Any Presdiental elections which could been changed by different VP candidates

[Paul V McNutt]

On the subject of the Kerry McCain ticket, John McCain has had a pretty conservative record. Particularly his views on abortion would alienate much of the Democratic base. I doubt you Coukd get a majority of the delegates of a Democratic convention to vote for him.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

On the subject of the Kerry McCain ticket, John McCain has had a pretty conservative record. Particularly his views on abortion would alienate much of the Democratic base. I doubt you Coukd get a majority of the delegates of a Democratic convention to vote for him.

Agree completely.

[Japhy]

To take a break from Bush Gore, and the other tickets that keep popping up here, I would throw out a few other suggestions.

1912 Democratic: Wilson picked Thomas R Marshall (A rather decent VP all things considered, though he never did much) to appease the Populist-Dry Wing of the Party, but he wasn't the only chose to be considered. William Jennings Bryan was of course the kingmaker at the convention so its difficult to really see how, but if any "Wet" was put on the Ticket with Wilson, the Democratic solidarity might crack, and while the GOP division makes it still rather hard to imagine a Democratic defeat that year, Taft and TR could both gain ground in such a situation.

1912 Republican: Considering the fact that the two men had previously had good relations and would develop them again later, its not impossible to see TR and Taft being able to reconcile. Taft remaining on the ticket with a Roosevelt Selected VP pick (Knox, Borah, Root) and a promise that TR would get the Secretary of State job would allow the Party to go into 1912 Competitively. With a strong Republican ticket on one side and Debs gaining more votes on the other, Wilson could go down in a defeat easily.

1896 Democratic: William Jennings Bryan, then a young semi-insurgent candidate made a very half-hearted attempt to appease the Gold Democrats (Who were already walking out) of the Party with the nomination of Arthur Sewall as VP. The Swedeborgian Shipbuilder brought in the specter of odd religion, and further weakened the 2 term congressmen's experience problem, while upsetting Liberal Democrats and failing to woo Conservative ones. A stronger Gold candidate (Vilas, Hill, Bragg) or a sterner moderate (Blackburn, Hogg, Palmer) gives Bryan the experience he lacks, and can help woo Gold Democrats back to the party banner. Of course the Populist fusion nomination was a close run thing and a Strait-Out Populist ticket almost happened IOTL with Sewall pick, so any of them could provoke another third party run. If Bryan nominates a sterner Silverite as his nominee (Bland, Boies or Weaver) the Gold Democrats might be able to win their own state.

As a side note, had John Palmer picked a slightly younger VP pick then the also 80+ aged Simon B Buckner the National Democrats could probably have done much better. Blackburn is also from Kentucky, is also an Ex-Confederate, and like Buckner can appeal to moderates better. So you can take a 1% result to 2-5%.

Liberal Republicans 1872: There's not really such a thing as a Good Liberal Republican, but Greeley (A Terrible Candidate) selected his own terrible VP pick (Benjamin G Brown). He brought nothing to the campaign, except alcoholism and drunken commentary on Reconstruction that along with Greeley's stance completely gutted the party. Many Liberal Republicans simply opposed Grant's use of the Spoils system but sought a continuation of Reconstruction, and the fight for Civil Rights. Greeley and Brown both were from the faction that had only wanted Slavery to end, and turned against Reconstruction when it included blacks voting and owning property. Other options arn't much better (Trumbull is the best of a rotten bunch in regards to that Civil Rights fight) but could have kept the party from collapsing up North. Or David Davis could have been nominated bringing in Proto-Labor support while agreeing with the Anti-Freedmen message.

Or to appeal to the Democrats that they would fuse with they could have picked Winfield Scott Hancock, Baynard, Jeremiah S Black or Charles OConner as VP who would agree with the End of Reconstruction message. Or they could have balanced both parties factions by nominating a New Departure Democrat, Tilden, Sickles, or Palmer and balanced the Anti- and Pro- Civil Rights wings of the Democrats and Liberal Republicans.

There's still alot standing against the Liberal Democrats, but the election could have been closer, with a different VP. (With a sane Presidential Nominee they might even have won)

1856 Know-Nothing: In this election the American Party made the two classic third party mistake of the 19th Century, they nominated an Ex-President, and they nominated a VP from the other party. Now Fillmore is a shoddy choice already and they could have done better, but he did help them secure the official Whig nomination in the process so one can argue he evens out. But here's the thing. In the North the Know-Nothings support base are nativists and oppositionists who will vote no matter what. Wins there will only come by getting a plurality of votes with the rest split between the Democrats and Republicans. In the South though the party is really just THE opposition, the Republicans can't possibly win votes in slave states, so the Know-Nothings are just the banner by which the Whigs continue on in Dixie.

And with this, the path to success opened based on appeasing Ex-Whigs in the North to not vote Republican and by maintaining Whig morale down in Dixie, what do they do? They nominate Andrew Jackson Donaldson, the nephew and political heir of his namesake father of the Democratic Party. While appeals to bipartisanship work for Free-Soilers, Libertites, Populists and Greenbacks, it doesn't make any sense when your party is a re-branded continuation of a previous party entirely. George Law, Henry Gardner, Anyone who ran as a Constitutional Unionist in 1860, Nathaniel P Banks... All of them open up the option for the American Party, for all of its nativist idiocy, to be more then just a flash in the Political pan, with wins far beyond just Maryland.

[V-J]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

What I've done is shown you that during the 2000 election, Clinton's polls were in the mid-60s.

Which is utterly worthless in deciding what is being contested here: whether there was Clinton fatigue. You're restating a single metric - job performance - which takes no account of whether there was any desire for, as it was called at the time, 'Clintonism without Clinton'. Of course Clinton's performance ratings were high, I'm not contesting this, in fact it's central to the point; that Clinton was rated as a chief executive but not as a person.

Also, can you link to this post where you linked to the polls showing Clinton's approval in the mid-60s during the 2000 election, I'm having trouble finding it.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

which I find it kind of curious that you're accusing me of "ignoring the evidence," when as far as I can tell -- with one exception, which I discuss below -- I'm the only one who's given any evidence.

I've just given you two polls which directly rebut your assertion that Clinton Fatigue was an invention of Rush Limabaugh and Fox News. So far all you've provided is a supposed link to job performance polling which doesn't actually seem to exist.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I also note that you concede my argument with respect to Florida.

I didn't concede it, I just covered it under the hindsight bit. You're damning Gore for putting money into one of the most electoral vote-rich swing states, a state which he nearly won but for a few hundred votes.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Yes, please.

Cited in the Perfect Tie by Busch and Caesar, page 28 of the 2001 edition.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

But even if these are correct, I'd point out that (a) the VNS exit polls were so bad that they're no longer used by the media, and (b) this was after a presidential campaign in which both candidates trounced Clinton.

What would be good evidence would be, I don't know, polls showing Clinton polling in the 30s in July of 2000.

Sure, we'll go through all the evidence.

On the hardening of public opinion towards Clinton after impeachment, you should look at a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of December 1999 which showed a bare majority in favour of the House decision to impeach Clinton, 50-49, and a 50-46 disaproval of Clinton as a person. (Cited in The Perfect Tie) A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of March registered a 58-42 disaproval rating of Clinton as a person. For the impact of Clinton Fatigue on the election, you should read pages 111 to 118 of The 2000 Presidential Election and the Foundations of Party Politics by Johnston, Hagen and Jamieson, paying particular attention to their counterfactual analysis of pages 112 and 113, showing that had Clinton being regarded as positively personally as Gore, this could have resulted in an up to 6% shift in Gore voting intention, and even an indifferent attitude to Clinton would have resulted in a 1% shift to Gore.

This article also nicely goes over, with polling, the terrible hollowing-out of Clinton's personal approval ratings in combination with the sustaining of his job performance ratings at the time of impeachment. This study from POQ also nicely summarises the issues surrounding the 'moral' aspect of the election and the negative perception of Clinton, and the impact this had on voting behaviour, though you need to be signed-in to view it.

To conclude, your assertion both that there was no such thing as Clinton fatigue, and that it had no impact on the result of the election is demonstrably, verifiably, false.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Bradley ran to Gore's left during the nomination (and Gore let him).

Au contraire, Gore challenged Bradley aggressively from the left, damning Bradley for supporting school vouchers, and charging that his Medicare and Medicaid plans would "shred the social safety net".

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Again: evidence? ... The only time Gore ran to the left that I recall was in late October when he brought in Bob Shrum.

Gore started up a populist message in late June, tieing Bush to special interests, which he carried all the way to the convention stage and fused in as one of the main themes of his acceptance speech.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

So even this cherry-picked document shows Lieberman as the 8th-most conservative Democrat.

Nice try at blatantly distorting the evidence. We both know it shows nothing of the sort. What this shows is that Lieberman was level with most of his senate colleagues in voting pattern. Or, to put it in your language, Lieberman was joint-ninth (for 'tis so) most Conservative Democrat along with Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy, Tim Johnson, Byron Dorgan, Robert Torricelli, and Max Baucus.

I assume btw you're using 'cherry-picked' here to mean 'does not support my own assertions, ergo invalid'.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I suppose I'm guilty of mild hyperbole in calling him the most conservative when he was the sixth or so.

You're also guilty of hyperbole in suggesting that the Nader vote was purely down to Gore's pick of Lieberman, something you've also subsequently rowed back on I note.

I'm not entirely sure why it shouldn't be a point in Gore's favour that he picked one of the more centrist members of the Senate as his running mate. It certainly didn't hurt Gore's standing with the left of his base, as he polled strongly with them.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

No, I'm participating in an alternate history forum! Sheesh. The question asked by the OP was "what presidential elections could have been changed by different VP candidates?" The obvious answer is: Al Gore in 2000.

I'll re-state my point as you've evaded it completely: you're condemning Gore for decisions based on hindsight. Gore should supposedly have picked John Kerry, because Gore should have known the result in New Hampshire would be so close, picking John Kerry would swing it.

In any case, to go to the heart of the matter, the idea that the election could have been changed by a different VP candidate is, as others have stated, questionable. Particularly so if you're relying on John Kerry to swing New Hampshire, as you are. In 2004, when he was the nominee, the Democratic ticket only improved on the 2000 result in New Hampshire by 3.4%, and that was when the Nader vote, which had exceeded this in 2000, had been neutralised as a factor. Most of this increase came in counties on the Vermont side of the state from Massachussets, incidentally, suggesting Kerry's next-door status had almost no effect on the result. And this was when he was on the top of the ticket.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I meant it as a shorthand to refer to the fact that your argument here is, in my opinion, not well-supported by either facts or logic.

Strange: I have the exact same opinion of your argument and yet have not felt it neccessary to throw around personal insults.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

My further opinion and advice is that if you want to avoid being further offended on this forum, you might not want to litter your post with inflammatory language like:

You seem to be confusing inflammatory language with language questioning your argument. If you're becoming inflamed by me questioning your argument to the point where you're likely to "further offend" me then I suggest we mutually agree to stop this before you're kicked or banned.

[Andrew T]

One last go at Bush v. Gore. For others reading, keep in mind that I've demonstrated that:

a) A key aspect of reversing the outcome in 2000 is diverting a fraction of the tens of millions of dollars spent in Florida to shore up narrow OTL losses by Gore in NH and TN and possibly hold WV. Any one of those states is enough to flip the 2000 election (without Florida), which is, of course, the point of this thread.

b) A second aspect of reversing the outcome in 2000 is shoring up the Nader vote among disaffected liberals. Again, give Gore a third of Nader's vote in NH (and have the other two-thirds stay home), and Gore wins the election regardless of what happens in Florida. To this end, I've linked to the National Journal showing that Lieberman was one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate at the time he was nominated, and claimed that fed into disaffected liberals' view that Gore was too conservative.

V-J's response to this has been contradictory: first, he cited a paper-thin ADA poll to try and prove that Lieberman was as liberal as Ted Kennedy (!), and then, he reverses course in his last post, arguing that Lieberman was a "centrist" but claiming that it didn't "hurt Gore with the left of his base."

I think that speaks for itself.

Stripped of the rhetoric and the personal stuff, there's not much left to discuss.

Originally Posted by V-J

Which is utterly worthless in deciding what is being contested here: whether there was Clinton fatigue. You're restating a single metric - job performance - which takes no account of whether there was any desire for, as it was called at the time, 'Clintonism without Clinton'. Of course Clinton's performance ratings were high, I'm not contesting this, in fact it's central to the point; that Clinton was rated as a chief executive but not as a person.

No, for the third time, the issue here is whether Gore could have won 2000 had he chosen another running mate. Proving that there was a desire for "Clintonism without Clinton" would only feed my argument, since, you know, Al Gore isn't Bill Clinton.

If voters generally approved of the job Clinton was doing in office (which they did), then it is my argument that Al Gore should have campaigned on a platform of "I'll give you more of the same, only without Monica Lewinksy." IOTL, he didn't and lost. In an ATL, he could have done so and won.

That's the argument. I think I've been pretty clear about this, but V-J has somehow misunderstood it, so I'm making another effort to clarify.

Also, can you link to this post where you linked to the polls showing Clinton's approval in the mid-60s during the 2000 election, I'm having trouble finding it.

Yeah, the post is here, and the data -- which, I might add, you could have easily found on Google -- are here.

All of your polls seem to come from books I don't own that aren't online, so I can't really say anything further about those. The only resource you use that I can actually view is an opinion column from David Broder dated August 23, 1998, which, IMO, is about as relevant to the 2000 election as George H.W. Bush's 80% approval rating in August of 1990 was to the election of 1992 (i.e., not at all).

I'm not entirely sure why it shouldn't be a point in Gore's favour that he picked one of the more centrist members of the Senate as his running mate.

That's because you're not a Nader voter. Also, I take it by this sentence that you're conceding that my point that Joe Lieberman was, in fact, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate (and in fact was chosen precisely for that reason)?

It certainly didn't hurt Gore's standing with the left of his base, as he polled strongly with them.

Not strongly enough, obviously, since Nader won nearly 5% of the vote in New Hampshire.

I'll re-state my point as you've evaded it completely: you're condemning Gore for decisions based on hindsight. Gore should supposedly have picked John Kerry, because Gore should have known the result in New Hampshire would be so close, picking John Kerry would swing it.

If that's your point, then we can end this discussion now, because this is an alternate history thread. Of course we're looking back in hindsight. (Why you seem to think this is some sort of criticism is beyond me.)

My point isn't that Gore needed to see the future to win 2000; my point is that if he had gone with his next choice for VP, John Kerry, Gore likely would have won. The fact that Gore would have chosen Kerry for different reasons -- not because time-travellers from 2012 told him Kerry would help him hold New Hampshire -- is irrelevant to the story. This is, of course, classic alternate history. Nobody else seems to have had trouble understanding this.

In any case, to go to the heart of the matter, the idea that the election could have been changed by a different VP candidate is, as others have stated, questionable. Particularly so if you're relying on John Kerry to swing New Hampshire, as you are. In 2004, when he was the nominee, the Democratic ticket only improved on the 2000 result in New Hampshire by 3.4%, and that was when the Nader vote, which had exceeded this in 2000, had been neutralised as a factor. Most of this increase came in counties on the Vermont side of the state from Massachussets, incidentally, suggesting Kerry's next-door status had almost no effect on the result. And this was when he was on the top of the ticket.

Since Gore lost New Hampshire by 1.27% -- less than 8,000 votes! -- I'm pretty sure this concedes my argument.

[V-J]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

a) A key aspect of reversing the outcome in 2000 is diverting a fraction of the tens of millions of dollars spent in Florida to shore up narrow OTL losses by Gore in NH and TN and possibly hold WV. Any one of those states is enough to flip the 2000 election (without Florida), which is, of course, the point of this thread.

Gore lost West Virginia by 6.3%; (so 'close' it doesn't even make the top twelve swing state list which John Farson posted earlier) he lost Tennessee by 3.8%; he lost New Hampshire by 1.2%.

Al Gore lost Florida by 0.0092%.

If Gore had won Florida, he would not only have won the election, he would have been given an electoral college cushion which meant he could have lost some of the states he won IOTL; if he had lost Iowa, Oregon, and New Mexico, but won Florida, he would still have won the election.

Once again, your argument falls down because it is hindsight-based: apparently Gore should have known in advance of the election that he would lose Florida by a few hundred votes, and re-directed his efforts into half a dozen other swing states which were electorally insignificant by comparison instead.

Gore seriously contesting Florida had nothing to do with Lieberman, it was basic electoral common sense; it was regarded as one of the key swing states well in advance of the election, and so it proved to be. It would have been seriously constested by any Democratic campaign worth its salt, because it was so electoral-vote rich the winner was almost guaranteed to be elected president, regardless of what happened in the medium-sized swing states - as indeed proved to be the case.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

b) A second aspect of reversing the outcome in 2000 is shoring up the Nader vote among disaffected liberals. Again, give Gore a third of Nader's vote in NH (and have the other two-thirds stay home), and Gore wins the election regardless of what happens in Florida. To this end, I've linked to the National Journal showing that Lieberman was one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate at the time he was nominated, and claimed that fed into disaffected liberals' view that Gore was too conservative.

You have asserted throughout this thread that the eventual Nader vote was a) hypothetically transferable en bloc to Gore, b) that the Nader vote was composed purely of disaffected Liberal Democrats and c) keep implying that the Nader vote was purely the product of Gore's selection of Lieberman.

Needless to say, you have not given a shred of evidence to support any of these assertions - and have then had the chutzpah to claim that I have been the one not providing evidence.

So, evidence, please. Let's see some evidential meat on these assertions.

Actually, I'll oblige and throw some facts out. CNN Exit polling in New Hampshire suggested Nader had hurt Bush more than Gore there; if Buchanan and Nader had both not been candidates, Bush would have won 48% to 47% with 4% not voting. Nader's campaign in New Hampshire recieved the endorsement of seven municipal officials, all Republicans. Exit polling also shows broadly the same sort of pattern in Florida, and that Nader drew on a remarkably even split of voters. Evidence also suggests that in a Naderless race, Bush would have won.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

That's the argument.

And it's an argument I've just disproven.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

All of your polls seem to come from books I don't own that aren't online, so I can't really say anything further about those. The only resource you use that I can actually view is an opinion column from David Broder dated August 23, 1998, which, IMO, is about as relevant to the 2000 election as George H.W. Bush's 80% approval rating in August of 1990 was to the election of 1992 (i.e., not at all).

You asked for polling showing that Clinton was personally unpopular before the campaigning season, saying it would be useful proof and I obliged. Now apparently it's not remotely relevant. Don't blame me for the evasiveness of your own argument.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Also, I take it by this sentence that you're conceding that my point that Joe Lieberman was, in fact, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate (and in fact was chosen precisely for that reason)?

I would have thought that my repeated confirmations to that effect would signify that, yes. Our only point in debating Joe Lieberman's position on the ideological spectrum of the senate was, as you may recall, that you called him the most Conservative Democrat in the Senate, which you've already conceded was wrong, and that this supposedly created the Nader vote, which you have yet to provide any evidence for.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Since Gore lost New Hampshire by 1.27% -- less than 8,000 votes! -- I'm pretty sure this concedes my argument.

The notion that because the Democratic share of the vote increased in 2004 in NH, when John Kerry happened to be the nominee, that it must also do so four years before by an identical amount if he had been Al Gore's running mate - because apparently all those 3.4% of voters who made up the increase in the Democratic vote were only doing so to express their unbounded adoration of John Kerry - is so self-evidently fallacious as a piece of reasoning I don't even need to take it apart.

You should probably stop claiming that things which disprove your assertions confirm them - it says nothing good for the strength of what you're forwarding. So too with the constant scrambling around looking for a concession in the tea leaves of what I'm saying. In both cases the phrase which comes inexorably to mind is 'desperation of argument'.

In fact, I'm going to stop replying from now on. I think I've aired my argument in full to my own satisfaction, further replies would just result in more evasive and frankly increasingly silly argument from you as you scramble for some kind of misguided vindication. That would be pointless for both of us.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by V-J

In fact, I'm going to stop replying from now on.

I'll hold you to that. Good day.

[Stolengood]

So... let's move on, shall we?

[Creativemind15]

1788 George Washington/John Adams
1792 George Washington/John Adams
1796 John Adams/John Jay vs. Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr
1800 Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr vs. John Adams/Charles Pinckney
1804 Thomas Jefferson/George Clinton vs. Charles Pinckney/DeWitt Clinton
1808 James Madison/James Monroe vs. Charles Pinckney/Rufus King
1812 James Madison/James Monroe vs. DeWitt Clinton/Rufus King
1816 James Monroe/William Crawford vs. Rufus King/John Howard
1820 James Monroe/John Q. Adams
1824 John Q. Adams/John Calhoun vs. Andrew Jackson/Smith Thompson vs. William Crawford/DeWitt Clinton vs. Henry Clay/Nathan Sanford
1828 Andrew Jackson/Martin Van Buren vs. John Q. Adams/John Calhoun
1832 Andrew Jackson/Martin Van Buren vs. Henry Clay/William Harrison
1836 Martin Van Buren/Richard Johnson vs. William Harrison/Francis Granger vs. Hugh White/John Tyler vs. Daniel Webster/Francis Granger vs. Willie Mangum/John Tyler
1840 Martin Van Buren/Richard Johnson vs. William Harrison/Henry Clay
1844 James Polk/Lewis Cass vs. Henry Clay/Millard Fillmore
1848 Zachary Taylor/Daniel Webster vs. Lewis Cass/Levi Woodbury
1852 Franklin Pierce/Stephen Douglas vs. Winfield Scott/William Graham
1856 James Buchanan/John Breckinridge vs. John Fremont/Abraham Lincoln vs. Millard Fillmore/John McLean
1860 Abraham Lincoln/William Seward vs. John Breckinridge/Daniel Dickinson vs. John Bell/Edward Everett vs. Stephen Douglas/James Guthrie
1864 Abraham Lincoln/Hannibal Hamlin vs. George McClellan/George Pendleton
1868 Ulysses Grant/Schuyler Colfax vs. Horatio Seymour/George Pendleton
1872 Ulysses Grant/Henry Grant vs. Horace Greeley/Jeremiah Black
1876 Rutherford Hayes/William Wheeler vs. Samuel Tilden/Thomas Henfdricks
1880 James Garfield/Ulysses Grant vs. Winfield Hancock/Thomas Bayard
1884 Grover Cleveland/Allen Thurman vs. James Blaine/John Logan
1888 Benjamin Harrison/John Sherman vs. Grover Cleveland/Allen Thurman
1892 Grover Cleveland/David Hill vs. Benjamin Harrison/James Blaine
1896 William McKinley/Garret Hobart vs. William Bryan/Richard Bland
1900 William McKinley/Theodore Roosevelt vs. William Bryan/Adlai Stevenson I
1904 Theodore Roosevelt/William Taft vs. Alton Parker/William Hearst
1908 William Taft/James Sherman vs. William Bryan/John Kern
1912 Woodrow Wilson/Champ Clark vs. Theodore Roosevelt/Robert La Follette vs. William Taft/Nicholas Butler
1916 Woodrow Wilson/Thomas Marshall vs. Charles Hughes/John Weeks
1920 Warren Harding/Leonard Wood vs. James Cox/Franklin Roosevelt
1924 Calvin Coolidge/Frank Lowden vs. John Davis/Charles Bryan
1928 Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis vs. Al Smith/Alben Barkley
1932 Franklin Roosevelt/Al Smith vs. Herbert Hoover/Charles Curtis
1936 Franklin Roosevelt/John Garner vs. Alf Landon/William Borah
1940 Franklin Roosevelt/William Bankhead vs. Wendell Willkie/Thomas Dewey
1944 Franklin Roosevelt/Henry Wallace vs. Thomas Dewey/John Bricker
1948 Harry Truman/Alben Barkley vs. Thomas Dewey/Earl Warren vs. Strom Thurmond/Fielding Wright
1952 Dwight Eisenhower/Robert Taft vs. Adlai Stevenson/Estes Kefauver
1956 Dwight Eisenhower/Richard Nixon vs. Adlai Stevenson/Estes Kefauver
1960 John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson vs. Richard Nixon/Nelson Rockefeller
1964 Lyndon Johnson/Hubert Humphrey vs. Barry Goldwater/Nelson Rockefeller
1968 Richard Nixon/George Romney vs. Hubert Humphrey/Robert Kennedy (assassinated), then Eugene McCarthy vs. George Wallace/Curtis LeMay
1972 Richard Nixon/Nelson Rockefeller vs. George McGovern/Edmund Muskie
1976 Jimmy Carter/Henry Jackson vs. Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller
1980 Ronald Reagan/Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy
1984 Ronald Reagan/George H. W. Bush vs. Walter Mondale/John Glenn
1988 George H. W. Bush/Bob Dole vs. Michael Dukakis/Bill Clinton
1992 Bill Clinton/Jerry Brown vs. George H. W. Bush/Bob Dole
1996 Bill Clnton/Al Gore vs. Bob Dole/Richard Lugar
2000 George W. Bush/John McCain vs. Al Gore/John Kerry
2004 George W. Bush/John McCain vs. John Kerry/John Edwards
2008 Barack Obama/Evan Bayh vs. John McCain/Tim Pawlenty
2012 Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney/Rob Portman
2016 Joe Biden/Andrew Cuomo vs. Chris Christie/Marco Rubio

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by Creativemind15

...

1976 Jimmy Carter/Henry Jackson vs. Gerald Ford/Nelson Rockefeller
1980 Ronald Reagan/Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy
1984 Ronald Reagan/George H. W. Bush vs. Walter Mondale/John Glenn
1988 George H. W. Bush/Bob Dole vs. Michael Dukakis/Bill Clinton
1992 Bill Clinton/Jerry Brown vs. George H. W. Bush/Bob Dole
1996 Bill Clnton/Al Gore vs. Bob Dole/Richard Lugar
2000 George W. Bush/John McCain vs. Al Gore/John Kerry
2004 George W. Bush/John McCain vs. John Kerry/John Edwards
2008 Barack Obama/Evan Bayh vs. John McCain/Tim Pawlenty
2012 Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton vs. Mitt Romney/Rob Portman
2016 Joe Biden/Andrew Cuomo vs. Chris Christie/Marco Rubio

Are these supposed to be cumulative, or listing every alternative you can think of?

[Creativemind15]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Are these supposed to be cumulative, or listing every alternative you can think of?

These are just ones that I thought should've happened.