Which Losing Presidential Nominee Would've Made the Best President?

[Amadeus]

In this poll, you're provided with losing candidates from 1900 to 2012 who were nominated by the two major American political parties but never became President. Candidates who did at one point lose but then came back to win, such as Richard Nixon, or candidates who won once but lost a second time, such as William Howard Taft or George H.W. Bush, are not included because they eventually did become President. Hillary Clinton is not included either because 2016 counts as current politics, which are prohibited from this forum.

In your opinion, which of these candidates would've made the best President? After making your choice please explain why.

 

[Titanicus]

George McGovern.
He was, in my opinion, the last real liberal candidate the Democratic Party had put up. He was decimated in 1972 by Nixon and even today, "McGovernite" is sort of a word that means "you're too liberal you'll lose every election by a landslide". Democratic Party going "full McGovern" "headed for a McGovern Redux" are all negative connotations.

Why he would be a good President? No Nixon. He would actually get out of Vietnam. He would cut the bloated military budget. Fix tax loopholes for the rich. His campaign was a complete dark horse candidacy and he was given low odds of even winning the nomination but he won with grass roots funding. He pinned the word "rich" to the Republican Party. McGovern would have attempted to pass a Demogrant. McGovern reminds me of the last "New Deal" Democrats who attempted to form a coalition of the middle class to win elections. It's pretty depressing that the Democratic Party itself shot McGovern's campaign with their constant slander and then after the election said: "See? The Democratic Party has went too left. Run to the right! Or else we'll lose every election." We haven't looked back ever since.

 

[Amadeus]

I'm not surprised that Hughes has gotten a few votes, given Wilson's very negative reputation on this site. But I am surprised that McGovern has gotten more votes than Humphrey.

 

[kernals12]

With free silver, we might have avoided the great depression.

 

[Sasalele]

I voted Humphrey out of sheer pragmatism. Humphrey knew Congress and their was a majority of New Deal Democrats in the Congress. Of all those on the list he would have succeeded the most in getting his policies passed, which would be a continuation of LBJ’s Great Society and possibly a nation public health care system.

 

[HelloThere]

George McGovern. He was the last real liberal Democratic candidate and could have fixed many things that were broken in the US of the 70's. He could energized the political discourse by moving the party to the left instead the race to the right we saw in the 1980's, 1990's and the 2000's.

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

Al Gore. He seemed level-headed, he was ready for the recession that came (the first recession, not the 2007 one; no one could have beaten that one) and there wouldn’t have been any involvement in Iraq (and if there was, it would never have been a full-scale invasion.)

 

[wcv215]

Wendell Willkie.

Also McGovern, Humphrey, Stevenson, and possibly Gore. Wilkie though I’ll throw a pity vote to ifonly because unlike the rest of the ones I considered he actually ran against someone I don’t mind he lost to.

 

[hzn5pk]

second for Gore. Hindsight being 20/20, he would have been what the country needed.

9/11 still happens, Afghanistan responce is on. No Iraq.

More focus on climate change.

POTUS Obama may not happen or would be later.

 

[overoceans]

George McGovern.


He would actually get out of Vietnam.

How much involvement did the US have in the Vietnam conflict after Jan. 27 1973? Serious question, not rhetorical.

 

[Don Corleone]

George McGovern.
He was, in my opinion, the last real liberal candidate the Democratic Party had put up. He was decimated in 1972 by Nixon and even today, "McGovernite" is sort of a word that means "you're too liberal you'll lose every election by a landslide". Democratic Party going "full McGovern" "headed for a McGovern Redux" are all negative connotations.

Why he would be a good President? No Nixon. He would actually get out of Vietnam. He would cut the bloated military budget. Fix tax loopholes for the rich. His campaign was a complete dark horse candidacy and he was given low odds of even winning the nomination but he won with grass roots funding. He pinned the word "rich" to the Republican Party. McGovern would have attempted to pass a Demogrant. McGovern reminds me of the last "New Deal" Democrats who attempted to form a coalition of the middle class to win elections. It's pretty depressing that the Democratic Party itself shot McGovern's campaign with their constant slander and then after the election said: "See? The Democratic Party has went too left. Run to the right! Or else we'll lose every election." We haven't looked back ever since.

The irony is Nixon called McGovern the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" and we got two of those by the end of the decade anyway.

 

[dw93]

I voted Gore. McCain would've been decent had he gotten nominated and won in 2000, but that didn't happen. It was for the best, both for his legacy and the country, that he didn't win in 2008.

 

[Library of Alexandria]

This really needs to be in chat doesn't it

 

[Emote Control]

Gore was the first candidate I voted for.

I remember being told by someone once Gore would have done nothing after 9/11. My response was that not only would Gore have done something, he would have done something successful. Everything Shrub did after the attacks failed completely.

 

[The Machine]

Is there an option for "none of the above?"

The problem with all of these people, as with all the presidents that were acually elected, is they weren't actually sufficiently competent to run a huge organization like the US federal government, much less set policy. The US needs something similar to the permanent secretaries the UK uses to combat the first issue. The second issue is harder to solve because it requires someone with nuanced thinking being nominated by one of the major parties, which isn't likely to happen.

The only half-decent president or runner-up we had in this time period was TR, but he either won or ran in his own party.

 

[Thomas1195]

The problem with all of these people, as with all the presidents that were acually elected, is they weren't actually sufficiently competent to run a huge organization like the US federal government, much less set policy.

Do you really have evidence for this?

From what I can see, Humphrey, Hughes, Dewey, Gore, or heck even Dukakis, all would have been decent or good presidents, and at least 3 of them (Humphrey, Hughes, Gore) would have outperformed their OTL counterparts. Humphrey could potentially have become one of the best. Hughes could have also been rehabilitated later as one of the best if he handles Versailles well (he would have certainly lost in 1920). May I have to remind you that while Wilson's first term was good, his second term was probably among top 5 worst presidencies of US history?

 

[creighton]

Is there an option for "none of the above?"

The problem with all of these people, as with all the presidents that were acually elected, is they weren't actually sufficiently competent to run a huge organization like the US federal government, much less set policy. The US needs something similar to the permanent secretaries the UK uses to combat the first issue. The second issue is harder to solve because it requires someone with nuanced thinking being nominated by one of the major parties, which isn't likely to happen.

The only half-decent president or runner-up we had in this time period was TR, but he either won or ran in his own party.

We could call it a political bureau, or politburo, for short.

Edit: To be a bit more serious, one of my favorite parts of my MPA is seeing different administrative hierarchies come in and out of fashion, and the US does alright with its system of lifetime civil service professionals that take the lead from political appointments. The system a professional class of bureaucrats under an elected philosophy has performed well when compared to more rigid states.

 

[Maeglin]

Hands down Humphrey.

 

[David T]

In a way, even Mitt Romney can't be discussed without reference to current politics. Because, let's face it, some people who now wish he would have won in 2012 do so because his victory would presumably have prevented Trump from winning in 2016...

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

In a way, even Mitt Romney can't be discussed without reference to current politics. Because, let's face it, some people who now wish he would have won in 2012 do so because his victory would presumably have prevented Trump from winning in 2016...

Shit, by that logic, we can’t talk about John McCain, John Kerry or Al Gore for the same reason. Mitt Romney isn’t relevant to current politics. McCain is dead, Romney and Gore have all gone through their looney-tune phases and quietly faded away, Kerry is probably decomposing somewhere in Massachusetts, and Dole...umm, no idea. Either way, you can readily discuss these people without devolving into current politics.