Who would YOU have voted for?

[Mr. Reactionary]

1789: Washington
1792: Washington
1796: Jefferson
1800: Jefferson
1804: Jefferson
1808: Madison
1812: Madison
1816: Monroe
1820: Monroe
1824: Jackson
1828: Jackson
1832: Jackson
1836: Van Buren
1840: Van Buren
1844: Polk
1848: Taylor
1852: Pierce
1856: Buchanan
1860: Breckinridge
1864: N/A
1868: Seymour
1872: Greeley
1876: Tilden
1880: Hancock
1884: Cleveland
1888: Cleveland
1892: Cleveland
1896: McKinley
1900: McKinley
1904: Parker
1908: Taft
1912: Taft
1916: Hughes
1920: Harding
1924: Coolidge
1928: Hoover
1932: Roosevelt
1936: Landon
1940: Willkie
1944: Dewey
1948: Thurmond
1952: Eisenhower
1956: Eisenhower
1960: Nixon
1964: Goldwater
1968: Wallace
1972: Hospers
1976: Carter
1980: Reagan
1984: Reagan
1988: Paul
1992: Perot
1996: Perot
2000: Bush
2004: Peroutka
2008: Baldwin
2012: Romney

[Mr. Reactionary]

...
1860: Breckinridge
...
1948: Thurmond
...
1968: Wallace
...

Huh, I thought some of your posts seemed reasonable. Now I'm starting to question that...

Voting for a candidate does not equate to supporting all of that candidate's positions. The 2 party system sucks and I'll gladly protest vote against it. In the past, regional politics mattered a lot more than they do now.  My conscience is at peace knowing that as a southerner in a different time, sometimes the only protest candidate I would find appealing is the clearly-going-to-lose southerner whose entire campaign is built on fried chicken, grits, moonshine, Sunday School, and "yall folks".  Tribal? Yes. Racist? No. It's also the main reason I'd vote for Carter.

[Mr. Reactionary]

...
1860: Breckinridge
...
1948: Thurmond
...
1968: Wallace
...

Huh, I thought some of your posts seemed reasonable. Now I'm starting to question that...

Voting for a candidate does not equate to supporting all of that candidate's positions. The 2 party system sucks and I'll gladly protest vote against it. In the past, regional politics mattered a lot more than they do now.  My conscience is at peace knowing that as a southerner in a different time, sometimes the only protest candidate I would find appealing is the clearly-going-to-lose southerner whose entire campaign is built on fried chicken, grits, moonshine, Sunday School, and "yall folks".  Tribal? Yes. Racist? No. It's also the main reason I'd vote for Carter.

I'm probably willing to vote Wallace, but I'd also cast my vote gladly for Eugene V. Debs. Would that be out of your comfort zone?

I'd never vote for him, but I don't mind his existence and I think he shouldn't have gone to jail. He's a legit protest candidate.