PDA

View Full Version : Are there any Democrats of the last 100 years you would've voted for (for President)?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 05:05 PM
Well...?

1900: William Jennings Bryan
1904: Alton B. Parker
1908: William Jennings Bryan
1912: Woodrow Wilson
1916: Woodrow Wilson
1920: James M. Cox
1924: John W. Davis
1929: Al Smith
1932: FDR
1936: FDR
1940: FDR
1944: FDR
1948: Harry S. Truman
1952: Adlai Stevenson
1956: Adlai Stevenson
1960: John F. Kennedy
1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson
1968: Hubert Humphrey
1972: George McGovern
1976: Jimmy Carter
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Walter Mondale
1989: Michael Dukakis
1993: Bill Clinton
1996: Bill Clinton
2000: Albert Gore
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama

PoliCon
04-07-2011, 05:10 PM
Out of the bunch - I find Bryan to be the best choice - but I wouldn't even vote for him.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 05:15 PM
Out of the bunch - I find Bryan to be the best choice - but I wouldn't even vote for him.

Personally I never understood why Dukakis lost...He seemed like a reasonable guy. It really seems like it came down to that controversial issue--the death penalty and his (IMO, insane) feelings on it. But an election should never, or at the very least, not often be a single issue race. Especially one that in 1988 wasn't that important.

fettpett
04-07-2011, 05:36 PM
Personally I never understood why Dukakis lost...He seemed like a reasonable guy. It really seems like it came down to that controversial issue--the death penalty and his (IMO, insane) feelings on it. But an election should never, or at the very least, not often be a single issue race. Especially one that in 1988 wasn't that important.

um...he was up against the insanely popular Regan VP in GHW Bush, the economy was strong, the Soviets were on the brink of collapse

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 05:38 PM
um...he was up against the insanely popular Regan VP in GHW Bush, the economy was strong, the Soviets were on the brink of collapse

Eh I guess--But I don't think GWH Bush had any of the charisma of Reagan, and he inherited the economic boom; he didn't create it. None of the conditions that were in 1988 were the work of George Bush; He simply benefited from them. Yes, I know, such is the way of politics, but it's a shame.

PoliCon
04-07-2011, 05:38 PM
Dukakis came off as a creeply little idiot - just like Nixon came off bad when he debated FDR without shaving.

Bailey
04-07-2011, 05:39 PM
Personally I never understood why Dukakis lost...He seemed like a reasonable guy. It really seems like it came down to that controversial issue--the death penalty and his (IMO, insane) feelings on it. But an election should never, or at the very least, not often be a single issue race. Especially one that in 1988 wasn't that important.

Are you fucking kidding me? get your head out of your ass, you've could have taking taken that issue away (and not a small issue in and of itself) and he still would've lost by a large margin. His whole take on the criminal justice system was fucking insane.

He is a small wenie from Mass, no way in hell he had a chance. Tax and spend liberals dont win unless they can bullshit the voting public. (

Bailey
04-07-2011, 05:41 PM
No I wouldn't vote for anyone with a D next to there name on general principals, if I didn't like the R I wouldn't vote at all.

fettpett
04-07-2011, 06:55 PM
Eh I guess--But I don't think GWH Bush had any of the charisma of Reagan, and he inherited the economic boom; he didn't create it. None of the conditions that were in 1988 were the work of George Bush; He simply benefited from them. Yes, I know, such is the way of politics, but it's a shame.

Bush had political history well before becoming VP, he was a Congressmen, Ambassador, CIA Director and other positions. His time as VP just enhanced it. He was wildly popular and really shouldn't have lost in 1992, take Perot's 19% and give it to Bush and he crushes Clinton pretty handily.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 07:17 PM
Bush had political history well before becoming VP, he was a Congressmen, Ambassador, CIA Director and other positions. His time as VP just enhanced it. He was wildly popular and really shouldn't have lost in 1992, take Perot's 19% and give it to Bush and he crushes Clinton pretty handily.

Yeah but he himself said he lacked the "vision thing." I don't know that he had any real vision for the next four years. And given Perot's large gains, it's obvious the country wanted something different--Maybe not Clinton, and not Perot, but also not Bush. The country was in the midst of a (mild) recession in 1991, 1992, wasn't it? That can make people very easily forget all the good things a President has done; the public tends to have short term memory like that. Add in the fact that he had (in comparison to Clinton) no charisma. Plus him welching on the whole "Read My Lips..." thing pissed off a lot of Republicans (and the people in general) from what I've read. If the election had been in January 1992, right after the USSR fell and the successful Gulf War, he would won in a landslide (IMO)...But things have a way of rapidly changing in a matter of months.

fettpett
04-07-2011, 07:48 PM
Yeah but he himself said he lacked the "vision thing." I don't know that he had any real vision for the next four years. And given Perot's large gains, it's obvious the country wanted something different--Maybe not Clinton, and not Perot, but also not Bush. The country was in the midst of a (mild) recession in 1991, 1992, wasn't it? That can make people very easily forget all the good things a President has done; the public tends to have short term memory like that. Add in the fact that he had (in comparison to Clinton) no charisma. Plus him welching on the whole "Read My Lips..." thing pissed off a lot of Republicans (and the people in general) from what I've read. If the election had been in January 1992, right after the USSR fell and the successful Gulf War, he would won in a landslide (IMO)...But things have a way of rapidly changing in a matter of months.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ look at the 1992 election, and look how closely Bush and Clinton were in a lot of states, if it had just been Bush and Clinton, Bush would have crushed him, hell shift a few thousand votes in about 5 states and Bush wins them, there is a "what if" button at the bottom

Madisonian
04-07-2011, 07:53 PM
Dukakis came off as a creeply little idiot - just like Nixon came off bad when he debated FDR without shaving.

Um... don't you mean JFK there, bud?:o

Madisonian
04-07-2011, 07:55 PM
Well...?

1900: William Jennings Bryan
1904: Alton B. Parker
1908: William Jennings Bryan
1912: Woodrow Wilson
1916: Woodrow Wilson
1920: James M. Cox
1924: John W. Davis
1929: Al Smith
1932: FDR
1936: FDR
1940: FDR
1944: FDR
1948: Harry S. Truman
1952: Adlai Stevenson
1956: Adlai Stevenson
1960: John F. Kennedy
1964: Lyndon Baines Johnson
1968: Hubert Humphrey
1972: George McGovern
1976: Jimmy Carter
1980: Jimmy Carter
1984: Walter Mondale
1989: Michael Dukakis
1993: Bill Clinton
1996: Bill Clinton
2000: Albert Gore
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama

No.

NJCardFan
04-07-2011, 08:16 PM
Personally I never understood why Dukakis lost...He seemed like a reasonable guy. It really seems like it came down to that controversial issue--the death penalty and his (IMO, insane) feelings on it. But an election should never, or at the very least, not often be a single issue race. Especially one that in 1988 wasn't that important.

Being around and voting back then I can tell you that the consensus was that Dukakis was too liberal.

PoliCon
04-07-2011, 10:22 PM
Um... don't you mean JFK there, bud?:o

You knew who I meant :p

Madisonian
04-07-2011, 10:26 PM
You knew who I meant :p

Unfortunately, yes I did. Have I been on this board too long already?:(:eek:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 10:27 PM
You guys would've liked Alton Parker (1904), I think. He was a Bourbon Democrat, meaning he was a Democrat who was a Classical Liberal, which would be considered akin to a Conservative or Libertarian today. An example of a Bourbon Democrat was Grover Cleveland, who as President vetoed tons and tons of legislation solely on the basis that there was no Constitutional basis for the legislation. Judge Andrew Napolitano has called Cleveland the second greatest defender of the Constitution next to Jefferson himself.

"Bourbon Democrat was a term used in the United States from 1876 to 1904 to refer to a member of the Democratic Party, conservative or classical liberal, especially one who supported President Grover Cleveland in 1884–1888/1892–1896 and Alton B. Parker in 1904. After 1904, the Bourbons faded away. Woodrow Wilson, who had been a Bourbon, came to terms in 1912 with the leading opponent of the Bourbons, William Jennings Bryan; Bryan endorsed Wilson for the Democratic nomination, and Wilson named Bryan Secretary of State. The term "Bourbon" was mostly used disparagingly, by critics complaining of old-fashioned viewpoints.[1]

Bourbon Democrats represented business interests, generally supporting the goals of banking and railroads but opposed to subsidies for them and unwilling to protect them from competition. Bourbon Democrats were promoters of laissez-faire capitalism (which included opposition to the protectionism that the Republicans were then advocating). They opposed imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion, fought for the gold standard, and opposed bimetallism. Strong supporters of reform movements such as the Civil Service Reform and opponents of the corrupt city bosses, Bourbons led the fight against the Tweed Ring. The anticorruption theme earned the votes of many Republican Mugwumps in 1884.[2]"

Rockntractor
04-07-2011, 10:33 PM
Unfortunately, yes I did. Have I been on this board too long already?:(:eek:

Were those the only two presidents that had initials?:confused:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
04-07-2011, 10:44 PM
Were those the only two presidents that had initials?:confused:

No, there was LBJ.