- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History buffs: Which losing presidential candidates would have made good presidents?
Posted on 7/29/20 at 7:13 am to RollTide1987
Posted on 7/29/20 at 7:13 am to RollTide1987
quote:
1964: Barry Goldwater
And it's not close
1
Posted on 7/29/20 at 7:38 am to Wtodd
Goldwater. Our society wouldn’t be in a downwards spiral if he had been elected.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 8:11 am to goinallout
quote:Sure it would still be, only the phase would be pushed back a decade or two.
Our society wouldn’t be in a downwards spiral if he had been elected.
Conservatives in 1650, 1810, 1920, and today all thought (think) society is caving in.
It’s degradation over the past fiddy years has certainly accelerated, I’ll admit, but the natural order of society is to decay.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:26 am to RollTide1987
Goldwater
Wallace
Thurmond
Wallace
Thurmond
Posted on 7/29/20 at 9:37 am to Loup
I think Perot would have been pretty good. Wouldn’t have passed NAFTA
Posted on 7/29/20 at 10:58 am to red sox fan 13
Goldwater for sure
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:15 am to RollTide1987
Goldwater and Dole are 1 and 2.
If Perot doesn’t enter the race in 92, Clinton isn’t elected and Hillary is just some state’s nuisance.
ETA: Perot would have been the best bet for ‘92 though.
If Perot doesn’t enter the race in 92, Clinton isn’t elected and Hillary is just some state’s nuisance.
ETA: Perot would have been the best bet for ‘92 though.
This post was edited on 7/29/20 at 11:21 am
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:46 am to BRich
quote:
I think you're looking for AuH2O, chief....
You’re right. I erred. I stand corrected
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:47 am to Marco Esquandolas
Failed reading comprehension.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:54 am to RollTide1987
Stevenson vs Eisenhower was a can't miss proposition. Two really top notch candidates. Nobody was beating Ike, but Stevenson would have been a fine president.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 11:59 am to MSUDawg98
quote:
- McCain by a mile over the other 5. I don't think we're still in the middle east if he had 2 terms (also would have saved us from DJT)...if only he didn't try to get cute with his VP pick.
What makes you say that about McCain? I always got the opposite from him. He thought we didn't do enough to get rid of Assad in Syria as an example. Favored Libya bombing too. IMO we're not only still there but have way more people there currently than we do right now if he wins.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:00 pm to LurkerTooLong
There is the possibility that 9/11 never happens if Gore wins. I'm not saying that from a Bush admin lack of competency standpoint, but turnover at the top levels of national security could've led to a dropped ball. Keep in mind that in 2001 a large number of voters were from the WW2 generations and their kids were voters as well. Both of those groups agreed with war as a necessity as lots of them and their children willingly served during Vietnam. When speaking specifically about the wars in IRaq and Afghanistan, imagine if Bush did nothing. A large swath of voters wanted blood.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:00 pm to RollTide1987
Dole - would have been good. Goldwater would be interesting.
Clinton/Romney/McCain/Kerry/Gore - Wouldn't be exactly terrible but it would have been more boring uniparty, swamp cuckery. I view them all as interchangeable and not sure any of them are as bad as Bush/Obama.
Clinton/Romney/McCain/Kerry/Gore - Wouldn't be exactly terrible but it would have been more boring uniparty, swamp cuckery. I view them all as interchangeable and not sure any of them are as bad as Bush/Obama.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:00 pm to RollTide1987
I'll go with Eugene Debs. He was a Socialist Marxist.
I know how much you OTers love Marxism. :)
I know how much you OTers love Marxism. :)
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:02 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
Also, had Al Gore been elected after Clinton we probably wouldn’t be in half the deficit mess we’re currently in. Clinton balanced the budget and we were rapidly on track to eliminating our national debt. Then Bush came along and for the first time in our history cut taxes and funded a major war at the same time. Those two actions made us jump the shark on our debt and no one has looked back since.
But apparently no one on either side cares anymore about the debt.
Agree on some of your points.
9/11 did make the economy mildly tank along with the dotcom bubble bursting slowed the tax income
Agree Gore would not gave hit Saddam but he was much more liberal than Clinton meaning we would have seen deficits funding social services and environmental protections
Fun Fact: Clinton and the republican congress of the 90’s were the last leaders to tamp down welfare programs
This post was edited on 7/29/20 at 12:03 pm
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:03 pm to RollTide1987
AL GORE
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:18 pm to RollTide1987
My politics are roughly in line with Francisco Franco, but I'd take Gore or Kerry over that mincing putz who knocked over those buildings in NYC.
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:19 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
Both Hillary and Romney were terrible campaigners but would have been extremely competent presidents.
So much wrong in one single sentence. Holy shite
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:39 pm to Cold Drink
quote:
Hillary
quote:
extremely competent president
Posted on 7/29/20 at 12:56 pm to tigercross
quote:
GWB was complicit in 9/11
Walk me through this please? Details, as I’m likely too dumb to grab the whole concept without them.
Thanks.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News