Going back further in history, Zachary Taylor and William Henry Harrison were WINOs, and Rutherford B. Hayes was a bit of a RINO.
Taylor and Harrison were both random generals with little connection or belief in the Whig economic program, which more or less corresponded to Henry Clay's American System. In both cases, they won election through campaigns that depended largely on their personality and military background rather than on Whig policies.
Harrison as a president is pretty much impossible to evaluate for obvious reasons, and imo he probably wasn't quite as much of a WINO as Taylor. Taylor only reluctantly declared himself as a Whig in the 1848 election, did pretty much nothing to advance long-standing Whig priorities, and basically attempted to remake the party in, to use Atlas parlance, his "moderate hero" image.
John Tyler was even more so, and ironically the most Whig of all of them (Fillmore), ended up being seen as a traitor to a large segment of the party and helped to bring about its collapse. He also destroyed the American Know-Nothing Party, by splitting it on regional lines and driving its Northern wing into the Republican Party.
Yeah, although the latter's status is somewhat complicated by the dynamics of the 1864 election, I tend to view Tyler and Andrew Johnson as the two independent presidents in U.S. history (you could also throw in Washington, but he was sort of a quasi-Federalist, especially in his second term). So I suppose you could say that they were such INOs that they got kicked out of their respective parties.
As for Fillmore, he certainly wasn't a great president, but I'm not sure if anyone could have done better in his place, particularly in the 1856 election.
