Dem
51
GOP
49
Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:
A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada, asks: I enjoyed reading about the best presidents America never had. But who was the worst president America managed to avoid, and why do you say so?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
R.M.S. in Lebanon, CT: I would say the worst presidential candidate the U.S. avoided electing was Lyndon LaRouche. He began his career as an avowed communist, and later embraced far-right conspiracy theories. He ran for president several times. He was also a convicted fraudster. Despite his criminality, he was able to raise a lot of money as a candidate. His followers were very aggressive, and harassed people critical of his campaigns. They never tried to attack the U.S. Capitol, however...
B.N. in Canton, MU: The worst president we never had was Huey Long. If he hadn't been assassinated, we could essentially have had Donald Trump 80 years early, when facing a worldwide depression as well as German horrors and attempts at world domination.
G.W. in Oxnard, CA: I nominate Pat Paulsen for the worst potential president. For those who don't know who he was, good far you. He was a comedian who "ran for president" repeatedly. He was remarkably prophetic and far ahead of his time. Still, he laid the groundwork for taking the presidency with such lack of seriousness that it may have helped to justify voting for a total buffoon for president. Of course, that buffoon Millard Fillmore became president long before Paulsen ran, so maybe there is precedent.
J.B. in Hutto, TX: Without question, the worst president we managed to avoid was George B. McClellan. Had he defeated Lincoln in the 1864 election, it is entirely possible that he would have implemented a ceasefire with the Confederacy. That was the official policy of the Democratic Party at the time, and he would have owed his election to Copperhead figures like Manton Marble and Clement Vallandigham. As Lincoln himself pointed out, had such a ceasefire been implemented, the political will to resume fighting would not have been there. Democrats would not have supported a resumption of the war, and Republicans would have seen further fighting as being not worth it if the government abandoned the abolition of slavery as a war aim, which McClellan certainly would have done. Consequently, it is not going too far to say that McClellan winning the 1864 election would have resulted in Confederate independence and the indefinite perpetuation of slavery.
Moreover, notwithstanding his obvious talent for organization and administration, McClellan had the worst sort of personality for a public figure: a weak-willed coward who somehow also had a messiah complex. He couldn't tolerate the slightest criticism. He always blamed others for his own failings. Whenever his army was fighting a battle, McClellan would head as far to the rear as possible, even to the point of boarding a gunboat and sailing 10 miles away (as he did during the Battle of Malvern Hill). As he proved at the Battle of Antietam, when he could have won the war, he lacked the decisive mindset that is necessary for any person to accomplish great things. Moral cowardice is, in my view, an obvious disqualification for the presidency.
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD: George Wallace, 1968. An overt racist with 4, possibly 5 Supreme Court nominations. His worst impulses would probably have been stymied by the Senate, but no executive enforcement of VRA/CRA combined with mounting antipathy toward Vietnam likely would have led to sustained domestic unrest/riots. Outreach to China was unlikely, tensions with USSR would probably have increased. And Secret Service protection would mean he probably doesn't get shot and have change of heart.
A.G. in Scranton, PA: Thomas Dewey in 1944 and 1948. Who can trust a man that looks like a porn star version of Burt Reynolds?
Seriously, a mustache? In a way, I take comfort in the fact that Americans' choices and reasons for determining their voting preferences have always trended towards the obscenely stupid. It means that, yet again, we've been here before.
D.M. in Medical Lake, WA: One of the would-have-been-worst presidents was Aaron Burr. He was an extreme authoritarian and possibly a traitor. He tried, after being defeated for the presidency, to help Spain to take western lands from the U.S. In return, Spain was supposed to make him something like a viceroy.
Another would have been William Jennings Bryan. Though he was very popular with some voters, he would have been a terrible president. If his monetary policies had been adopted the economy would have gone to pot. Further, he was a theocrat who would have pushed for making Christianity a national religion.
Perhaps worst of all potential presidents was Charles Lindbergh. He would have kept us out of World War II, and possibly would have favored the European fascist regimes.
K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ: I'd have to say that even though he didn't wind up becoming the Republican presidential nominee in 1988 when he ran, Pat Robertson was a big bullet dodged. The evangelical, holier-than-thou, supporting-Christian-theocracy-on-the-down-low, generally loathsome man probably would've had a hard time working with a Congress that was nowhere near as right-wing as it is now, and I have difficulty believing he could've gotten re-elected in 1992. Nevertheless, he would've been even further right than Ronald Reagan and generally disastrous all around. I can't think of any benefits him being in the White House would've brought (and I am somewhat skeptical of "America would've hated him so much they would've elected a super left-wing Democrat in a landslide in 1992" as a potential counterpoint argument). So I'm really glad he never made it to the Oval Office.
K.B. in New York City, NY: James G. Blaine (election of 1880); corruption at its finest.
K.B. in El Dorado, AR: Barry Goldwater, 1960. Goldwater ran for the GOP nomination in 1960 against Richard Nixon and lost. Though Goldwater's reputation has moderated somewhat over the years as his positions now seem saner than so many other Republicans, he was mercurial and ideologically rigid. He would have appointed much more hawkish men to defense and intelligence positions. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, he would not have paused like John F. Kennedy. He would have been much more likely to follow the advice of the generals to take a more aggressive posture. Goldwater would have charged in, invaded Cuba, and sparked a nuclear war with the Soviets. So there probably wouldn't have been a U.S. left by 1964.
E.S. in Maine, NY: This one is easy. Donny. We know how bad his first term was, and we know how bad his second would be because he has told us. The jury is still out on if we dodge the bullet again in 2024.
Here is the question for next week:
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: I still don't understand why supposed evangelical "Christians" like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who harp on things like the solar eclipse, Jewish space lasers, and culture wars nonsense, can vote for huge tax cuts for the rich and oppose government help to the poor with a straight face. There are so many instances in the New Testament that they claim to hold dear where Jesus rebukes people for clinging to money (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25), is all about paying taxes (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25), and sounds like an outright socialist (Matthew 25:15). Note these examples are not at all difficult to find; we're talking the first three Gospels, not 2 Corinthians here...
So, why do so many evangelical politicians still vote for large tax cuts for rich people and against social services? Couldn't they advocate for both culture wars and wealth redistribution?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Poor Jesus"!