Year with the worst pool of candidates?

[MaC]

(yes and which had the best...  I'm usually a pessimist about politicians   )

*error: the last choice should be McCarthy.  Both are Eugenes that weren't presidential, so I made the mistake...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'd have to say 1996 or 2000. No dissent was allowed in the Democratic primary in those years. (At least the Republicans had multiple kooks to choose from.)

If I was a Republican though, you know I'd say 2004.

[Joel the Attention Whore]

By far 2004.

[True Democrat]

Of those choices, 1984.

[MaC]

I'll say 2000 was pretty horrible.  I wouldn't want any of them ruling the country-although if I'd been alive to remember the other candidates I might be swayed differently.

[Michael Z]

1988. The only decent candidate was Gore, but he was too young back then. As for the others, Robertson and Jackson are both nutters, Bush and Dole about as inspirational as a bag of salt, Dukakis one of the most inept candidates in history... oh, if only Bentsen had run!

[Boris]

2004 by a mile.

[Akno21]

2004; that Democratic field was very, very weak. Edwards and Gephardt were the only candidates with a shot at beating Bush, and neither of them would have done it easily, if at all.

[PBrunsel]

I'd say the best was the Republican field in 1920 (Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, Leonard Wood, Charles Hughes, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren Harding) however the worst has to be the Democratic pool in 1932:

Franklin D. Roosevelt was not seen than as he is now. Many viewed him as a sleazy machine politician with little experience. Harry Hopkins called the Roosevelt-Gardner Ticket, "A kangaroo ticket! The bottom is stronger than the top." Who would have thought he'd be in the White House for so long.

John Nance Gardner was a typical Texan politician of the 1930's: big, loud, and self-righteous.

Al Smith was still the corrupt Tammany Machine man of 1928. How in the world could he think the song "The Streets of New York" would be an appealing campaign song to the Midwest? Smith was a good governor of New York, but a god awful national contender.

William G. McAdoo, the darling of the KKK, was still the same man who lost the nod in 1920 and 1924.

The 1932 Democratic candidate pool was a shallow one indeed, but than again after the Bonus Army any of those men listed above could have defeated him.

[NewFederalist]

I'd say the best was the Republican field in 1920 (Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, Leonard Wood, Charles Hughes, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren Harding)

Hey, PBrunsel, good to see you back! Didn't TR die in 1919?

[PBrunsel]

I'd say the best was the Republican field in 1920 (Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, Leonard Wood, Charles Hughes, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren Harding)

Hey, PBrunsel, good to see you back! Didn't TR die in 1919?

That is ture NewFederalist,

However he was viewed as the GOP front-runner throughout much of 1918. He had actually selected his running-mate: Warren Harding of Ohio.

Only death could stop TR.

[CARLHAYDEN]

(yes and which had the best...  I'm usually a pessimist about politicians   )

*error: the last choice should be McCarthy.  Both are Eugenes that weren't presidential, so I made the mistake...

Of the elections cited, 1988

[Michael Z]

I'd say the best was the Republican field in 1920 (Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, Leonard Wood, Charles Hughes, Calvin Coolidge, and Warren Harding)

Hey, PBrunsel, good to see you back! Didn't TR die in 1919?

That is ture NewFederalist,

However he was viewed as the GOP front-runner throughout much of 1918. He had actually selected his running-mate: Warren Harding of Ohio.

Only death could stop TR.

They should've just dug TR up and braced him in a chair with cushions. He certainly would have done a better job than Harding.

[DownWithTheLeft]

1992, Didn't real have a positive opinion of any of them

Would be 1976 by a mile if we count only the general

[Nym90]

1984: Hart was the best of the lot.

As for the other years, I would've supported Carter in 1976 and 1980, Gore in 1988, Kerrey in 1992, Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, and Edwards in 2004.

[Nym90]

I'd have to say 1996 or 2000. No dissent was allowed in the Democratic primary in those years. (At least the Republicans had multiple kooks to choose from.)

If I was a Republican though, you know I'd say 2004.

Well, there was Bill Bradley in 2000. You do have a point in a sense regarding 1996, however; Lyndon Larouche's delegates from Arkansas were actually barred from attending the Democratic convention, despite having been legitimately elected.

[dazzleman]

I voted 1996, looking at it from the Republican viewpoint.  I remember voting in the primary, looking at the list of names, and not really wanting any of them.  I can't even remember whom I voted for.

I guess if you liked Clinton and considered him a viable choice (which I most definitely did not), then 1996 was a great year.

[Dr. Cynic]

1984, with Gary Hart being the only good candidate. 2004 featured no total packages either.

[Nym90]

1984, with Gary Hart being the only good candidate. 2004 featured no total packages either.

Agreed.

I'd rate 1992 as the best. Buchanan was the only horrible one, and Clinton and Kerrey were both quite good. Tsongas was excellent for a Massachusetts Dem, and Harkin also would've been quite a good President. Bush and Perot were both at least tolerable (and who couldn't like Perot's charts and his wit, even if he was a bit off his rocker at times), and Brown was, while a bit flaky, not horrid either.

But yeah, 1984 has the dreadful Jackson, Reagan (who I'm no fan of), and Mondale (would have been a fine enough President, but still less than inspiring). Only Hart was really good, and even he wasn't as good as the best from most other years.

[Dr. Cynic]

You have to agree that 1976 was a fairly bad year too... I can only see on individual listed who would've made a good candidate as well as President, and that's Morris Udall.

1992 was actually not a bad year for candidates. Clinton, Kerrey, and Harkin were all good campaigners, and Tsongas, though not as inspiring, would've been a good President I think. Buchanan was by far the worst of the lot.

1984... Yeah. Gary Hart was the total package at the time. This was before Monkey Business, so I think he could've been an excellent President and leader given his charisma.

2004 was a bad one for total packages. Not one of the candidates was it. Dean was a short fuse, Edwards lacked expirience, as did Clark. Gephardt lacked any fire, and so did Kerry. Sharpton was entertaining, but not Presidential. The others, Kucinich (Looks), Lieberman (Views), and Mosely Braun (Corruption issues) were not really worth considering as contenders.

[Nym90]

You have to agree that 1976 was a fairly bad year too... I can only see on individual listed who would've made a good candidate as well as President, and that's Morris Udall.

1992 was actually not a bad year for candidates. Clinton, Kerrey, and Harkin were all good campaigners, and Tsongas, though not as inspiring, would've been a good President I think. Buchanan was by far the worst of the lot.

1984... Yeah. Gary Hart was the total package at the time. This was before Monkey Business, so I think he could've been an excellent President and leader given his charisma.

2004 was a bad one for total packages. Not one of the candidates was it. Dean was a short fuse, Edwards lacked expirience, as did Clark. Gephardt lacked any fire, and so did Kerry. Sharpton was entertaining, but not Presidential. The others, Kucinich (Looks), Lieberman (Views), and Mosely Braun (Corruption issues) were not really worth considering as contenders.

In retrospect, yeah, 1976 wasn't so good. I would've been for Carter at the time, but looking back, Udall or Church would've been pretty good. Jackson too, though his hawkish views are more than I'd like (but since it wasn't really a wartime situation, he'd have been good) This is Henry Jackson, just so that's clear. Jesse didn't run until 1984. Ford was actually pretty decent for a Republican (although at the time I would've been steamed about the Nixon pardon, in retrospect though I can definitely see the logic).

[Dr. Cynic]

I think in 76, I wouldn't have blamed Ford for the Nixon pardon... His logic was good, but his timing, as it usually was, was bad. Ford was a good guy, just not a great President.

I think Church would've been a fair President, though I don't know much about his record, except on enviroment. Originally, Hubert Humphrey had considered a 1976 run, but cancer kept him from it. Mo Udall is the only candidate who was a good candidate, and would've been a good President. Everyone else would fizzle when graded for campaigning or high office fitness.

Still, it always comes down to 2004, where none of the candidates could both connect with the public, as well as make a good President.

[J. J.]

Of this group, 1996.  Perot was nuts, Clinton was Clinton, and it was Dole's "turn."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

2004

[Хahar 🤔]

'84. Reagan was terrible and unbeatable at the same time, which makes for a bad combination.