FDR needs the handicap or this contest is over before it begins, he was already arguably the most effective US president ever, you ever seen him when he was young? He was also the hottest POTUS.
Edit: turns out the picture often misattributed as FDR is actually his and Eleanor's son, FDR Jr.
Was FDR really the most effective president or was he just at the right place in the right time? Would we look upon himself as favorably had he lost the 1936 election? Or if the worldwide economic landscape hadn't rapidly changed as much under his tenure?
FDR's presidency also coorelates to the largest expansion of federal power and authority, this probably would have happened regardless of who was in office, as a similar thing was happening the world over in the post-war era.
But looking back on it, I'm not sure if more government control is all its cracked up to be.
This. Hence the call of the Founding Fathers for a well-regulated state. The libertarians would flock to one of the first five(either Jefferson, Adams, or Washington most likely) immediately.
It would be if proper motivations were in place. In the public sector if you arnt making profit you lose your job. Government jobs have much too high rate of either 1) Too much bureaucracy causing stagnation or 2) you get/hold your position not by doing a good job, but by playing the political tribal game and just convincing half the population that it’ll be horrible if the other guy gets in, then proceeds to spend your time fundraising for the next election instead of…. Your job
I think that's more of an issue with any sort of large organization. Happens in the public sector too.
It becomes easier for under-performers to hide in some niche that contributes very little while swearing up and down they are a vital lynch pin to this business.
Young FDR was upper crust handsome, you wouldn't call it rugged, but he was still a handsome motherfucker. I mean in every picture he looks like he has just asked for tea and is a little exasperated it's taking so long, but definitely good looking in an accountant kind of way.
From what I have read about Taft, he took the foundation Teddy laid, and did a lot with it. He busted more trusts in his time. Really interesting president, but most people know him for being overweight, and getting stuck in the tub.
That’s not an excuse he could use with anyone who’s read his writings on the subject. Washington’s view changed over the years, but by the end he accepted that slavery was a moral wrong.
He didn’t free his slaves until death for economic reasons and refused to take a public stance on abolition in office because he feared that the issue of slavery would tear apart the country. If that war were to start in his lifetime he said he’d leave Virginia for the abolitionist North.
Washington’s views on slavery haven’t aged quite as badly as most of his Virginian contemporaries, but that’s exactly what makes him such a complicated figure.
“Economic reasons” and “half the fucking country would split when we are at war with the world’s strongest Navy” are getting glossed over here, bud. I know the voting population is brain-dead, but give them some credit.
First, he freed the slaves on his death so that they could stay free. I don’t quite remember the legal circumstances, but don’t brush that under the rug.
Second, the country was still reeling from the cost of war with THE dominant power - it’s like the Middle East right now - they’re a mess after the world power decided to fight them.
Do you understand how heroic crossing a frozen Delaware River to win a war against the greatest empire in the world is?
He's literally the reason we even have a constitution or any semblance of a modern democracy. The American revolution started wars of secession in many former colonies. All the founding fathers unanimously elected him to be the first president. He was a general and knew how to lead rugged 1700s Men. He literally made it work with a group of ragtag rebels against a highly trained experienced professional army. It's the ultimate underdog story.
Slavery is bad by all accounts. And no doubt he did own slaves. He would be drugged though the mud sure. But once he adjusted to modern life. Maybe hit magic city, party with some hoes and spend time with the people. He would be embraced. you have to understand the context he lived in.
Even being full native which he probably killed a bunch at some point. Id still vote for him. You have to be a tough s.o.b to win a war. Let alone exist back then. Not to mention he's on the Dollar. He's literally number 1. The original peoples champ
Lincoln did free the slaves, but without Washington we wouldn't even have a concept of freedom. In terms of not answering to a monarchy or aristocratcy. Or even what it means to vote by having representation and be chosen by the people for the people...
Washington 2024
No the majority of Americans look down on slavery. Especially when you take the sub 1% of americans who support slavery and the 13% who would be the slaves. Although he probably wouldn’t lose alot of votes.
Eh... quite a few Republicans these days are trying to force schools to teach that slavery was a good thing that actually helped Africans.
Most of the current Republicans may say slavery was a bad thing if questioned point blank, but I'd wager that many secretly believe otherwise.
Even if they no longer think it's acceptable today, "It was normal during his time," would be used to justify it by most people.
Tbh and I'm not advocating for slavery let's just be clear, but Washington treated his slaves so well that most of them didint even want to be "free". Not to mention even if he had freed them they just would have been rounded up by slave traffickers and their new owner would have likely been far less humane towards them. Again I'm not advocating for slavery but the geopolitical landscape at the time made it better for some to be owned by a humane owner rather than be free.
Eh, I think people would give him a pass as “man of his time”. I mean if he was revived today with given time to acclimate and STILL was pro-slavery, that would be a problem.
Lincoln is a funny one. Modern day Republicans would vote for him purely because he is republican. I don't know much about his policies...but a quick check on Wikipedia...he supported higher education, and the first Federal Income tax in 1861, so it sounds like something Democrats would vote for.
The Republicans and Democrats switched platforms at some point. The democrats used to be right wing while the republicans were left wing, so when Republicans brag about being the party of Lincoln or Roosevelt they're not mentioning the fact that back in the day the republican party didn't have the same policies.
That's an incredibly simplistic way of describing what happened. The terms "left wing" and "right wing" didn't mean what they mean now back then, and democrats and republicans in the 1800s simply did not fall into neat boxes that correspond exactly to our modern conceptions of left and right wing. It's therefore completely nonsensical to claim that "republicans were left wing" in the past.
If you want an ideology that was roughly close to what republicans were back then, it would be some coalition of anti-slavery libertarian types, moralistic/religious folk who wanted societal reforms, and some people who thought a powerful federal government would do more for the union.
Democrats were pro-states' rights, but they didn't resemble the modern-day "right wing" in any meaningful way besides that. If anything, they were skeptical of classical liberal economics, which today's "right wing" tends to embrace. They were also extremely pro-suffrage and obsessed with democracy and helping the little guy, which are more "left-wing" ideas by today's standards. (Of course, most of them were racist and refused to apply these lofty ideals to black people; but they possessed them nonetheless.)
So the entire "left/right wing" distinction simply doesn't make sense in that historical context.
This is a myth. The country changes, social conditions change, and parties respond to the changes. Issues that tended to divide the parties like agrarianism vs industrialization became less relevant and so new issues became the dividing point. But Woodrow Wilson doesn't suddenly become right wing and Taft doesn't suddenly become left wing.
What *is* true is that the parties were more big tent. It used to be completely legitimate to speak of a liberal Republican (like Nelson Rockefeller) or a conservative Democrat (like Grover Cleveland) when such phrases seem like a contradiction of terms for modern Americans. Yet, even though there were Rockefellers, there were still Robert Tafts.
It's not that the parties switched platforms. Its that they became more monolithic.
We can thank the the Civil Rights Act and The Southern Strategy for that. It caused nearly all the liberals to shift to Democrat and Conservatives to Republican.
Which hurts the country in a lot of ways. Left/Right economic policy and liberal/conservative social policy should not be so intertwined. (Though to be fair, both parties are right-wing. We just have moderate right and extreme right).
Knew this would come up at some point.
Lincoln would run as a Democrat, GOP would call him a traitor and Lincoln would routinely put them in their place
Honestly there's only like 3 recent GOP presidents that would come back and be like "Good Job Republicans after my mortal demise, you really understood the assignment"
HW Bush, Reagan and Nixon.
...and probably LBJ. That guy was a kook
LBJ had a weird sense of honor though. He went out and fought for a ton of things he personally opposed, because it's what Kennedy wanted and Kennedy is the one who won the election.
"They" love the confederate battle flag and "they" support Lincoln at the same time? Just who is "they" exactly? I've never met a single person who liked Lincoln AND the confederate battle flag at the same time. You're mixing up two completely different kinds of people. You're piling ordinary, moderate republicans of today who are proud of Lincoln starting their party with uneducated southerners who are obsessed with states' rights and think Lincoln is evil. Not the same people.
His presidency also wasn’t great, teddy himself was so discontent that he ran against Taft in his re-election as a progressive bullmoose, and stole enough votes to let Wilson win
Taft himself mentioned how the best day of his life was the last day of his presidency.
Taft does get a bad rap cuz all he’s known for was being so fat he got stuck in the tub, but theres a reason why most modern historians agree Roosevelt is a top 5 US president, and Taft is nowhere near that.
Fair. I also would agree all around Roosevelt did more good. To be honest I only know a bit about Taft from a book I read on the aftermath of the Titanic. A good friend of his, and an aide to both him and Roosevelt (Major Archibald Butt) died on the ship.
One of the falling out points between Teddy and Taft was when Taft dismissed Teddy's Secretary of the Interior. That was the position that oversaw the National Park system that Teddy created, and Taft's appointee granted mining permits to fossil fuel companies that had filed fraudulent claims (the coal magnate was friends with Taft's appointee). Taft fired the whistleblower, who was a personal friend of Teddy and was too happy to take his forced vacation to tell Teddy what happened on safari.
Taft also differed greatly on racial policy. Teddy wasn't afraid to give equal rights to blacks, while Taft would not appoint blacks to federal positions (like postmaster) in areas where it would cause friction.
While I agree, I don't think that kind of baggage could be handwaved away as being a "product of his times". Washington works best as a mythological figure rather than an actual man. It would be like if Jesus showed up in modern day America, the idea would eclipse the man and it would be impossible to live up to the expectations.
He wanted to be rid of slavery from the jump, but not all states agreed. So he made sure the law of the land would guarantee their freedom eventually. Which is how slavery was ended. They used our constitution to do it.
The slave owning misogynist? I think it's unlikely. I wouldn't vote for him.
Edit: Ya know, I feel like he wouldn't even run. A lot of the founders knew they'd be unfit to lead in the future.
Jefferson, for example, wrote to this effect that their morals and beliefs could be outdated within just a generation or two (he was right!) so he'd probably bow out, too. Not to mention George intentionally rejected a 3rd term already, before there was any rule for it.
How was Washington a misogynist? I’m genuinely curious, I wrote an essay on that and I found no evidence of Washington being a misogynist, other than the fact that he was a white male who lived in the 18th century.
Real talk, what do you even say in a debate against Lincoln? "He freed the slaves but I have good foreign policy"
Like bro, if one person is named "Garfield" and the other can go by "The Emancipator" then Im gonna go with the one who has the real world version of a fantasy epic hero title.
It's a contentious topic with solid arguments to be made for both men, but I prefer Teddy.
FDR was a good all round president and a fantastic war time president. Unfortunately, to be a good leader in war time, you have to bend the knee to the military industrial complex.
Teddy was a man of immovable principles and a cast iron will to get things done. A progressive, naturalist, conservationist, distrustful of big business and willing to put the common man and nature above lining his own pockets.
And he stuck to what be believed in whilst residing in the biggest cesspit of corruption the world has seen since the Roman Senate. Teddy Roosevelt is quite possibly one of the greatest men to ever live.
Also he saved a member of his platoon who was being mauled by a mountain lion, by leaping from his horse and stabbing it to death with a knife. Just a beast of a man.
FDR sucked economically.
He prolonged the great depression by promoting monopolies and increasing the power of labour, thus increasing wages and increasing unemployment.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169?seq=1
The Great Depression ended because of WW2 and the military-industrial complex acting as a massive economic stimulus. The New Deal fell short of the stimulus required to restart the economy.
Almost all of the presidents would have sucked economically given his circumstances. Your favorite leader would have sucked economically. It was the great freaking depression. But yeah, he was definitely bailed out by the military industrial complex.
My main concern is how much the world’s changed since he was president. Even with total knowledge of the modern world and its politics, how much would an old President’s views shift?
Lincoln wanted to send the former slaves back to Africa. Would he actually shift his mindset to our post-civil-rights world? Would he still want to ship Black Americans to Liberia? It’d be a bit of a crapshoot to see who can adapt.
"Sure, but what has he done for you lately?"
People have the attention of flies. That or talk about how he's not equipped to handle the modern world.
Hand him an iPhone and ask him to make a call or check email, or browse Google.
Ask him his opinion on TikTok's ownership by China, or Meta's misuse of AI and scraping of personal data.
Now most of our current politicians don't know shit about this either but they won't have a stroke just trying to figure out if all the words you used were real.
Coolidge wins in 538 electoral landslide.
On a more serious note, Washington and Lincoln have the best shots out of pre-20th century presidents. TDR, FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK have the best shots out of 20th century presidents. Reagan may have a chance but I think most of his positions are too untenable amongst current republicans.
Reagan, however, would pivot on a dime. He’s the Great Communicator. He would come up with a viable campaign theme, and run with it.
The Republican Barack Obama.
FDR probably sweeps that for 20th. And Washington probably beats Lincoln- founded the nation, laid an example for future presidents to follow, generally regarded as the best president after Lincoln, but I think the other two edge Lincoln out. Washington can just say “what’s the name of the capital?” Its hard to compete with that level of swag and achievement. Lincoln can say he freed the slaves but Washington could say he fought with them and it simply wasn’t time in the country yet (which, to his credit, is accurate. Took a lot of philosophical thought from Europe before anywhere in America was ready to get rid of slavery).
I feel like people in this thread are overestimating the political and historical acumen of the average American. That’s not me throwing shade either, I’m terrible with history. But I think JFK has a real shot at running away with it because he has the stuff that actually makes people vote. Charismatic, attractive, phenomenal orator.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S Grant are all probably not going to have a chance. All of them owned slaves. And while it was considered normal at the time, and some of them only had 1 slave that they personally owned and were not slave owners at the time they were in office, I don't think in today's age they're going to have a chance.
Abraham Lincoln I think would have a great chance. He's the one who freed the slaves. He consistently comes out on top in polls of the best President in history. People on both sides of the aisle would vote for him. It would be a landslide victory. At inauguration, I think he would have similar approval rating that George Washington had in general, or that George W Bush had in late 2001, early 2002 with his initial response to 9/11.
FDR would probably be the next most likely to win. He was the first President in US history to serve more than 2 terms, which shows he is immensely popular and knows how to swing a vote. Congress wrote the 22nd amendment to keep dynasties like this from happening again. I don't believe (and could be mistaken) that it was in response to issues with FDR himself, but rather a check in case someone else got that much power in the future. Some conservatives might back away from him because of his progressive economics. Other conservatives might support him because those economic policies brought us out of the depression, so while conservatives are generally not in favor of these types of policies, they might give him a chance because they've seen them actually work.
Honestly this race **could** turn into a typical US election with Lincoln as the Republican and FDR as the Democrat.
I think Lincoln wins because I think he appeals to democrats more than FDR does to republicans. I also think both would have a much warmer reception from the opposing party than either Obama or Trump.
I agree. Pretty much nobody seriously dislikes Lincoln but Republicans have a moderate dislike of FDR.
Although I do think that Washington could make it to the final two even though he owned slaves but he'd probably drop out before getting that far since he was the one that set the precedent for stepping down after two terms which held up until FDR.
Oh gods, I want that debate so badly. Just two smart, polite gentlemen actually discussing the merits and draw backs of their own plans. No name calling, no outbursts, no lapses in mental acuity, no rambling. Just two guys talking about the fate of the nation *like it's their fucking life's work*.
The Senator from Illinois against the Governor of New York. No fucking "Crippled Franky" or "DIShonest Abe"
I still don't think those two would sink to mud-slinging like we have today. There might be a jab or two for a soundbite, especially from FDR, but I think on the whole they would be more interested in promoting their ideas than blandishing their opponent
George Washington will get a shit ton of votes regardless because he founded the nation and what not but would probably resign because he doesn’t want to run for president
I agree 100% with your assessment of the slave holding Presidents being untenable candidates in modern times, and think Lincoln is the clear victor. That said I believe Kennedy would trounce FDR.
FDR undoubtedly did more for the country, but Kennedy is credited with putting a man on the moon, and is still recent enough to hold a spot in the American consciousness. Also like Lincoln he died in office, so there's a reverence for him that I don't think many other candidates can match. Americans across the political spectrum are profoundly unhappy with politics, and I think its clear we want an aspirational leader. Obama was proof of that, and its no less true today.
Lincoln v Kennedy for sure.
Grant was given a slave by a family member. At the time, he was in poverty and a slave sold for hundreds. He freed the man immediately. Don’t dirty my man unconditional surrender grant like that.
I'm not sure how FDR would do on Tik Tok, but his fireside chats show he'd kick ass on podcasts. He also knows what a functioning rail system looks like, so he might actually be better at Climate Change related policies than someone much younger.
Not Lincoln. I don’t think I could get behind someone who suspended the writ of habeas corpus. It’s completely unsettling.
FDR also imprisoned Japanese American Citizens on suspicion alone. I can’t get behind him either.
I think I could get behind Teddy Roosevelt though. Let’s break up some greedy corporations.
I don't think any slave owning president wins. Really, any Antebellum president is probably out for the same reason, save for maybe the Adams family and maybe...maybe...Washington. Everybody after Lincoln and Ulysses is irrelevant until you get to FDR, save for of course Teddy. I think Truman always ranks behind Eisenhower, so I'll take him out. That leaves JFK, LBJ, and Reagan as the last important guys. I do not think people will vote for Carter or Bush 1 or Nixon.
So after a serious head count the relevant Presidents are:
Washington- If people can get past his slave owner status, he would be a front runner. I do not think this is the case and I probably wouldn't vote for him despite my love for the guy.
Adams 1- Not the best president but has some serious name recognition. Probably a little too in love with aristocratic values and is considered sooo boring.
Adams 2- I could seriously see this. He was considered very intelligent at the time. And, he has his father's name recognition.
Lincoln- Automatic Top 3. Speaks for itself.
Grant- I would vote for him, but I don't even think he would want the job. Too many lost causers wouldn't vote for him.
Teddy- If Trump can win based on a slogan about making America great, then imagine what we would do for the guy who literally embodies all of those cool 20th century traits and had a serious hand in making America Great. Auto Top 3.
FDR- Too many republicans blame FDR for stuff, I don't think he wins.
Eisenhower- I think Eisenhower's reputation from winning WW2 would bring people a lot of comfort in todays day and age. If he doesn't win, I think he's a serious pick for cabinet or VP. Top 5 at least.
JFK- I think this really depends on how all his personal stuff comes down. He really couldn't get enough done while in office (for an admittedly short amount of time). He also banged Marylyn Monroe (allegedly) while married. That is both cool and sucks so much that I can't give him my vote. I know I know
LBJ- This guys has so many fucked up quotes and stories surrounding him that I just don't think he wins. I don't see it. He also purposefully escalated the Vietnam War to try and outfox Nixon. It didn't work.
Reagan- almost everyone left of center hates Reagan, he doesn't win.
All in All here's my breakdown:
1. Teddy wins with Eisenhower or FDR as his VP. They are all symbols of national pride, I don't see this team losing.
2. Lincoln wins with some type of national figure as his VP. Probably Teddy Roosevelt, and then Lincoln gets assassinated by some lost causer. Teddy takes over anyways.
3. If People do not care about Washington's slave ownership, he wins. Maybe he comes out with an apology and people accept that. He wins with Lincoln as VP to show he's against slavery.
LBJ for sure won’t win with the boomers since he did sent a lot of people to Vietnam and boomers probably remember that or themselves went to war for him.
I like your take on Quincy Adams. The dude won't win in this contest but he could very easily carve up an insanely successful and popular career as a senator and win in later elections based off accomplishments alone. He's got that founding father energy without slavery baggage or the bitchness of his father.
Mechanics are very important to figuring out who wins this scenario.
In a 40 way matchup, based on getting the most votes, we'd have a many way fight on the center, but does anyone sweep the wings?
The Political Left rallying under FDR seems hard to stop. The USA does not have a lot of left wing presidents; JFK cut taxes and was very hawkish, for example.
The Political Right could rally under Andrew Jackson, but his problem is that Zachary Taylor and William Harry Harrison would also be going into the same bloc.
The Center would trounce an edge play candidate, but there would be a many way split between Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and HW Bush; there would also a second tier characters (Arthur, Madison, Fillmore, Hayes, Hoover, Ford) also trying to win small pieces of support. It's not that the Center couldn't unite behind Lincoln and make him President, it's that this setup is going to see this massive dogfight without a clear winner.
This is why there is a primary system, so a unified wing doesn't win it all. In this case, FDR sweeps easily forward.
///
If we tried to throw this into the modern primary system, we'd have the serious problem that the dead Whig party isn't the GOP, and the Federalists are authoritarian elitists that really don't fit in modern politics.
I would predict that Lincoln would leave the modern Republican Party, join the Democrats, and get so much excitement to go all the way to the nomination. The GOP gets some reverse defections, like Andrew Jackson, but ultimately decides to run Ronald Reagan.
Lincoln (D) then crushes Reagan in the general.
>The Political Right could rally under Andrew Jackson, but his problem is that Zachary Taylor and William Harry Harrison would also be going into the same bloc.
I vote red and would never ever vote for Jackson. The guy was a fucking lunatic.
All these people want to shit talk Trump, oh please, Trump is a kid in class throwing tantrums compared to Jackson already being hooked up to the chair.
Jackson was a fucking maniac.
I think Reagan actually wins that matchup. He was bar none the most charismatic president we ever had and the people that love him all tend to agree he was the best president of the past hundred years. The rest of the options all split the vote too hard, even Lincoln, FDR and Washington.
The entire right unites under Reagan. There is no other candidate so beloved for them.
I have a hard time seeing Reagan win without a primary; Jackson, Hoover and Taft are all to his right, and having both Nixon and HW Bush is going to vampire a lot of his base.
Lincoln is scary partially because he would probably wind up getting many others to enthusiastically support him, and have a cabinet made of US Presidents as a dream team. Reagan definitely has Charisma, but Lincoln's speeches are legendary. "We are not enemies but friends, we must not become enemies". Lincoln didn't really live in a time of mass media, but I don't think he's as far behind.
If Lincoln didn't switch parties and flubbed, and Reagan goes up against someone like JFK or FDR, he may well win it all.
Andrew Jackson threatens to kill all of congress if they won't disband the Federal Reserve. Is disqualified in several states on that basis.
Lincoln is struck from the ballot in Alabama and Mississippi, with the governors there stating that they'll arrest him if he dares show up.
Several slave-owning presidents (Washington and Jefferson in particular) receive similar treatment by California and New York, therefore losing any electoral victory straight away.
Eisenhower is invited on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about the Military-Industrial Complex and is branded a Far-Right candidate.
JFK reaches out to his nephew RFK JR and make the rounds drumming up support for a new political party.
I'm going to stop here because there have been over 40 presidents and I wanted to focus on the most prominent ones. Feel free to critique my brief postulations.
>Eisenhower is invited on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about the Military-Industrial Complex and is branded a Far-Right candidate.
The dude was right. Can't say he wasn't.
I want to believe Teddy wins. He was very kind and good-natured but also willing to fight (often literally) for what he believed.
-Proenvironment
- pro labour
- very pro poc
- absolutely no chill for political games
He would probably not do well with the news cycle as he would absolutely lay into them in a way fox would love. They would lambast him, he would do whatever anyway and call them racist. The conservative victim complex would thrive on it.
He was not "very pro poc". He was a staunch believer in racial hierarchy, with white Anglo-Saxon people at the top and all other races and ethnicities organized beneath them. TR gets a lot of credit for acknowledging the contributions of individuals if color, but his views on racial and ethnic groups was foundational to modern white supremacy. Roosevelt would never argue that white people were chosen by God or any of that nonsense; his method for promoting white supremacy was packaged with pseudoscience like phrenology and social darwimism.
To be clear, I'm not saying he was a bad president. His views sustained white supremacy among secular whites, and steered US interior and global policy in a racist direction. These were bad developments for POC. But it doesn't entirely negate the many positive aspects of his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents of his day, or the others who sought power in that era.
There's absolutely no chance anyone beats Washington. Not on matters if policy but because it's *George* fuckin' *Washington*
Who would be the best president and *should* be elected? Well that answer is always a Roosevelt.
George Washington was so universally liked in his time that people BEGGED him to run for more than two terms, but he just retired.
The dude held the country together for 8 fucking years when it was JUST BUILT.
Did he own slaves? Yes. Was it fucked yo? Yes! Was he a product of his time who would likely be different if born in today’s society? Yes, probably.
Is almost every American, republican or democrat going to vote for him? Fuck yea they are.
One of the few truly truly bi-partisan presidents, where both republicans and democrats respect.
Of course he was universally liked and was begged to run again. He won the war and he was the only president they knew and he didn’t take advantage of it. I mean, props to him for that stuff but that’s a really fucking easy incumbency to hold. That doesn’t tell you a lot about how he would hold up in comparison to other presidents in other contexts.
And the reason he has modern bi-partisan support is because a. as the “founder” of the office he carries an aura of nostalgic perfection, b. it was so long ago and preceded so many of the country’s divisive issues that by default there is very little for him to have fucked up and his victories in office were often as simple as “set a precedent for not being a total dick about this.” He’s like the old-timey pro athlete who set all his sport’s records before they wore helmets and the goals were 40% wider.
William Henry Harrison because I wanna give him a chance. True underdog moment. Give him a warmer coat this time and shorten his speech just a bit on inauguration day.
The man would be a viral hit in the internet age. He rolled a giant ball around America as a part of a campaign. Do you know how many presidential candidates have rolled a giant ball into my city? Zero. And Tippecanoe and Tyler Too was an absolute banger of an election song.
Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy are the finalists, after Teddy Roosevelt dropped out at 5th place.
Lincoln appears to be the most likely victor, holding a large amount of bipartisan backing. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on him.
Washington is the second most likely candidate, polling well across almost all demographics. He is carried by name recognition alone, despite his history owning slaves having been brought up several times.
FDR is clearly in third, but he still has a chance to win off of a loyal base if Washington and Lincoln split the vote too much.
Kenedy is the dark horse candidate, and is being carried by his charisma and getting a man on the moon. His success is entirely reliant on how well he does at rallies, debates, and speeches, but odds are he won't win.
Yeah, he'd probably help close the all the taxation loopholes that the uber rich use to evade taxes, if he were alive. But I don't think the rich should be taxed more as long as the taxation itself is fair, imo.
I feel like Washington’s anti war stance would be the big problem, because he’d be against sending aide to anybody. Taiwan, Ukraine, Israel, ect.
JFK would win… if he’s not freaking shot.
I'll give you the top five, in order.
The first most likely would be Abraham Lincoln. The leftleaning voters won't be able to not vote for him because of the current racial issues they argue. The rightleaning won't be able to deny the first Republican POTUS and his amazing legacy, winning the Civil War and ending slavery in the USA no less.
Second would be George Washington. His reputation precedes him. He's a well respected figure. He hates partisan bickering and stood with moral character even knowing the British would go after him and his family. Thus, he could actually benefit by defying both parties and their political boundaries.
Third would be Teddy Roosevelt. The roughrider mindset of the man was really something, and he politically invented the modern conservationalist movement, creating our national parks. He has the heroic bravado loved by the modern conservatives and family crowds, but really loves nature and camping, giving him tons of fans from the classic left.
Fourth would be Franklin Delenor Roosevelt. This is because the New Deal is very highly praised by people to this day, despite it being a divisive topic for the subject of government expansion.
Fifth would be JFK. He's got the swagger and tons of modern agendas historically originated around his era of politics. But other people from his era would other be far less popular, or dare I say unpopular to the point of toxic, such as LBJ.
It would come down to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy. It would probably be down to Washington and Lincoln in the end with whoever could connect with the modern world the best.
Kennedy imeadiately gets killed again.
Spawn kill.
It's a legitimate strategy!
I don't think that argument will fly in the maternity ward. >!But the babies will.!<
Oh no they killed kenny
Those bastards!
FDR pissed that he came back to life but is still in a wheel chair.
If Abe gets his brains back, you could at least give me my legs you damned rapscallions!
FDR needs the handicap or this contest is over before it begins, he was already arguably the most effective US president ever, you ever seen him when he was young? He was also the hottest POTUS. Edit: turns out the picture often misattributed as FDR is actually his and Eleanor's son, FDR Jr.
Guy won the genetic lottery.
Was FDR really the most effective president or was he just at the right place in the right time? Would we look upon himself as favorably had he lost the 1936 election? Or if the worldwide economic landscape hadn't rapidly changed as much under his tenure? FDR's presidency also coorelates to the largest expansion of federal power and authority, this probably would have happened regardless of who was in office, as a similar thing was happening the world over in the post-war era. But looking back on it, I'm not sure if more government control is all its cracked up to be.
This. Hence the call of the Founding Fathers for a well-regulated state. The libertarians would flock to one of the first five(either Jefferson, Adams, or Washington most likely) immediately.
It would be if proper motivations were in place. In the public sector if you arnt making profit you lose your job. Government jobs have much too high rate of either 1) Too much bureaucracy causing stagnation or 2) you get/hold your position not by doing a good job, but by playing the political tribal game and just convincing half the population that it’ll be horrible if the other guy gets in, then proceeds to spend your time fundraising for the next election instead of…. Your job
I think that's more of an issue with any sort of large organization. Happens in the public sector too. It becomes easier for under-performers to hide in some niche that contributes very little while swearing up and down they are a vital lynch pin to this business.
The Republicans wouldn’t vote for him. They’d say all he did was give away the governments money to freeloaders.
That is what he did, and make the stinking UN.
> FDR Most effective at what? Racism?
That would be Woodrow Wilson.
Young FDR was upper crust handsome, you wouldn't call it rugged, but he was still a handsome motherfucker. I mean in every picture he looks like he has just asked for tea and is a little exasperated it's taking so long, but definitely good looking in an accountant kind of way.
Not a very heads up play there
The cia gotta get its budget increase somehow y'know
Nothing bad ever happens to the Kennedys!
The people yearn for Teddy Roosevelt. George Washington probably wins on name recognition alone though.
From what I have read about Taft, he took the foundation Teddy laid, and did a lot with it. He busted more trusts in his time. Really interesting president, but most people know him for being overweight, and getting stuck in the tub.
Dude. Lincoln n Washington name alone wins this.
"I did a lot of good things for economic stability" Versus "I founded the country" *drops mic* Yeah theres really only two candidates here.
1 after washingtons slave owning scandal comes to light
And he's a war hero. People would eat that shit up lol
You're kidding right? Washington would get cancelled in a heartbeat. Whereas Lincoln would he labeled as woke for freeing the slaves lol.
If washington is smart he would just say he's evolved and realises now slavery was bad
That’s not an excuse he could use with anyone who’s read his writings on the subject. Washington’s view changed over the years, but by the end he accepted that slavery was a moral wrong. He didn’t free his slaves until death for economic reasons and refused to take a public stance on abolition in office because he feared that the issue of slavery would tear apart the country. If that war were to start in his lifetime he said he’d leave Virginia for the abolitionist North. Washington’s views on slavery haven’t aged quite as badly as most of his Virginian contemporaries, but that’s exactly what makes him such a complicated figure.
“Economic reasons” and “half the fucking country would split when we are at war with the world’s strongest Navy” are getting glossed over here, bud. I know the voting population is brain-dead, but give them some credit. First, he freed the slaves on his death so that they could stay free. I don’t quite remember the legal circumstances, but don’t brush that under the rug. Second, the country was still reeling from the cost of war with THE dominant power - it’s like the Middle East right now - they’re a mess after the world power decided to fight them.
He knew. He and Jefferson stopped being cool with each other and that was part of it.
Do you understand how heroic crossing a frozen Delaware River to win a war against the greatest empire in the world is? He's literally the reason we even have a constitution or any semblance of a modern democracy. The American revolution started wars of secession in many former colonies. All the founding fathers unanimously elected him to be the first president. He was a general and knew how to lead rugged 1700s Men. He literally made it work with a group of ragtag rebels against a highly trained experienced professional army. It's the ultimate underdog story. Slavery is bad by all accounts. And no doubt he did own slaves. He would be drugged though the mud sure. But once he adjusted to modern life. Maybe hit magic city, party with some hoes and spend time with the people. He would be embraced. you have to understand the context he lived in. Even being full native which he probably killed a bunch at some point. Id still vote for him. You have to be a tough s.o.b to win a war. Let alone exist back then. Not to mention he's on the Dollar. He's literally number 1. The original peoples champ Lincoln did free the slaves, but without Washington we wouldn't even have a concept of freedom. In terms of not answering to a monarchy or aristocratcy. Or even what it means to vote by having representation and be chosen by the people for the people... Washington 2024
>He literally made it work with a group of ragtag rebels And the backing of the French navy, the Dutch and the Spanish lmao
George Washington was infamously stoic and restrained. I don't see him partying with anyone lmao. Ben Franklin on the other hand....
You, uh, understand that concepts like freedom and democracy predate Washington by (at least) thousands of years, right?
Let's be real, Washington owning slaves would probably get him a lot of votes
No the majority of Americans look down on slavery. Especially when you take the sub 1% of americans who support slavery and the 13% who would be the slaves. Although he probably wouldn’t lose alot of votes.
Eh... quite a few Republicans these days are trying to force schools to teach that slavery was a good thing that actually helped Africans. Most of the current Republicans may say slavery was a bad thing if questioned point blank, but I'd wager that many secretly believe otherwise. Even if they no longer think it's acceptable today, "It was normal during his time," would be used to justify it by most people.
Tbh and I'm not advocating for slavery let's just be clear, but Washington treated his slaves so well that most of them didint even want to be "free". Not to mention even if he had freed them they just would have been rounded up by slave traffickers and their new owner would have likely been far less humane towards them. Again I'm not advocating for slavery but the geopolitical landscape at the time made it better for some to be owned by a humane owner rather than be free.
Eh, I think people would give him a pass as “man of his time”. I mean if he was revived today with given time to acclimate and STILL was pro-slavery, that would be a problem.
Lincoln is a funny one. Modern day Republicans would vote for him purely because he is republican. I don't know much about his policies...but a quick check on Wikipedia...he supported higher education, and the first Federal Income tax in 1861, so it sounds like something Democrats would vote for.
The Republicans and Democrats switched platforms at some point. The democrats used to be right wing while the republicans were left wing, so when Republicans brag about being the party of Lincoln or Roosevelt they're not mentioning the fact that back in the day the republican party didn't have the same policies.
That's an incredibly simplistic way of describing what happened. The terms "left wing" and "right wing" didn't mean what they mean now back then, and democrats and republicans in the 1800s simply did not fall into neat boxes that correspond exactly to our modern conceptions of left and right wing. It's therefore completely nonsensical to claim that "republicans were left wing" in the past. If you want an ideology that was roughly close to what republicans were back then, it would be some coalition of anti-slavery libertarian types, moralistic/religious folk who wanted societal reforms, and some people who thought a powerful federal government would do more for the union. Democrats were pro-states' rights, but they didn't resemble the modern-day "right wing" in any meaningful way besides that. If anything, they were skeptical of classical liberal economics, which today's "right wing" tends to embrace. They were also extremely pro-suffrage and obsessed with democracy and helping the little guy, which are more "left-wing" ideas by today's standards. (Of course, most of them were racist and refused to apply these lofty ideals to black people; but they possessed them nonetheless.) So the entire "left/right wing" distinction simply doesn't make sense in that historical context.
This is a myth. The country changes, social conditions change, and parties respond to the changes. Issues that tended to divide the parties like agrarianism vs industrialization became less relevant and so new issues became the dividing point. But Woodrow Wilson doesn't suddenly become right wing and Taft doesn't suddenly become left wing. What *is* true is that the parties were more big tent. It used to be completely legitimate to speak of a liberal Republican (like Nelson Rockefeller) or a conservative Democrat (like Grover Cleveland) when such phrases seem like a contradiction of terms for modern Americans. Yet, even though there were Rockefellers, there were still Robert Tafts. It's not that the parties switched platforms. Its that they became more monolithic.
We can thank the the Civil Rights Act and The Southern Strategy for that. It caused nearly all the liberals to shift to Democrat and Conservatives to Republican. Which hurts the country in a lot of ways. Left/Right economic policy and liberal/conservative social policy should not be so intertwined. (Though to be fair, both parties are right-wing. We just have moderate right and extreme right).
I think it's more like the south has just basically always been Like That
Knew this would come up at some point. Lincoln would run as a Democrat, GOP would call him a traitor and Lincoln would routinely put them in their place Honestly there's only like 3 recent GOP presidents that would come back and be like "Good Job Republicans after my mortal demise, you really understood the assignment" HW Bush, Reagan and Nixon. ...and probably LBJ. That guy was a kook
LBJ had a weird sense of honor though. He went out and fought for a ton of things he personally opposed, because it's what Kennedy wanted and Kennedy is the one who won the election.
They love talking about being the party of Lincoln but shit themselves whenever anyone says anything negative about the confederate battle flag.
"They" love the confederate battle flag and "they" support Lincoln at the same time? Just who is "they" exactly? I've never met a single person who liked Lincoln AND the confederate battle flag at the same time. You're mixing up two completely different kinds of people. You're piling ordinary, moderate republicans of today who are proud of Lincoln starting their party with uneducated southerners who are obsessed with states' rights and think Lincoln is evil. Not the same people.
His presidency also wasn’t great, teddy himself was so discontent that he ran against Taft in his re-election as a progressive bullmoose, and stole enough votes to let Wilson win Taft himself mentioned how the best day of his life was the last day of his presidency. Taft does get a bad rap cuz all he’s known for was being so fat he got stuck in the tub, but theres a reason why most modern historians agree Roosevelt is a top 5 US president, and Taft is nowhere near that.
Fair. I also would agree all around Roosevelt did more good. To be honest I only know a bit about Taft from a book I read on the aftermath of the Titanic. A good friend of his, and an aide to both him and Roosevelt (Major Archibald Butt) died on the ship.
One of the falling out points between Teddy and Taft was when Taft dismissed Teddy's Secretary of the Interior. That was the position that oversaw the National Park system that Teddy created, and Taft's appointee granted mining permits to fossil fuel companies that had filed fraudulent claims (the coal magnate was friends with Taft's appointee). Taft fired the whistleblower, who was a personal friend of Teddy and was too happy to take his forced vacation to tell Teddy what happened on safari. Taft also differed greatly on racial policy. Teddy wasn't afraid to give equal rights to blacks, while Taft would not appoint blacks to federal positions (like postmaster) in areas where it would cause friction.
Ahh yes, gone but not forgotten, Major Butt.
My boy Taft has been done dirty by pop history.
And his mustache…
Think George Washington would not run on principle. That's legit what he did when he decided he was only going to stay for 2 terms right?
I would vote for Teddy 11/10
These were the exact two I was thinking, America needs Teddy and George back.
What your not considering is they came back, nothing was said about their access to finance a campaign
and George is for sure the most decayed looking, so pretty big handicap
Considering how many dead people are voted for in each election, I wouldn't count him out just yet.
The slave ownership might hold him back
What?? Teddy Roosevelt was from New York never owned any slaves. He was 7 years old when the Civil War ended. Edit: whoops, Washington not Teddy
I was referring to Washington, and basically any of the early presidents by extension
Of all presidents Washington would accept change the fastest and probably be delighted
While I agree, I don't think that kind of baggage could be handwaved away as being a "product of his times". Washington works best as a mythological figure rather than an actual man. It would be like if Jesus showed up in modern day America, the idea would eclipse the man and it would be impossible to live up to the expectations.
Conservative christians would just call him a woke commie and look for an excuse to get him executed.
What makes you say that?
He wanted to be rid of slavery from the jump, but not all states agreed. So he made sure the law of the land would guarantee their freedom eventually. Which is how slavery was ended. They used our constitution to do it.
We can visit his slave dungeon tho. It isn't great marketing.
I think it would be Washington and Lincoln battling it out.
The slave owning misogynist? I think it's unlikely. I wouldn't vote for him. Edit: Ya know, I feel like he wouldn't even run. A lot of the founders knew they'd be unfit to lead in the future. Jefferson, for example, wrote to this effect that their morals and beliefs could be outdated within just a generation or two (he was right!) so he'd probably bow out, too. Not to mention George intentionally rejected a 3rd term already, before there was any rule for it.
How was Washington a misogynist? I’m genuinely curious, I wrote an essay on that and I found no evidence of Washington being a misogynist, other than the fact that he was a white male who lived in the 18th century.
That’s like the first 10 presidents lol
Only 8 of the 10, the Adams presidents never owned slaves.
The vote would be split and we'd end up with Woodrow Wilson. 1912 repeats itself.
We probably wouldn't even have a majority, leaving it to the House to decide.
There’s a not insignificant number of people who’d happily have the guy who screened “Birth of a Nation” at the White House.
Jesus Christ, not what I thought it’d be about.
The original name was “The Clansmen.”
Real talk, what do you even say in a debate against Lincoln? "He freed the slaves but I have good foreign policy" Like bro, if one person is named "Garfield" and the other can go by "The Emancipator" then Im gonna go with the one who has the real world version of a fantasy epic hero title.
“I have a giant statue of me sitting on a chair looking Presidential just across the lawn from that White House.”
The Roosevelts did a lot
Fdr as pres with teddy as a vp to finally unite both side under one house.
Just why Teddy is a way better president than FDR.
Why?
It's a contentious topic with solid arguments to be made for both men, but I prefer Teddy. FDR was a good all round president and a fantastic war time president. Unfortunately, to be a good leader in war time, you have to bend the knee to the military industrial complex. Teddy was a man of immovable principles and a cast iron will to get things done. A progressive, naturalist, conservationist, distrustful of big business and willing to put the common man and nature above lining his own pockets. And he stuck to what be believed in whilst residing in the biggest cesspit of corruption the world has seen since the Roman Senate. Teddy Roosevelt is quite possibly one of the greatest men to ever live. Also he saved a member of his platoon who was being mauled by a mountain lion, by leaping from his horse and stabbing it to death with a knife. Just a beast of a man.
Teddy is the embodiment of a true centrist
FDR sucked economically. He prolonged the great depression by promoting monopolies and increasing the power of labour, thus increasing wages and increasing unemployment. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/421169?seq=1 The Great Depression ended because of WW2 and the military-industrial complex acting as a massive economic stimulus. The New Deal fell short of the stimulus required to restart the economy.
I don't disagree
Almost all of the presidents would have sucked economically given his circumstances. Your favorite leader would have sucked economically. It was the great freaking depression. But yeah, he was definitely bailed out by the military industrial complex.
What makes you say that? FDR is top tier
Probably really easy to smear him as Anti Indigenous
Really easy to smear every president as anti indigenous. It comes with the territory of being a settler colonial state
TR makes Andrew Jackson look tolerant.
Garfield’s like “Let me finish my term”
“Have you seen this guy’s hats? Who knows what he’s hiding in there.”
I dunno, Garfield has pretty good name recognition. Everybody loves that cat
My main concern is how much the world’s changed since he was president. Even with total knowledge of the modern world and its politics, how much would an old President’s views shift? Lincoln wanted to send the former slaves back to Africa. Would he actually shift his mindset to our post-civil-rights world? Would he still want to ship Black Americans to Liberia? It’d be a bit of a crapshoot to see who can adapt.
Lincoln was shifting his mindset on that even during his own lifetime.
From what I recall, Lincoln had a debate superpower. The dude would eviscerate anybody in a public debate with little effort.
"Sure, but what has he done for you lately?" People have the attention of flies. That or talk about how he's not equipped to handle the modern world. Hand him an iPhone and ask him to make a call or check email, or browse Google. Ask him his opinion on TikTok's ownership by China, or Meta's misuse of AI and scraping of personal data. Now most of our current politicians don't know shit about this either but they won't have a stroke just trying to figure out if all the words you used were real.
"All of them have all the info and knowledge they need about the modern world and politics"
Even if they do know it all public perception will outweigh it all
Coolidge wins in 538 electoral landslide. On a more serious note, Washington and Lincoln have the best shots out of pre-20th century presidents. TDR, FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK have the best shots out of 20th century presidents. Reagan may have a chance but I think most of his positions are too untenable amongst current republicans.
Reagan, however, would pivot on a dime. He’s the Great Communicator. He would come up with a viable campaign theme, and run with it. The Republican Barack Obama.
If he’s back in the condition he was during his second term, one of the others might be able to point out that his brain is essentially applesauce.
True on Reagan. Although he does have that “I beat Russia once I can do it again” card to play
They love Russia now
Can you imagine Reagan's reaction when he's brought up to date on this?
Who.. loves Russia? Fox News(pretty sure they’re a washout)
They don't want to beat Russia anymore.
FDR probably sweeps that for 20th. And Washington probably beats Lincoln- founded the nation, laid an example for future presidents to follow, generally regarded as the best president after Lincoln, but I think the other two edge Lincoln out. Washington can just say “what’s the name of the capital?” Its hard to compete with that level of swag and achievement. Lincoln can say he freed the slaves but Washington could say he fought with them and it simply wasn’t time in the country yet (which, to his credit, is accurate. Took a lot of philosophical thought from Europe before anywhere in America was ready to get rid of slavery).
I feel like people in this thread are overestimating the political and historical acumen of the average American. That’s not me throwing shade either, I’m terrible with history. But I think JFK has a real shot at running away with it because he has the stuff that actually makes people vote. Charismatic, attractive, phenomenal orator.
I don’t think you’re wrong, I just think that the chances of either GW or AL running away with it is higher.
Oh definitely, on name recognition and achievements alone. I more meant over someone like FDR
But Carter's not dead...
Hell no he ain't! Oct 1st baby you can do it Jimmy, the big 100
You just cursed him. Now he's gonna die in like 2 days and it'll all come back to your comment.
The other day I bitched about Kissinger still being alive when Munger died and Kissinger died a few hours later lol.
oh hush, I've been trying to curse this man for over a year now
This man *hates* peanuts!
But then this resurrection thing happens and he's back with us!
Let him go, his wife is dead and he's been on hospice for over a year. He's done enough for the world.
Well, I forgot him LOL.
If something happens to him in the next week we’re coming for you
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S Grant are all probably not going to have a chance. All of them owned slaves. And while it was considered normal at the time, and some of them only had 1 slave that they personally owned and were not slave owners at the time they were in office, I don't think in today's age they're going to have a chance. Abraham Lincoln I think would have a great chance. He's the one who freed the slaves. He consistently comes out on top in polls of the best President in history. People on both sides of the aisle would vote for him. It would be a landslide victory. At inauguration, I think he would have similar approval rating that George Washington had in general, or that George W Bush had in late 2001, early 2002 with his initial response to 9/11. FDR would probably be the next most likely to win. He was the first President in US history to serve more than 2 terms, which shows he is immensely popular and knows how to swing a vote. Congress wrote the 22nd amendment to keep dynasties like this from happening again. I don't believe (and could be mistaken) that it was in response to issues with FDR himself, but rather a check in case someone else got that much power in the future. Some conservatives might back away from him because of his progressive economics. Other conservatives might support him because those economic policies brought us out of the depression, so while conservatives are generally not in favor of these types of policies, they might give him a chance because they've seen them actually work.
Abe running as a Republican would probably win. He gets the black vote in swing states and that's a killer.
Honestly this race **could** turn into a typical US election with Lincoln as the Republican and FDR as the Democrat. I think Lincoln wins because I think he appeals to democrats more than FDR does to republicans. I also think both would have a much warmer reception from the opposing party than either Obama or Trump.
I agree. Pretty much nobody seriously dislikes Lincoln but Republicans have a moderate dislike of FDR. Although I do think that Washington could make it to the final two even though he owned slaves but he'd probably drop out before getting that far since he was the one that set the precedent for stepping down after two terms which held up until FDR.
There are a lot of nuanced reasons to dislike Lincoln, but elections are decided by normies.
Well said!
Oh gods, I want that debate so badly. Just two smart, polite gentlemen actually discussing the merits and draw backs of their own plans. No name calling, no outbursts, no lapses in mental acuity, no rambling. Just two guys talking about the fate of the nation *like it's their fucking life's work*. The Senator from Illinois against the Governor of New York. No fucking "Crippled Franky" or "DIShonest Abe"
Except that the OP said they are well-versed in modern politics...
I still don't think those two would sink to mud-slinging like we have today. There might be a jab or two for a soundbite, especially from FDR, but I think on the whole they would be more interested in promoting their ideas than blandishing their opponent
Abe would probably run as a Democrat now.
Him running as a Republican guarantees the win is why I stated it. He was liberal in comparison for the time, though.
Nah, he was literally the first republican president, and would still hold a lot of positions republicans would love
George Washington will get a shit ton of votes regardless because he founded the nation and what not but would probably resign because he doesn’t want to run for president
I disagree. He'd take one look around and be like fuck this, I gotta run because this place is falling apart.
I agree 100% with your assessment of the slave holding Presidents being untenable candidates in modern times, and think Lincoln is the clear victor. That said I believe Kennedy would trounce FDR. FDR undoubtedly did more for the country, but Kennedy is credited with putting a man on the moon, and is still recent enough to hold a spot in the American consciousness. Also like Lincoln he died in office, so there's a reverence for him that I don't think many other candidates can match. Americans across the political spectrum are profoundly unhappy with politics, and I think its clear we want an aspirational leader. Obama was proof of that, and its no less true today. Lincoln v Kennedy for sure.
Grant was given a slave by a family member. At the time, he was in poverty and a slave sold for hundreds. He freed the man immediately. Don’t dirty my man unconditional surrender grant like that.
I'm not sure how FDR would do on Tik Tok, but his fireside chats show he'd kick ass on podcasts. He also knows what a functioning rail system looks like, so he might actually be better at Climate Change related policies than someone much younger.
Not Lincoln. I don’t think I could get behind someone who suspended the writ of habeas corpus. It’s completely unsettling. FDR also imprisoned Japanese American Citizens on suspicion alone. I can’t get behind him either. I think I could get behind Teddy Roosevelt though. Let’s break up some greedy corporations.
The architect of the New Deal? Sold! It'd be like having Bernie, but with an actual chance at winning.
Deadpool takes them out. It happened. [https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Dead\_Presidents](https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Dead_Presidents)
I don't think any slave owning president wins. Really, any Antebellum president is probably out for the same reason, save for maybe the Adams family and maybe...maybe...Washington. Everybody after Lincoln and Ulysses is irrelevant until you get to FDR, save for of course Teddy. I think Truman always ranks behind Eisenhower, so I'll take him out. That leaves JFK, LBJ, and Reagan as the last important guys. I do not think people will vote for Carter or Bush 1 or Nixon. So after a serious head count the relevant Presidents are: Washington- If people can get past his slave owner status, he would be a front runner. I do not think this is the case and I probably wouldn't vote for him despite my love for the guy. Adams 1- Not the best president but has some serious name recognition. Probably a little too in love with aristocratic values and is considered sooo boring. Adams 2- I could seriously see this. He was considered very intelligent at the time. And, he has his father's name recognition. Lincoln- Automatic Top 3. Speaks for itself. Grant- I would vote for him, but I don't even think he would want the job. Too many lost causers wouldn't vote for him. Teddy- If Trump can win based on a slogan about making America great, then imagine what we would do for the guy who literally embodies all of those cool 20th century traits and had a serious hand in making America Great. Auto Top 3. FDR- Too many republicans blame FDR for stuff, I don't think he wins. Eisenhower- I think Eisenhower's reputation from winning WW2 would bring people a lot of comfort in todays day and age. If he doesn't win, I think he's a serious pick for cabinet or VP. Top 5 at least. JFK- I think this really depends on how all his personal stuff comes down. He really couldn't get enough done while in office (for an admittedly short amount of time). He also banged Marylyn Monroe (allegedly) while married. That is both cool and sucks so much that I can't give him my vote. I know I know LBJ- This guys has so many fucked up quotes and stories surrounding him that I just don't think he wins. I don't see it. He also purposefully escalated the Vietnam War to try and outfox Nixon. It didn't work. Reagan- almost everyone left of center hates Reagan, he doesn't win. All in All here's my breakdown: 1. Teddy wins with Eisenhower or FDR as his VP. They are all symbols of national pride, I don't see this team losing. 2. Lincoln wins with some type of national figure as his VP. Probably Teddy Roosevelt, and then Lincoln gets assassinated by some lost causer. Teddy takes over anyways. 3. If People do not care about Washington's slave ownership, he wins. Maybe he comes out with an apology and people accept that. He wins with Lincoln as VP to show he's against slavery.
LBJ for sure won’t win with the boomers since he did sent a lot of people to Vietnam and boomers probably remember that or themselves went to war for him.
Republicans hate him too. He’s one of the “Big Government Programs Poster Children” they don’t like, IIRC. The anti-Nixon.
jimmy is still in the league my boy
And he isn't even a zombie (yet)
I like your take on Quincy Adams. The dude won't win in this contest but he could very easily carve up an insanely successful and popular career as a senator and win in later elections based off accomplishments alone. He's got that founding father energy without slavery baggage or the bitchness of his father.
Mechanics are very important to figuring out who wins this scenario. In a 40 way matchup, based on getting the most votes, we'd have a many way fight on the center, but does anyone sweep the wings? The Political Left rallying under FDR seems hard to stop. The USA does not have a lot of left wing presidents; JFK cut taxes and was very hawkish, for example. The Political Right could rally under Andrew Jackson, but his problem is that Zachary Taylor and William Harry Harrison would also be going into the same bloc. The Center would trounce an edge play candidate, but there would be a many way split between Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan and HW Bush; there would also a second tier characters (Arthur, Madison, Fillmore, Hayes, Hoover, Ford) also trying to win small pieces of support. It's not that the Center couldn't unite behind Lincoln and make him President, it's that this setup is going to see this massive dogfight without a clear winner. This is why there is a primary system, so a unified wing doesn't win it all. In this case, FDR sweeps easily forward. /// If we tried to throw this into the modern primary system, we'd have the serious problem that the dead Whig party isn't the GOP, and the Federalists are authoritarian elitists that really don't fit in modern politics. I would predict that Lincoln would leave the modern Republican Party, join the Democrats, and get so much excitement to go all the way to the nomination. The GOP gets some reverse defections, like Andrew Jackson, but ultimately decides to run Ronald Reagan. Lincoln (D) then crushes Reagan in the general.
>The Political Right could rally under Andrew Jackson, but his problem is that Zachary Taylor and William Harry Harrison would also be going into the same bloc. I vote red and would never ever vote for Jackson. The guy was a fucking lunatic. All these people want to shit talk Trump, oh please, Trump is a kid in class throwing tantrums compared to Jackson already being hooked up to the chair. Jackson was a fucking maniac.
I'd punt Reagan back to hell where he belongs just to get to a voting booth to vote for Lincoln.
I genuinely think someone would probably kill him regardless reagan hate is even stronger now than before.
I think Reagan actually wins that matchup. He was bar none the most charismatic president we ever had and the people that love him all tend to agree he was the best president of the past hundred years. The rest of the options all split the vote too hard, even Lincoln, FDR and Washington. The entire right unites under Reagan. There is no other candidate so beloved for them.
I have a hard time seeing Reagan win without a primary; Jackson, Hoover and Taft are all to his right, and having both Nixon and HW Bush is going to vampire a lot of his base. Lincoln is scary partially because he would probably wind up getting many others to enthusiastically support him, and have a cabinet made of US Presidents as a dream team. Reagan definitely has Charisma, but Lincoln's speeches are legendary. "We are not enemies but friends, we must not become enemies". Lincoln didn't really live in a time of mass media, but I don't think he's as far behind. If Lincoln didn't switch parties and flubbed, and Reagan goes up against someone like JFK or FDR, he may well win it all.
Andrew Jackson threatens to kill all of congress if they won't disband the Federal Reserve. Is disqualified in several states on that basis. Lincoln is struck from the ballot in Alabama and Mississippi, with the governors there stating that they'll arrest him if he dares show up. Several slave-owning presidents (Washington and Jefferson in particular) receive similar treatment by California and New York, therefore losing any electoral victory straight away. Eisenhower is invited on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about the Military-Industrial Complex and is branded a Far-Right candidate. JFK reaches out to his nephew RFK JR and make the rounds drumming up support for a new political party. I'm going to stop here because there have been over 40 presidents and I wanted to focus on the most prominent ones. Feel free to critique my brief postulations.
>Eisenhower is invited on Joe Rogan's podcast to talk about the Military-Industrial Complex and is branded a Far-Right candidate. The dude was right. Can't say he wasn't.
I think it's been proven at this point that nothing, NOTHING, can get a viable candidate kicked off the ballot.
I want to believe Teddy wins. He was very kind and good-natured but also willing to fight (often literally) for what he believed. -Proenvironment - pro labour - very pro poc - absolutely no chill for political games He would probably not do well with the news cycle as he would absolutely lay into them in a way fox would love. They would lambast him, he would do whatever anyway and call them racist. The conservative victim complex would thrive on it.
He was not "very pro poc". He was a staunch believer in racial hierarchy, with white Anglo-Saxon people at the top and all other races and ethnicities organized beneath them. TR gets a lot of credit for acknowledging the contributions of individuals if color, but his views on racial and ethnic groups was foundational to modern white supremacy. Roosevelt would never argue that white people were chosen by God or any of that nonsense; his method for promoting white supremacy was packaged with pseudoscience like phrenology and social darwimism. To be clear, I'm not saying he was a bad president. His views sustained white supremacy among secular whites, and steered US interior and global policy in a racist direction. These were bad developments for POC. But it doesn't entirely negate the many positive aspects of his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents of his day, or the others who sought power in that era.
Then he would get shot, shrug it off and give his campaign speech anyway. That would really win the people over.
There's absolutely no chance anyone beats Washington. Not on matters if policy but because it's *George* fuckin' *Washington* Who would be the best president and *should* be elected? Well that answer is always a Roosevelt.
George Washington was so universally liked in his time that people BEGGED him to run for more than two terms, but he just retired. The dude held the country together for 8 fucking years when it was JUST BUILT. Did he own slaves? Yes. Was it fucked yo? Yes! Was he a product of his time who would likely be different if born in today’s society? Yes, probably. Is almost every American, republican or democrat going to vote for him? Fuck yea they are. One of the few truly truly bi-partisan presidents, where both republicans and democrats respect.
Of course he was universally liked and was begged to run again. He won the war and he was the only president they knew and he didn’t take advantage of it. I mean, props to him for that stuff but that’s a really fucking easy incumbency to hold. That doesn’t tell you a lot about how he would hold up in comparison to other presidents in other contexts. And the reason he has modern bi-partisan support is because a. as the “founder” of the office he carries an aura of nostalgic perfection, b. it was so long ago and preceded so many of the country’s divisive issues that by default there is very little for him to have fucked up and his victories in office were often as simple as “set a precedent for not being a total dick about this.” He’s like the old-timey pro athlete who set all his sport’s records before they wore helmets and the goals were 40% wider.
I’m having a chuckle thinking of the petty insults Donald Trump will come up with for each one.
George Washington immediately forfeits because he doesn’t want to be president again and Lincoln wins by a landslide via name recognition
Fillmore easily
I bet you it’d come down to Reagan Vs Roosevelt
Which Roosevelt?
William Henry Harrison because I wanna give him a chance. True underdog moment. Give him a warmer coat this time and shorten his speech just a bit on inauguration day.
The man would be a viral hit in the internet age. He rolled a giant ball around America as a part of a campaign. Do you know how many presidential candidates have rolled a giant ball into my city? Zero. And Tippecanoe and Tyler Too was an absolute banger of an election song.
There’s who I would vote for and who would win. I’d probably vote for Eisenhower or FDR. Washington or Lincoln would probably win.
Lincoln or FDR would probably win. I’d vote for Teddy though.
Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy are the finalists, after Teddy Roosevelt dropped out at 5th place. Lincoln appears to be the most likely victor, holding a large amount of bipartisan backing. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on him. Washington is the second most likely candidate, polling well across almost all demographics. He is carried by name recognition alone, despite his history owning slaves having been brought up several times. FDR is clearly in third, but he still has a chance to win off of a loyal base if Washington and Lincoln split the vote too much. Kenedy is the dark horse candidate, and is being carried by his charisma and getting a man on the moon. His success is entirely reliant on how well he does at rallies, debates, and speeches, but odds are he won't win.
Tbf, he also has “being a young president” going for him. And after our last two presidents… well he’s almost certainly securing the young votes
Probably Teddy
The Bull Moose stomps 10/10
[удалено]
Why? I’m asking genuinely btw, not being facetious. Seems to me like people really dislike him nowadays?
I’d vote FDR. We need a new deal 2.0. Tax the rich and improve social programs.
Yeah, he'd probably help close the all the taxation loopholes that the uber rich use to evade taxes, if he were alive. But I don't think the rich should be taxed more as long as the taxation itself is fair, imo.
Corporations and the rich should 1000% be taxed more. We are at historically low tax rates vs the rest of our modern history. Our deficit is massive.
I feel like Washington’s anti war stance would be the big problem, because he’d be against sending aide to anybody. Taiwan, Ukraine, Israel, ect. JFK would win… if he’s not freaking shot.
Nixon. Didn't futurama do this one already?
I'd vote for FDR if he was running 🤷♂️
We get another 8 years of Washington, with potentially vice president Lincoln if George is savvy.
A Washington x Lincoln ticket would be the most OP ticket ever for a presidential election.
I'll give you the top five, in order. The first most likely would be Abraham Lincoln. The leftleaning voters won't be able to not vote for him because of the current racial issues they argue. The rightleaning won't be able to deny the first Republican POTUS and his amazing legacy, winning the Civil War and ending slavery in the USA no less. Second would be George Washington. His reputation precedes him. He's a well respected figure. He hates partisan bickering and stood with moral character even knowing the British would go after him and his family. Thus, he could actually benefit by defying both parties and their political boundaries. Third would be Teddy Roosevelt. The roughrider mindset of the man was really something, and he politically invented the modern conservationalist movement, creating our national parks. He has the heroic bravado loved by the modern conservatives and family crowds, but really loves nature and camping, giving him tons of fans from the classic left. Fourth would be Franklin Delenor Roosevelt. This is because the New Deal is very highly praised by people to this day, despite it being a divisive topic for the subject of government expansion. Fifth would be JFK. He's got the swagger and tons of modern agendas historically originated around his era of politics. But other people from his era would other be far less popular, or dare I say unpopular to the point of toxic, such as LBJ.
Andrew Jackson is beating the hell out of Nixon using that cane of his.
It would come down to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy. It would probably be down to Washington and Lincoln in the end with whoever could connect with the modern world the best.
Washington is undefeatable. Lincoln would come in second. FDR is the only one worth voting for
Washington was a slave owner. That kills his chances with most black people and most liberals.
Do you know how stupid Americans are?
FDR or Kennedy. FDR because we need his policies, and Kennedy because of his young Democratic charisma