Which of these presidential losers do you think would've made the WORST president?

[EJ24]

?

[Orwell]

As much as I like him as a person, John McCain would have been an awful president in 2008, but I think he would have been pretty good in 200, but since he only won the nomination in 2008 he would have been a bad president

[Left Wing]

I think Dukakis followed up by Romney

[538Electoral]

Clinton and it isn't close.

[McGarnagle]

Overall, Romney

I think Dukakis would have been a one-termer - I don't know whether the Gulf War would've gone any differently or not, and I don't see the US avoiding a recession during the early 90s.

I think Dole and McCain had some of the same weaknesses as candidates and I don't think they would have ended up as successful Presidents. They'd have many of the same flaws the Bush and Trump administrations would have, but in a more palatable and patriotic package.

I think Gore would have been a better President than Bush and the US probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq - but he would probably be a one-termer and lose to McCain in 2004 - it's difficult for one party to keep the White House sixteen years in a row.

I think Kerry would have been a better President than Bush, but would have won just barely and probably wouldn't be able to avert the 2008 crash which would likely render him a one-termer.

I think Romney would have been more able to dismantle the ACA - and he likely would have won re-election over Hillary, and would have already moved the Supreme Court even more heavily to the right than it currently is if he were finishing his second term this year. He'd sort of be remembered as a Calvin Coolidge caliber President. Beloved by the right but ultimately bad for the country.

I think Clinton would have been a better President than Trump but probably wouldn't have gotten a lot done and Congress would be more stubbornly Republican. The federal response to COVID-19 would be better and fewer would die, but the economy would still be damaged and Clinton would be blamed and would lose re-election.

[brucejoel99]

An argument could be made for Gore.

9/11 would probably raise questions as to how the Clinton administration failed to stop the attack, allowing Republicans to accuse Gore of mismanaging Afghanistan with the same incompetence that allowed 9/11 to happen (which is always an easier accusation to make when you're out of power & can dodge any responsibility).

Combine that with the recession that accompanied the attacks in real life, & Republican reluctance to allow additional spending by a Democratic president would mean that the recovery would be weaker. If they blow up some scandals (real or imagined), you might be able to get an impeachment going after the 2002 midterms; even without it, Gore likely loses in 2004.

And that's not even mentioning the stuff that's susceptible to butterflies: say, if a hurricane hits New Orleans early & Gore receives criticism for the reaction (remembering that he won't be being compared to the real life Katrina, but to what people imagine a reaction should be like, & any hurricane hitting New Orleans is likely to be devastating anyway); moreover, if Greenspan's Fed raises interest rates (since he was very fond of doing so), then the housing bubble could very well pop early too.

[Grassroots]

Dole and McCain would be lame ducks, Romney and Clinton would actually get stuff done. Kerry woul be a terrible president.

[OSR STANDS WITH PALESTINE]

Y’all I misread and accidentally voted for Romney.
I meant to pick Hillary for worst. Romney would have been great

[SWE]

McCain and Romney would both be significantly worse than Trump, tough to say who'd be worse between the two though. I'll say Romney since he would have been more likely to serve two terms.

[KaiserDave]

McCain in 2008 would have been quite bad in my view, specifically in regards to foreign policy. Boots on the ground in Syria, Libya....


Well....I did write one interpretation of it in timeline

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=300099.msg6381295#msg6381295

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Hillary Clinton (2016, not 08) closely followed my McCain (2008, not 2000).

I think Dole would have been a decent president and Romney and Gore a bit worse.

[dw93]

Let me start off by saying sorry for the length of my reply. Of these options, a Romney elected in 2012 is the most likely to serve two terms. A Kerry elected in 2004, A McCain elected in 2008, and a Hillary elected in '16 would be at a three way tie for least likely to serve two terms for reasons both within and beyond their control (largely beyond in Kerry's case).

That said, Romney being a likely two termer sure doesn't mean he would've been a good President, in fact, I would argue Romney, foreign policy aside, would be the worst President of these options despite a likely re election. The ACA would be repealed and not replaced as the GOP didn't take up the "repeal and replace" talking point until after Obama was re elected. Prior to that, it was just repeal. The courts would be pushed even further right than they've been in the last three years with Trump, and we'd be even more likely to see a full scale war in post 2012 America than we were in a 2nd Obama term or even a Trump term, though this would be even more true of a McCain elected in 2008, which is why he'd be the worst from a foreign policy standpoint. I also don't think Romney would see much in the form of backlash until a second term when a 6 year itch hits in 2018. 2016 would be "Morning in America" 2.0 and the GOP base would see him as Reagan 2.0 unless a pandemic/economic crisis hits in 2020 as is the case now.  

At least with McCain, the Democrats would've kept Congress and redrew the districts more fairly after the 2010 census, and would've had a tiny bit of sway over Domestic policy due to having such large majorities after a McCain 2010 midterm, and a Democratic President would've been elected in 2012 and start their term in an even better position than Obama was in 2009.

Hillary would've been better than Trump and would've pushed the court in a more liberal direction (Garland + a RBG and possible Breyer replacement) , but not much would've gotten done and while she would've handled COVID (if it still happens) worlds better than Trump, a Republican Supermajority in the Senate plus a GOP House as well as even more and even stronger Republican state Governments would undercut her efforts to deal with the crisis, the economy would still be in the tank and the GOP would sweep in 2020 after 12 difficult years (largely due to GOP obstruction)  of Democrats in the White House. This scenario may even get the GOP enough power to trigger Constitutional Conventions and unleash all sorts of hell in the early 2020s through constitutional amendments.  

Kerry would've been in a similar position to Hillary in sense that he was better than the alternative and would've been better for the courts, only in his case it would be Katrina, the long term fallout of Bush's foreign policy, and the Financial crisis that do him in. Kerry however wouldn't have the personal baggage that Hillary has. The GOP congressional majorities, bitter after a razor thin Bush loss, would stop Kerry from getting anything done, outside of moderate replacements for Rehnquist and possibly O'Connor and this would even be true in the face of rising gas prices and an economic crisis. 2008 would be 1980 2.0 only 2012 wouldn't be "Morning in America" after 2009 and 2010 being filled with austerity and tax cuts and 2011 and 2012 being gridlocked. We would at least be able to thank our lucky starts that the GOP would have no chance of attaining enough power to amend the constitution after Kerry like they would after Hillary.

Dole would've been a lame duck rubber stamp for Gingrich and would've declined to run again in 2000, as while Dole was younger than Biden is now he was much frailer than Biden and likely would've retired as a result, leaving Kemp or even George W. himself to run as a continuation of the "prosperous" Dole Presidency. If Dole were to run again, baring a health scare, he'd win. Domestically, Dole would've been Dubya without the "Compassion." Internationally, he would've been more hawkish than Clinton in some respects (Iraq, the defense budget) while being less so on others (the Balkins).

Dukakis is trickier. On the one hand I can see him being more proactive in addressing the early '90s recession and basically having Poppy's Domestic accomplishments (ADA, Clean Air Amendments) as well as some of Clinton's first term successes (Family Medical Leave, a version of the Brady Bill, an Assault Weapons Ban), and the court in this case fares even better than it would if Kerry won in 2004 or Hillary did in 2016. That said, the international situation of the early 90's could easily break his Presidency as Bush 41 truly was that well suited to deal with them while it's anyone's guess as to how well Dukakis would deal with them. Saddam would still be a thorn in our sides and while I can see Dukakis handling it successfully, I can also see an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (if it still happens) being his Iranian revolution/hostage crisis. While I think the Cold War would still end, I doubt it'll end as smoothly as it did with Bush, particularly with regards to the reunification of Germany. As a result, I can easily see him winning (abet narrowly) in 1992 if foreign policy goes well enough and he softens the blow of the recession enough, but I can also see 1992 being 1980 2.0 and see Duke's Republican successor having an freer hand congressionally than Reagan did. If he wins, his second term would be similar to Obama's second term, little to no accomplishments, foreign policy flare ups, a bad 6 year itch in 1994, and enough backlash for the Republicans to have the Presidency with both houses of Congress by January of 1997.

Finally, we get to Al Gore, who I think of these options would've made the best President had he won in 2000, though no one would've thought so during his Presidency. To start, he wouldn't have control of either house of Congress so very little gets done domestically. I can see a smaller, more middle class tax cut passing in 2001 with some stimulus to soften the blow of the "dotcom" bust. I can also see some environmental legislation getting through and Kyoto protocol getting ratified at the last minute. Now we get to the interesting stuff. While I think a Gore administration would've listened to Richard Clarke and taken the warnings about Al Qaeda seriously, I unfortunately doubt it would've been enough to prevent a 9/11 from happening. I believe Gore would've responded to the attacks way better than Bush and more than likely would've gotten Bin Laden sometime before 2004. That said, the Republicans would've been more willing to attack him in the aftermath than the Democrats were with Bush immediately after 9/11, and thus Gore's rally around the flag effect wouldn't have been as lasting and the GOP would've gained in Congress as a result in 2002. The economy would also be weak and the Republicans would find a way to more effectively attack him on that than the Democrats did with Bush. Iraq would also be a sore spot for him, as while I think Gore would've rightfully not invaded it, he still would've launched some sort of strike against them (Clinton launched airstrikes against them many times) and would've been attacked as too hawkish by enough of the far left, and too weak by the right. As such, unless the GOP fails to muster a strong candidate, I think Gore loses in 2004, but only narrowly. His presidency initially would've been seen as a failure but I think Gore would get redeemed by history and, for the most part, the public. Much like George HW Bush, he'd be seen as a capable President that was dealt a difficult situation and had to make difficult decisions, and while not appreciated in his time, ultimately made the right decisions and as a result America would've been better for having him as the 43rd President (something we definitely can't say about Dubya). Plus, the Republicans still getting saddled with the financial crisis in this scenario by itself would make Gore look good by comparison.

[MillennialModerate]

Dole or Kerry. Admire both of them as people for serving the country but both rigid, show little ability to compromise. Both kind of out of touch with the current mood of the country.

I think Dukakis would’ve been okay
Gore would’ve been pretty decent despite his rigid personality
McCain despite being a great person would’ve been mediocre
Romney I think would’ve been a great President
Hillary I think would’ve actually been a damn good President

[President Biden Democrat]

Probably Duckakis or Dole. McCain would not have been good in 2008.

I actually think Romney would have been a fairly good president.

[Lord Admirale]

Not sure why everyone is saying Romney, he would've entered office with a Republican SCOTUS and potentially Congress because of the downballot effect.

[dw93]

Not sure why everyone is saying Romney, he would've entered office with a Republican SCOTUS and potentially Congress because of the downballot effect.

People saying Romney would've been the worst doesn't surprise me at all, I agree with them, what surprises me is that the majority of respondents voted Bob Dole.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Clinton almost strikes me as someone who would have ended up like Carter. In her case, I think she would be a better president than Carter was, but it’s hard to see the Republicans not doing absurdly well in 2018. Granted, I think she would’ve handled Covid better.

Dole or Romney (in 2012) would probably be seen as the worst if we were to look back at them 20-30 years after their presidencies. It’s amazing how much better Romney seems now than in 2012 though.

[Free Bird]

Clinton almost strikes me as someone who would have ended up like Carter. In her case, I think she would be a better president than Carter was, but it’s hard to see the Republicans not doing absurdly well in 2018. Granted, I think she would’ve handled Covid better.

Dole or Romney (in 2012) would probably be seen as the worst if we were to look back at them 20-30 years after their presidencies. It’s amazing how much better Romney seems now than in 2012 though.

I actually have a theory about that. Once a different branch of a party takes over, the old guard of said party is admired by the opposition. For example, what you just said about Romney, but there is also the instance, that has almost become a cliche, of Republicans yearning for the Dems to become like "the JFK Democrats" again when these same people would have vigorously opposed such people if they were their contemporaries.

[here2view]

Dole, who would have been 77 at the end of his first term and was nothing more than a sacrificial lamb between Bush I and Bush II.

[Person Man]

Let me start off by saying sorry for the length of my reply. Of these options, a Romney elected in 2012 is the most likely to serve two terms. A Kerry elected in 2004, A McCain elected in 2008, and a Hillary elected in '16 would be at a three way tie for least likely to serve two terms for reasons both within and beyond their control (largely beyond in Kerry's case).

That said, Romney being a likely two termer sure doesn't mean he would've been a good President, in fact, I would argue Romney, foreign policy aside, would be the worst President of these options despite a likely re election. The ACA would be repealed and not replaced as the GOP didn't take up the "repeal and replace" talking point until after Obama was re elected. Prior to that, it was just repeal. The courts would be pushed even further right than they've been in the last three years with Trump, and we'd be even more likely to see a full scale war in post 2012 America than we were in a 2nd Obama term or even a Trump term, though this would be even more true of a McCain elected in 2008, which is why he'd be the worst from a foreign policy standpoint. I also don't think Romney would see much in the form of backlash until a second term when a 6 year itch hits in 2018. 2016 would be "Morning in America" 2.0 and the GOP base would see him as Reagan 2.0 unless a pandemic/economic crisis hits in 2020 as is the case now. 

At least with McCain, the Democrats would've kept Congress and redrew the districts more fairly after the 2010 census, and would've had a tiny bit of sway over Domestic policy due to having such large majorities after a McCain 2010 midterm, and a Democratic President would've been elected in 2012 and start their term in an even better position than Obama was in 2009.

Hillary would've been better than Trump and would've pushed the court in a more liberal direction (Garland + a RBG and possible Breyer replacement) , but not much would've gotten done and while she would've handled COVID (if it still happens) worlds better than Trump, a Republican Supermajority in the Senate plus a GOP House as well as even more and even stronger Republican state Governments would undercut her efforts to deal with the crisis, the economy would still be in the tank and the GOP would sweep in 2020 after 12 difficult years (largely due to GOP obstruction)  of Democrats in the White House. This scenario may even get the GOP enough power to trigger Constitutional Conventions and unleash all sorts of hell in the early 2020s through constitutional amendments. 

Kerry would've been in a similar position to Hillary in sense that he was better than the alternative and would've been better for the courts, only in his case it would be Katrina, the long term fallout of Bush's foreign policy, and the Financial crisis that do him in. Kerry however wouldn't have the personal baggage that Hillary has. The GOP congressional majorities, bitter after a razor thin Bush loss, would stop Kerry from getting anything done, outside of moderate replacements for Rehnquist and possibly O'Connor and this would even be true in the face of rising gas prices and an economic crisis. 2008 would be 1980 2.0 only 2012 wouldn't be "Morning in America" after 2009 and 2010 being filled with austerity and tax cuts and 2011 and 2012 being gridlocked. We would at least be able to thank our lucky starts that the GOP would have no chance of attaining enough power to amend the constitution after Kerry like they would after Hillary.

Dole would've been a lame duck rubber stamp for Gingrich and would've declined to run again in 2000, as while Dole was younger than Biden is now he was much frailer than Biden and likely would've retired as a result, leaving Kemp or even George W. himself to run as a continuation of the "prosperous" Dole Presidency. If Dole were to run again, baring a health scare, he'd win. Domestically, Dole would've been Dubya without the "Compassion." Internationally, he would've been more hawkish than Clinton in some respects (Iraq, the defense budget) while being less so on others (the Balkins).

Dukakis is trickier. On the one hand I can see him being more proactive in addressing the early '90s recession and basically having Poppy's Domestic accomplishments (ADA, Clean Air Amendments) as well as some of Clinton's first term successes (Family Medical Leave, a version of the Brady Bill, an Assault Weapons Ban), and the court in this case fares even better than it would if Kerry won in 2004 or Hillary did in 2016. That said, the international situation of the early 90's could easily break his Presidency as Bush 41 truly was that well suited to deal with them while it's anyone's guess as to how well Dukakis would deal with them. Saddam would still be a thorn in our sides and while I can see Dukakis handling it successfully, I can also see an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (if it still happens) being his Iranian revolution/hostage crisis. While I think the Cold War would still end, I doubt it'll end as smoothly as it did with Bush, particularly with regards to the reunification of Germany. As a result, I can easily see him winning (abet narrowly) in 1992 if foreign policy goes well enough and he softens the blow of the recession enough, but I can also see 1992 being 1980 2.0 and see Duke's Republican successor having an freer hand congressionally than Reagan did. If he wins, his second term would be similar to Obama's second term, little to no accomplishments, foreign policy flare ups, a bad 6 year itch in 1994, and enough backlash for the Republicans to have the Presidency with both houses of Congress by January of 1997.

Finally, we get to Al Gore, who I think of these options would've made the best President had he won in 2000, though no one would've thought so during his Presidency. To start, he wouldn't have control of either house of Congress so very little gets done domestically. I can see a smaller, more middle class tax cut passing in 2001 with some stimulus to soften the blow of the "dotcom" bust. I can also see some environmental legislation getting through and Kyoto protocol getting ratified at the last minute. Now we get to the interesting stuff. While I think a Gore administration would've listened to Richard Clarke and taken the warnings about Al Qaeda seriously, I unfortunately doubt it would've been enough to prevent a 9/11 from happening. I believe Gore would've responded to the attacks way better than Bush and more than likely would've gotten Bin Laden sometime before 2004. That said, the Republicans would've been more willing to attack him in the aftermath than the Democrats were with Bush immediately after 9/11, and thus Gore's rally around the flag effect wouldn't have been as lasting and the GOP would've gained in Congress as a result in 2002. The economy would also be weak and the Republicans would find a way to more effectively attack him on that than the Democrats did with Bush. Iraq would also be a sore spot for him, as while I think Gore would've rightfully not invaded it, he still would've launched some sort of strike against them (Clinton launched airstrikes against them many times) and would've been attacked as too hawkish by enough of the far left, and too weak by the right. As such, unless the GOP fails to muster a strong candidate, I think Gore loses in 2004, but only narrowly. His presidency initially would've been seen as a failure but I think Gore would get redeemed by history and, for the most part, the public. Much like George HW Bush, he'd be seen as a capable President that was dealt a difficult situation and had to make difficult decisions, and while not appreciated in his time, ultimately made the right decisions and as a result America would've been better for having him as the 43rd President (something we definitely can't say about Dubya). Plus, the Republicans still getting saddled with the financial crisis in this scenario by itself would make Gore look good by comparison.

I think both Gore and Kerry, especially Gore, would have at least the senate if they were elected. Maybe Gore would have had the House, too. I think Hillary could have won the senate because without a lack of depressed turn out by Democrats, I could see Wisconsin,  Missouri, and Pennsylvania flipping. However, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida would still be botched campaigns. She would have lost 5 senate seats in 2018, though.

Also, I think Gore might have been able to avoid 9/11 but still would have become a lame duck in 2002 and lost in 2004 to a non-crazy Republican.

[terp40hitch]

I don’t think any would’ve caused in huge problems, I probably would say that Romney would be the best and the worst, Al Gore. I truly don’t think Gore would’ve Handled 9/11 as well as Bush and he would’ve taken way more blame for it since he was in leadership for the past ten years.

I truly don’t understand people saying Romney, Hillary, Dukakis or Dole would be the worst, they aren’t liked by the other side but they wouldn’t have dramatically hurt our country. I could see one on both Kerry and McCain based on forgein policy and how they would’ve handled  economic troubles

[eax]

Kerry and it's really not even that close. Especially with a gop congress.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Clinton and it isn't close.

This, though I'd say McCain was a strong second in this list.

[HillGoose]

Al Gore, no contest

[MATTROSE94]

Ranked from worst to best:

1. John Kerry
2. Michael Dukakis
3. John McCain
4. Bob Dole
5. Mitt Romney
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Al Gore