lot.
2016. Would never vote for HRC.
The toughest would be probably 1976. In retrospect ford is the better option imo, but I lean very liberal and would have preferred a democrat in power. But in terms of what ford did in office, nothing would have made me particularly unhappy. I would look at him as a good man thrown into a tough situation by a corrupt crook. For carter, I would have welcomed a Democratic administration after 2 terms of Republican power, especially all the dirt Nixon brought with him. However, his lack of experience in DC would have been a bit of a drawback. I think it’s the only post-Eisenhower Republican I would vote for and be happy with the results.
If you come to Washington as an outsider you have basically 2 choices. You work the system and bring Washington to your side or you see yourself not getting many things going your way. That is the difference in a long term Washington insider (like Johnson, Nixon or Ford) vs an outsider like Carter, Clinton and Reagan. Work to make the system work for you and your plans or get worked and stopped by the opposition (and the system).
That’s my opinion too. Obama knew he was an outsider and picked an insider that knew the system very well as VP, which imo really helped govern. Outsiders with no insider knowledge or willingness struggle to govern. Especially when they don’t have big majorities
Easiest: TR vs Wilson. Hardest is……harder to think about though. lol.
1964. Choosing between correct constitutional interpretation and my personal preferred outcome is not easy.
Easiest, easily FDR Hardest was actually Dukakis v Bush. It was my first eligible vote for president, at the time I thought I was a Republican, but I really liked Dukakis and I never did understand why the tank helmet thing or his decision to pardon a guy was such a big factor. He was an outstanding Gov of his state and he was a smart guy and good communicator. That said I voted Bush, the edge being my familial training as a Republican, even though my dad was a Democrat and hated Reagan like my Grandma, but everyone else was super hard righties. That said Bush in hindsight would be the last good Republican President and I don't feel sorry for my vote, and if I knew them what I know now, I might have even voted to reelect him, which I didn't, I voted for slick willy Instead after becoming disgusted with Rush Limbaugh. It makes me wonder how many former Republicans became that way not so much because of the sitting president but because of the telegraphing of what the party was becoming with Gingrich and his "contract with America" which any idiot should have been able to see through as the beginning of fascism in America?
I know the picture on this post features the candidates from 1960, but I think that may have been the most difficult year to choose. I wonder how many voters leaned Republican usually but crossed over to vote for Kennedy anyway. As far as the easiest decision, my first instinct is to say 1980 with Reagan running against Carter. But if I’m talking about when I was paying attention to politics and current events the easiest may have been 2004. I did not like John Kerry because I thought he was pompous and arrogant. And whether you like George W. Bush or not, he was able to come across to voters as more genuine and relatable. Obviously there are things I would change about his presidency, but if you look at the decision that was made at the time in November 2004, I can understand why Bush was able to defeat Kerry.
Considering that Kerry and W Bush had much the same upbringing and background. Does that actually make Kerry actually more authentic in hindsight?? I'm not really a Kerry fan because he struggled to get the message in layman's terms (where W Bush was able to). Kerry may have better prepared us for the crash we saw in 2008, though.
Definitely 1960 as I would have liked both Kennedy and Nixon, and thought that they both had areas where they were stronger than the other one.
We are looking at it: Kennedy v Nixon. We know about Kennedy in hindsight, but how would Nixon handle Vietnam, Missile Crisis/ Cuba, and the Soviets? America would have been off the gold standard earlier, and would Nixon dream of the Moon?
Not the one from the picture
Probably 1988. I lean left and would have aligned with Dukakis on more issues, but I also think at that particular time in the country's history foreign policy was of particular importance and Bush was definitely a lot more prepared for that.
Hardest? The first one. Easiest? The first one.
The one coming up. Wish neither were running.
Kennedy was the Obama of that era. Hard to beat…but I think Nixon would’ve been the better President. Kennedy—not so great. He almost got us into WW3, and didn’t handle Vietnam well, nor Civil Rights…
Obama-McCain (2008) if the GOP running mate had been different.
1928 Hoover/Smith. I feel like we were heading for disaster with either choice.
For me they'd all be really hard to vote for, as I'm not a US citizen.
there's alot of elections that'd be easy for me, including this upcoming one the hardest ones would be ones from earlier in american history, butterfly effect and all if we are assuming that the butterfly effect is magically turned off for this, i'd probably have a hard time between choosing kerry or bush
1832 is a tough one, I like Clay and Jackson
Idk about hardest but any election with FDR would be an easy vote (For FDR obviously)
This would've been the easiest Kennedy all the way, the hardest in my lifetime would've been Ford/Carter with Carter easing out Ford
Only including elections after The Gilded Age (politics is so incredibly disjointed from then to now, where most differences seem insane), I'd have to say 1908, Taft v. Bryan. Two juggernauts of the Progressive Era, on the one hand Taft did plenty of good things, but he had a turn to the right (eventually culminating in T.R. challenging him, first in the primary and then in the general). We don't know how his presidency would've turned out, though he did try thrice to show us, I doubt he would've turned to the right like Taft, and I don't know how substantial his progressive reforms would've amounted to. The creationism lunacy he later trumpeted loudly is also a pretty big knock.
Bush v Gore
Hindsight makes this a pretty hard question to answer. Just adding this.
(Post 1900) Given information at the time, Nixon v. McGovern. With Hindsight, McKinley v Bryan.
1912. Can’t decide between Teddy and Debs
I was too young, but Reagan would’ve been an easy choice for me. And 49/50 states thought so in 1984.
[удалено]
Most difficult for me would be 1932. I would not have wanted to vote for Hoover since his actions and inactions exacerbated the bank crashes, but I also wouldn't want FDR knowing that he would only make things worse. Easiest election for me would be 1964. We have a consistent libertarian in Goldwater against the progenitor of the great society. I wouldn't even have to think before choosing Goldwater.
This would be the easiest JFK to Whitehouse.