Out of all the Presidents who were reelected, which one least deserved it?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Lincoln won the Civil War and abolished slavery. He deserved to get reelected for that. It's a huge tragedy he was assainted, though. Our country would have been much better off right now if it wasn't for that.

I doubt it. The period of congressional rule that followed the election of 1866 was good for America.

If Reconstruction hadn't been so Radical, maybe it would have survived past 1876.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wilson [...] extremley-socialist economic polices

It's especially odd, considering Conservapedia of all places wrote a mainly positive article about him.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Woodrow_Wilson

Not so odd when you consider that George W. Bush was in most ways indistinguishable from a reincarnated Woodrow Wilson.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

WTF is up with all the Jackson hating? My personal favorite president. I voted for FDR.

Some people don't like Jackson for being emblematic of a lot of the less savory features of the American body politic of the era.  Others don't like him because he opposed South Carolina's effort to destroy the Federal Government via nullification.  Others don't like him because he engaged in a senseless feud with the Second Bank of the United States, which was a major contributing cause of the Panic of 1837, the first major financial reverse suffered in the United States that was not due to some external cause.  Still others don't like him because he founded the Democratic Party.  Jackson is a complex man with much to admire and despise and I doubt that there are few serious scholars of American history who do not hold a strong opinion, either good or bad about him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I just pruned all of the posts that dealt with the constitutionality of secession without mentioning whether a president was deserving of reelection.  Since those posts had degenerated into bickering back and forth, I didn't bother to separate them out into a thread, but just deleted them.  However, feel free to start a new thread discussing the topic if you wish.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FDR was not a socialist. He preserved a free-market economy.

While FDR was no socialist, he certainly wasn't pro free-market either.  Judging by the NRA and the AAA of the New Deal, I'd call him a corporatist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

FDR was not a socialist. He preserved a free-market economy.

While FDR was no socialist, he certainly wasn't pro free-market either.  Judging by the NRA and the AAA of the New Deal, I'd call him a corporatist.

How on earth could you say he wasnt a socialist, the social security act, tva, ccc, was nothing but socialism.

The TVA and the various electric cooperative are examples of socialistic corporatism. I wouldn't consider the CCC to be socialism, as the work was that was done was done on lands already in the public domain, and the camps themselves were organized largely on the principles of nationalistic corpratism. As for the Social Security Act, it most decidedly is corporatist in nature but the level of Social Security benefits are not set according to socialist principles at all, so to call it socialist is quite inaccurate.  I'll grant that LBJ's Great Society did add a socialist flavor to the Social Security Act as it now exists.  But then again LBJ was a social democrat, whereas FDR was not.  FDR quite clearly was a corporatist.

It seems you are using "socialism" as a way of referring to government policies that diverge from laissez-faire principles, but that much more accurately describes corporatism than it does socialism.