Year with the worst pool of candidates?

[Dr. Cynic]

1984, with Gary Hart being the only good candidate. 2004 featured no total packages either.

[Dr. Cynic]

You have to agree that 1976 was a fairly bad year too... I can only see on individual listed who would've made a good candidate as well as President, and that's Morris Udall.

1992 was actually not a bad year for candidates. Clinton, Kerrey, and Harkin were all good campaigners, and Tsongas, though not as inspiring, would've been a good President I think. Buchanan was by far the worst of the lot.

1984... Yeah. Gary Hart was the total package at the time. This was before Monkey Business, so I think he could've been an excellent President and leader given his charisma.

2004 was a bad one for total packages. Not one of the candidates was it. Dean was a short fuse, Edwards lacked expirience, as did Clark. Gephardt lacked any fire, and so did Kerry. Sharpton was entertaining, but not Presidential. The others, Kucinich (Looks), Lieberman (Views), and Mosely Braun (Corruption issues) were not really worth considering as contenders.

[Dr. Cynic]

I think in 76, I wouldn't have blamed Ford for the Nixon pardon... His logic was good, but his timing, as it usually was, was bad. Ford was a good guy, just not a great President.

I think Church would've been a fair President, though I don't know much about his record, except on enviroment. Originally, Hubert Humphrey had considered a 1976 run, but cancer kept him from it. Mo Udall is the only candidate who was a good candidate, and would've been a good President. Everyone else would fizzle when graded for campaigning or high office fitness.

Still, it always comes down to 2004, where none of the candidates could both connect with the public, as well as make a good President.