Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The interesting "what if" is "what if John C Breckinridge had defeated Abraham Lincoln for President? Vice President before the war, he wanted compromise to preserve the union, but once war came, fought for the Confederacy. Would there have been no Civil War? Would it have come later? What would have happened with regard to slavery? What would our current national condition be today? Think of how much of our current situation stems from the results of that one election.
(Please please don't let this thread disappear down that rabbit hole... )
The more interesting question, rather than "greatest loser," might be what would have happened had another/stronger/better candidate won over our notoriously weak Presidents - Buchanan, et al.? What would a second Ford term have brought?
Goldwater by far. LBJ greatly expanded the welfare state which permanently changed our culture and had many negative ramifications. It destroyed the American family in all social classes below the upper middle class.
Define "greatest." Biggest economy booster? Best for law and order? Best for social awareness? Best for international relations? Best for understanding and using balance of power? Best for religious freedom? Best for stepping back and letting the country and economy run itself?
I, for one, freely admit not knowing all the factors and behind the scenes stuff that work to help an administration succeed. Also, unlike Hari Seldon, I have no idea what path will lead to the best possible future in 1,000 years.
Any answer to the OP question is less history that a reflection of the current values and knowledge of the responder. I sometime muse on what would have happened if Snoopy had been the popular choice.
I know, if Goldwater had been elected he would have gotten us mired down in a war in Vietnam costing maybe thousands of lives. Sure glad Johnson was reelected!
my father in law, us ranger, said that lbj was the only politician that kept a promise he told me. in the 64 election, he tells me, that lbj said that a vote for goldwater meant he'd go to vietnam. my father-in-law voted for goldwater and sure enough, he ended up in vietnam.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
I don't know. There is a faction that believes a two-term JFK would have become, if not a disastrous administration, at least a far, far less highly regarded one. "Being a hero is dying at the right time." - perhaps never more true than with JFK. I have a colleague who is very, very knowledgeable about spaceflight history, and he maintains the man who put us on the Moon was... Oswald. JFK was already preparing to cut funding for NASA and the lunar missions, pushing them out ten years despite his stirring speeches. With his shocking death, Johnson had no choice to but make it his monument, and "one small step."
RFK never had a chance to lead, but not everything about his policies and intents was as wondrous as those of his brother's earliest years. I think the times would have dragged him down to, if not Nixon level problems, at least the mire that Eisenhower had to navigate. Both K's had the idea that not all the rules applied to them, which is not going to turn out well.
I'm beginning to believe that trait could be ascribed to a very large percentage of the men who've occupied the White House.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
I'm not the only one. In his novel Timescape, Greg Benford postulates a two-term JFK followed by RFK, who got caught in a dreadful scandal involving Oval Office taping... the idea that "you can't motorboat until it's time to motorboat, but you can't avoid it, either.")
I don't see a novel's plot as evidence of much besides the author's imagination.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,381,135 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude
(Please please don't let this thread disappear down that rabbit hole... )
The more interesting question, rather than "greatest loser," might be what would have happened had another/stronger/better candidate won over our notoriously weak Presidents - Buchanan, et al.? What would a second Ford term have brought?
Ford had a fatal flaw we seldom if ever see in politicians anymore, he put the country ahead of his career. Personally, I would have been delighted to see Nixon placed in stocks on the National Mall, but in the long run I think Ford did the right thing.
I'm beginning to believe that trait could be ascribed to a very large percentage of the men who've occupied the White House.
Not true. The number of Presidents who actually bent the rules to suit their whims is small and usually driven by outside forces - Lincoln with habeas corpus, etc.
(I don't consider personal lapses - alcoholism, depression, satyriasis - to be part of that assessment.)
Quote:
I don't see a novel's plot as evidence of much besides the author's imagination.
It was a mildly amusing aside and meant as nothing else. The only relevant point is that not everyone sees JFK's assassination as a wholly negative historical factor.
McCain was a candidate in 2000. He was bounced during the Republican primary elections. The Iraq war would likely not have happened, and the fight against AQ and UBL would have been completed before 2008.
McCain was a candidate in 2000. He was bounced during the Republican primary elections. The Iraq war would likely not have happened, and the fight against AQ and UBL would have been completed before 2008.
McCain frustrated the hell out of me and many other nonpartisan, centrist voters. As a senator, he had my full admiration and respect - one of the few R's about which I could say that, without reservation.
As a candidate, he turned into a wishy-washy sock puppet mouthing platitudes and saddled himself with what was once an unfathomably unsuitable and unqualified veep.
And then turned back into a hardass, principled senator.
I don't know what kind of President he would have made. For one thing, willingness to go to war and use military might tends to be inversely proportional to actual military service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
