When was the last time the Republican nominee was arguably more left-leaning than the Democratic one

[TheReckoning]

??

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Oh great, another one of these threads...the Republicans were inarguably to the left of the reactionary Democrats in the 1850s, 60s, and 70s, and arguably so until the 1930s, but we should keep that debate in the "historical continuity" thread (where I've just made a long new post!). By election, I'd say in 1904 Teddy was to the left of Parker and in 1924 both candidates were so conservative it was hard to tell, so I'd choose one of those two.

[TDAS04]

An argument could be made for 1912.  TR is often thought of as the “last liberal Republican President,” but that was Taft.

[buritobr]

According to some "celebrities" in the Twitter, it was 2016 (or even 2020)

[darklordoftech]

1976

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Plausibly 1888 or 1892. Harrison passed moderate anti-trust and silver legislation, as well as a generous pension for Civil War veterans, some internal improvements and a bill protecting national forests. Also tried to pass several civil rights measures like federal supervision of House elections in the South and funding for black public schools. Cleveand was a laissez faire pro-gold Bourbon Democrat who attacked Harrison's "Billion Dollar Congress" for its tax-and-spend initiatives.

Now it's not that quite clear cut when you consider that Harrison's tariff policy was pretty regressive and he was also heavily anti-immigration, as Republicans traditionally were. But business elites generally supported Cleveland in 1892 as a return to "sound money" after the flirting with bimetallism had exacerbated the Panic of 1890:

Regardless, the business press celebrated Harrison’s downfall. “Financial circles feel new hope,” declared the Commercial and Financial Chronicle. For despite the threat of low-tariff Democrats taking power, bankers and businessmen celebrated “the name and character of ex-President Cleveland…for the sound financial views he holds and for the adoption of those views by the convention that nominated him.” In fact, the Wall Street Journal observed that “so many good Republicans…voted for the Democratic party because they believe in Mr. Cleveland’s modified protective ideas”. Even the manufacturing community seemed relieved. “The [electoral] reaction against the present tariff, strangely enough, was not so pronounced in agricultural communities as in manufacturing localities” observed Iron Age, which assured readers that Cleveland would block any radical changes to protection. Instead, Cleveland would restore order to America’s finances. If only the economy could hold out until spring “for the assurance which conservative legislation alone can impart

I don't know when was the last presidential election in which the financial press backed the Democratic candidate, but it might be this one.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=371825.msg7331913#msg7331913

Also this:
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

From a business perspective, Rauchway pointed out, the loyalties of the parties did not really switch. "Although the rhetoric and to a degree the policies of the parties do switch places," he wrote, "their core supporters don't — which is to say, the Republicans remain, throughout, the party of bigger businesses; it's just that in the earlier era bigger businesses want bigger government and in the later era they don't."

In other words, earlier on, businesses needed things that only a bigger government could provide, such as infrastructure development, a currency and tariffs. Once these things were in place, a small, hands-off government became better for business.

That said there was an affirmative desire to compromise on currency and regulation under Harrison, the rest of his policies were the same "conservative" pro-business agenda the Whigs had supported and Harrison was the last ex-Whig to be President.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

1904

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1976

Nah.  Carter was fairly conservative economically, especially compared to other Democrats of the day, but so was Ford. Ford just seems less conservative than he was because of the contrast to Reagan.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

1976

Carter was never conservative.

[Benjamin Frank]

1976

Carter was never conservative.

He pretty much was on a number of issues, economics, somewhat on social issues and he was definitely a cold war hawk even though he tried to complicate that by having a human rights foreign policy agenda as well. 

Republican revisionist historians have lied for years about President Carter.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Definitely 1904, Bourbon Democrat vs progressive Republican. I don’t know that I’d consider Carter to Ford’s right but one scenario I’ve pondered that would have resulted in an unprecedented degree of crossover on both sides would be a Carter vs Rockefeller race in the aftermath of Ford being assassinated.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1956

[H. Ross Peron]

1956

Stevenson was definitely to the left of Eisenhower despite Sparkman being the formers running mate in 1952.

[RINO Tom]

1956

Exceptionally bad take.  Even if you insist on putting civil rights on a left/right scale as you clearly do, there are a plethora of other issues to consider.

[Don Vito Corleone]

1956

Stevenson was definitely to the left of Eisenhower despite Sparkman being the formers running mate in 1952.

Even then;

[Wikipedia delenda est]

1956

Exceptionally bad take.  Even if you insist on putting civil rights on a left/right scale as you clearly do, there are a plethora of other issues to consider.

This is clearly the only reasonable way to view the issue. The real question is why you are so insistent on putting 19th century issues of religion/morality on a 21st century spectrum.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's not like Eisenhower was particularly progressive on civil rights anyway. He privately opposed Brown and did little to expand voting rights. Even dragged his feet during the Little Rock Crisis to the extent that Louis Armstrong of all people was saying he had "no guts" and was "two-faced"!

Stevenson certainly would have done more on civil rights had he been elected.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

It's not like Eisenhower was particularly progressive on civil rights anyway. He privately opposed Brown and did little to expand voting rights. Even dragged his feet during the Little Rock Crisis to the extent that Louis Armstrong of all people was saying he had "no guts" and was "two-faced"!

Stevenson certainly would have done more on civil rights had he been elected.

I guess that’s why Adam Clayton Powell bucked his own party and endorsed Eisenhower in 1956. Personally, based on what each candidate said about civil rights during the campaigns of 1952 and 1956, I can only conclude that Stevenson was far more cowardly on the issue than Eisenhower.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It's not like Eisenhower was particularly progressive on civil rights anyway. He privately opposed Brown and did little to expand voting rights. Even dragged his feet during the Little Rock Crisis to the extent that Louis Armstrong of all people was saying he had "no guts" and was "two-faced"!

Stevenson certainly would have done more on civil rights had he been elected.

I guess that’s why Adam Clayton Powell bucked his own party and endorsed Eisenhower in 1956. Personally, based on what each candidate said about civil rights during the campaigns of 1952 and 1956, I can only conclude that Stevenson was far more cowardly on the issue than Eisenhower.

Eisenhower publicly opposed Truman's desegregation of the military in 1952! Campaigns are one thing. If you watch the 1960 debates it's ironic to watch Nixon repeatedly attacking Kennedy for being weak on civil rights because he picked LBJ as his running mate. Anyway what I said above stands, Eisenhower was not progressive on civil rights and did what he did for political expediency. Indeed he considered appointing Earl Warren the biggest mistake of his presidency.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

After reading this thread through, I will change my answer to 1924.

[RINO Tom]

1956

Exceptionally bad take.  Even if you insist on putting civil rights on a left/right scale as you clearly do, there are a plethora of other issues to consider.

This is clearly the only reasonable way to view the issue. The real question is why you are so insistent on putting 19th century issues of religion/morality on a 21st century spectrum.

Yeah, I know how you feel on the subject, lol.  Try reading the part AFTER your bolded segment, which was the point.

[RosettaStoned]

 I would say 1948. Dewey seemed to be more left-leaning than Truman in my opinion. As a matter of fact, as a Republican, I probably would have voted for the latter.

[RINO Tom]

I would say 1948. Dewey seemed to be more left-leaning than Truman in my opinion. As a matter of fact, as a Republican, I probably would have voted for the latter.

I mean, ONLY in some vague “culturally conservative” vs. “culturally liberal” way, which is not only not a great barometer for 1940s politics but also only a small part of this equation.  Dewey pretty clearly ran to Truman’s right.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

1956

Stevenson was definitely to the left of Eisenhower despite Sparkman being the formers running mate in 1952.

Even then;

Lol imagine a time when people based their votes off bond rates.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1956

Exceptionally bad take.  Even if you insist on putting civil rights on a left/right scale as you clearly do, there are a plethora of other issues to consider.

This is clearly the only reasonable way to view the issue. The real question is why you are so insistent on putting 19th century issues of religion/morality on a 21st century spectrum.

Stop trying to make Protestant supremacism seem woke. It's not woke.

1892, 1904, and 1924 are all defensible answers to this question. 1904 is probably the best one. 1952, 1956, 1912, and especially 1948 and 1976 are all terrible answers, with 1912 as probably the best of a bad lot.