People who could have been good US presidents.

George Wallace (If he hadn't turned racist; note that he did not partake in the 1948 Dixiecrat walkout in the DNC and was pretty moderate on race issues until his "I'll never be out-n******* again*" gubernatorial loss in 1958)
I agree with you here; Wallace had the potential to be one of my favorite politicians ever. He was an anti-establishment firebrand who would have fitted any “Liberal Republicans, Populist Democrats” Timeline if not for that loss. He always wanted to “stand up for the little guy”, and while that was usually directed towards working class white people, it could have easily made him a strong fighter for civil rights and the working class. A Southern Henry Jackson if you will. Unfortunately, he was too much of an opportunist, and we only saw his non racist side following 1972, when he began to leave any potential position of power outside of Alabama. If he had switched back to being pro-Civil Rights earlier, like after the CRA, like WJ Bryan Dorn, he would’ve made a great running mate for HHH in 1968, or, a great candidate in 1976.
If only Folsom had campaigned more with him in ‘58
 
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?
 
Bearing in mind that two of the most honest presidents (Washington and Eisenhower) and one of the most crooked (Grant) were generals, I wonder which way Wesley Clark would have gone.
 
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?
That, at first blush, sounds a lot like Herbert Hoover.
 
Hoover was a more capable President than many give him credit for but a rather rigid thinker and doctrinaire in economic matters. He is also a good example of the a person who would surely have been on any list of "alt-Presidents" in a TL where he hadn't been elected and long screeds would be written about how he would have dealt more capably with the 1929 Crash than the sitting President.
 
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?

Samuel Popkin has a good section on the Gore campaign in The Candidate that backs this up. His campaign had a clear hierarchy, but too many lines led directly to him, so he often put off final decisions on items where he had multiple conflicting opinions coming in. Additionally, he would often weigh the opinions of his family heavily when making large campaign decisions, which sometimes went against the advice of his campaign operatives.

Now, all of that being said, I don't know if this undercuts his ability to potentially be a good President. The campaign is much more rapid fire than the slower pace of the legislative process, which Gore would have been pretty knowledgeable about from his Senate years. On a legislative front, Gore would be able to drive the conversation much more than on a campaign, and on events outside of their control, it would be rapid-response strategy, as opposed the campaign, where you're making strategy decisions to get to state win numbers. TL;DR: eh, who knows.
 
Hoover was a more capable President than many give him credit for but a rather rigid thinker and doctrinaire in economic matters. He is also a good example of the a person who would surely have been on any list of "alt-Presidents" in a TL where he hadn't been elected and long screeds would be written about how he would have dealt more capably with the 1929 Crash than the sitting President.

That's why I said "at first blush". Hoover made a number of steps in the right direction to mitigate the effects of the crash: that much is beyond question. He was also an administrator without peer-witness the relief work in Belgium and how he advanced day-to-day life as SecComm-but probably not the best executive / policy-setter. On the flip side, his name was a watchword for profound conservatism in the '30s, '40s, and even into the '50s (see, for example, in Inside USA, writing of the Dakotas, John Gunther (1947) said "South thinks that North is full of Bolsheviks, while North thinks that South is a preserve for all people to the right of Herbert Hoover."), although he became something of a Grand Old Man during the Eisenhower years, with memories fogged by the passage of time. Also, he had an unfortunate tendency to pick what proved to be the wrong side in some controversies (he favored isolationism in the late '30s/early '40s, was a mild supporter of Joe McCarthy, and called prohibition "a noble experiment", as three examples).

I'd suggest that had Hoover somehow gotten the nomination in 1920 instead of 1928 (and he was a viable if lesser candidate), he would have won (almost any GOP candidate would have) and would have done a competent, if not very good job--and the 1920s would have been notably different.
 
Ray Mabus, as an alternative to Bill Clinton. Birch Bayh, Howard Baker, James Baker. John Heinz, Mickey Leland, and Paul Wellstone, if they hadn't died. George Marshall. In the 19th century, John Marshall, Winfield Hancock. And of course, Robert "by the way it is" Kennedy. I agree with the other person who said he's the best president we never had.

I was impressed when I saw Ray Mabus talk a few times when he was Sec Nav for Obama ,

Bill Bradley
Al Gore

are the two that top my head in my voting lifetime
 
Just about any of the OTL runners up post-1900, save Goldwater and perhaps McGovern or Bryan - though I suspect even Bryan wouldn't have been half as bad as sometimes supposed.

As for alternative nominees, Champ Clark would be fine in 1912, and Wood, Lowden or just about anyone other than Harding in 1920.

Had Wilson not finished his second term, Marshall would have plugged the gap as well as anyone.

Any of Johnson, Stevenson or Symington in 1960, or Rockefeller on the other ticket. Muskie, Jerry Brown, Jack Kemp and Gary Hart would all be interesting. John Glenn any time.

Leonard Wood? He was a complete bastard
 
Now, all of that being said, I don't know if this undercuts his ability to potentially be a good President. The campaign is much more rapid fire than the slower pace of the legislative process
The President needs to be able to work with the legislature granted, but his role is essentially Executive. Terrorist incidents, diplomatic crises, North Korean nuclear tests, pirates seizing US vessels in the Red Sea don't operate at a very leisurely pace -and nor does modern media. At the end of the day, no lives depend upon the success of the Presidential campaign!
 
The President needs to be able to work with the legislature granted, but his role is essentially Executive. Terrorist incidents, diplomatic crises, North Korean nuclear tests, pirates seizing US vessels in the Red Sea don't operate at a very leisurely pace -and nor does modern media. At the end of the day, no lives depend upon the success of the Presidential campaign!

Yeah, that's why I mentioned a rapid-response strategy on events outside of their control in the part you didn't quote.

What I mean is, for example, if you have a BP-oil spill, you're immediately going to focus on that-- on a campaign, you have to set thematic elements, and parcel out resources on more of a blank canvass, which Gore was clearly not good at. Presidents still have agenda setting, but the parts that they can control, are mainly legislative and move at a more tedious pace. The parts they can't control are generally things that they still have to focus on, so this Gore weakness would not necessarily point to ineffective leadership. After 9/11, I don't expect Gore would have the same indecision as he did on campaign messaging issues or where to throw out ad points in the final weeks.

Also, as someone who has worked on his fair share of campaigns, it always feels pretty life and death in the moment.
 
Would the much mentioned Al Gore have been a good president? Most insider accounts paint him as very risk averse and indecisive. Remember that (whether you are from either the left or right) there is an enormous chasm between "ideologically sound" and "good". Are they an effective administrator, able to delegate properly and to work with Congress? Are they a flexible thinker and able to adapt to changing circumstances?

That, at first blush, sounds a lot like Herbert Hoover.

This actually sounds more like HW Bush than it does Hoover, and I think for better (given the events of 2001-05 of OTL if they remain largely unchanged) and for worse (he to probably would be a one termer), Gore would've been a Democratic version of HW Bush.
 
Yeah, that's why I mentioned a rapid-response strategy on events outside of their control in the part you didn't quote.

What I mean is, for example, if you have a BP-oil spill, you're immediately going to focus on that-- on a campaign, you have to set thematic elements, and parcel out resources on more of a blank canvass, which Gore was clearly not good at. Presidents still have agenda setting, but the parts that they can control, are mainly legislative and move at a more tedious pace. The parts they can't control are generally things that they still have to focus on, so this Gore weakness would not necessarily point to ineffective leadership. After 9/11, I don't expect Gore would have the same indecision as he did on campaign messaging issues or where to throw out ad points in the final weeks.

Also, as someone who has worked on his fair share of campaigns, it always feels pretty life and death in the moment.
Wasn't trying to quote your selectively and I am sure that campaigns are pretty high octane stuff but, having worked on (animal and public health ) crisis response teams it's like the man said "Plan but don't plan on the plan". Amazing the amount of unforeseen stuff that needs to go to the top of the house for an (immediate ) decision. You don't need a genius in charge but you do need someone decisive.
 
Grant wasn't actually crooked he just had alot of bad subordinates around him IIRC

Absolutely correct GDIS. He also had a most
unfortunate inability to judge people(so he
ended up surrounding himself with a pack of
thieves)coupled with a staunch refusal to hear anything bad about an associate, even
when it was true.
 
Top