• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which presidential nominee that lost the election do you think would have made a great president?

George Wallace

He was basically a more coherent and less egotistical version of Donald Trump. His only fault was coming too early.

But for his being shot, he might have been.
 
Wallace had virtually no chance of being elected.

That is true. Wallace had no chance at all of being elected President. His shooting played no real role in that reality.
 
Wallace had virtually no chance of being elected.

He might have had a small chance, but not "no chance". Wallace ran a surprisingly strong campaign, securing the lead and most of the delegates till he was shot. Even so, he came in second in Wisconsin (beating Humphrey and Muskie), and later won Michigan. He even took Maryland.

Wallace had transformed himself into a populist "moderate", with decidedly anti-elitist appeal. Muskie and Humphrey were withering rapidly, so who knows?
 
Your lack of awareness about this doesn't make it wrong, but I will add you to ignore. Good luck.

You are a blind partisan who has zero value in honest discussions. Tres was trying to have an honest discussion. You utterly refused to take part in it.
 
But for his being shot, he might have been.

He almost certainly would have won the 1972 Democratic primary, though it doesn't seem liely that he could've beat Nixon. Still, a conservative recapture the Democratic Party would've had a wonderful effect on subsequent politics.

Though I think his best chance for changing things for the better was in 1968. He came within an inch of stopping Nixon from winning an EC majority. Had he done so, he could have forced the Republicans to get behind a policy of leaving people alone.

Ultimately, Wallace failed because in his time, the true evils of egalitarian technocracy were not yet apparent.
 
Welcome (I first posted here yesterday) - I strongly suggest for your interest that you research one of the people who would have made the biggest difference - likely for the better - in history who would have been president, FDR's third term VP, Henry Wallace.

He was probably the most progressive person ever in the White House. FDR had to fight like hell his third term - threatening not to run if the party wouldn't let him have Wallace as VP his third run - to have Wallace, but his fourth term, while Wallace was the second most popular politician in the country after FDR, the corrupt business wing of the party successfully forced Truman onto the ticket. Months later, Truman became president instead of Wallace.

Henry Wallace also had the problem of being almostly laughably soft on Stalin and the USSR. While he did realize a bit later that he was wrong......it was way too little, too late.
 
George Wallace

He was basically a more coherent and less egotistical version of Donald Trump. His only fault was coming too early.

"Segregation forever" George Wallace?

That George Wallace?
 
"Segregation forever" George Wallace?

That George Wallace?

This George Wallace:

"It's people—our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It's a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions."

"What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street."

George Wallace stood for the most important freedom, the freedom of ordinary people to live their lives without being tyrannized by bureaucrats who want to micromanage their lives.
 
This George Wallace:

"It's people—our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It's a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions."

"What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street."

George Wallace stood for the most important freedom, the freedom of ordinary people to live their lives without being tyrannized by bureaucrats who want to micromanage their lives.

Except if you are a minority, in which case you have no freedom whatsoever and were terrorized by gangs of thugs.
 
This is my first post here so hi everyone :) I have had a huge interest in politics from a young age and have studied elections and even watched all the presidential debates online from 1960 to 2016. One topic that has always interested me is the idea that with any election there have been people who would have made great presidents but for whatever reason did not resonate with people enough to win.

For the democrats I think George McGovern would have made a great president (or even Hubert Humphrey 4 years earlier). He seemed genuinely committed to progressive ideas and his commitment to ending the war in Vietnam was admirable (although he did vote in favor of The Gulf of Tonkin resolution he later admitted it was one of his biggest regrets). so it was a shame he lost in such landslide to Nixon who was a much less moral man than McGovern. Since I am a Democrat I also want to give a shout out to Michael Dukakis and Al Gore (who I strongly believe was the genuine winner of that election) both I think would have been great presidents despite being less liberal than McGovern.

Of the republicans I strongly feel John Anderson should have been the Republican nominee in 1980 and after failing to win the nomination against Reagan in the primaries launched an independent run in 1980 and did well enough to be the first third party candidate to be included in a presidential debate (although Carter refused to debate Anderson so it was just between him and Reagan). What struck me about Anderson was just how liberal he was and Reagan might as well have been debating a democrat instead of a fellow republican. Anderson was pro-choice, pushed strongly for women's rights (and even supported gay rights!), Believed in climate change and felt the government had a responsibility to help African American living in poor urban areas. I can only imagine how different the 1980s (and even the Republican Party) would be if it had been Anderson in the White House instead of Reagan. If I was alive and of voting age in 1980 I would have gladly cast my ballot for Anderson.

Who is your pick for the best Presidential nominee to not win the White House? You can pick one candidate or several if you feel there were many that warranted it

Hi, and welcome to DP!

I would pick Al Gore. I think the US would have been in a much better place economically and geopolitically if the "hanging chads" in Florida had gone his way. The ban on stem cell research, the war in Iraq, the tortures and wiretappings, the massive recession, the sabotaging of climate change actions, etc... would not have happened and we would have been years ahead.
 
This George Wallace:

"It's people—our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It's a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions."

"What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street."

George Wallace stood for the most important freedom, the freedom of ordinary people to live their lives without being tyrannized by bureaucrats who want to micromanage their lives.

The freedom George Wallace wanted was the freedom to suppress blacks, take away their civil rights, and maintain white domination and hegemony. That's not just my opinion. It was part of the detailed strategy of the GOP since Nixon's Southern Strategy. This is from a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, chief political strategist for the GOP. It's hard to articulate the motivations and strategy any more clearly or eloquently than he did. Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 [...] and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, states' rights, you know, the whole cluster...

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger." "
 
Last edited:
The freedom George Wallace wanted was the freedom to suppress blacks, take away their civil rights, and maintain white domination and hegemony.

The freedom George Wallace wanted was people being able to associate with whoever they pleased. Something which is anathema to petty bureaucrats, people who can only find meaning by intruding into other peoples' lives.
 
This is my first post here so hi everyone :) I have had a huge interest in politics from a young age and have studied elections and even watched all the presidential debates online from 1960 to 2016. One topic that has always interested me is the idea that with any election there have been people who would have made great presidents but for whatever reason did not resonate with people enough to win.

For the democrats I think George McGovern would have made a great president (or even Hubert Humphrey 4 years earlier).
You do know that McGovern got beat by the biggest landslide in US history at that time, right? Mondale would later take the title as the biggest loser in US history in 1984, but in 1972 McGovern was the biggest loser in US history. It was also the first election where I was able to vote. I voted for Nixon.

Humphrey would have lost by an electoral landslide, had it not been for George Wallace getting 46 Electoral College votes in 1968.

He seemed genuinely committed to progressive ideas and his commitment to ending the war in Vietnam was admirable (although he did vote in favor of The Gulf of Tonkin resolution he later admitted it was one of his biggest regrets). so it was a shame he lost in such landslide to Nixon who was a much less moral man than McGovern. Since I am a Democrat I also want to give a shout out to Michael Dukakis and Al Gore (who I strongly believe was the genuine winner of that election) both I think would have been great presidents despite being less liberal than McGovern.
Nixon was equally committed to ending the Vietnam war in 1968, and eventually did exactly that. By 1971 there more US troops coming back from Vietnam than were being sent. Dukakis' Willy Horton fiasco demonstrated that he was not the right man for the job. As for Gore, he did win the popular vote. Thankfully, we do not elect Presidents by popular vote.


Of the republicans I strongly feel John Anderson should have been the Republican nominee in 1980 and after failing to win the nomination against Reagan in the primaries launched an independent run in 1980 and did well enough to be the first third party candidate to be included in a presidential debate (although Carter refused to debate Anderson so it was just between him and Reagan). What struck me about Anderson was just how liberal he was and Reagan might as well have been debating a democrat instead of a fellow republican. Anderson was pro-choice, pushed strongly for women's rights (and even supported gay rights!), Believed in climate change and felt the government had a responsibility to help African American living in poor urban areas. I can only imagine how different the 1980s (and even the Republican Party) would be if it had been Anderson in the White House instead of Reagan. If I was alive and of voting age in 1980 I would have gladly cast my ballot for Anderson.
Former Rep. John Anderson was what was referred to in the 1970s as a "Rockefeller Republican." In 1990s terminology he would have been labeled a RINO. In today's terminology he would have been a leftist. I was alive and voting in 1980, and I voted for Reagan, as did quite a few Democrats. Carter's abject cowardice before the Iranians in 1979 and 1980 pretty much ensured that no Democrat would be elected President in 1980.

Who is your pick for the best Presidential nominee to not win the White House? You can pick one candidate or several if you feel there were many that warranted it
My pick for the best nominee for President, that did not win, is George W. Bush in 1992. There is absolutely no doubt that George W. Bush was the most qualified President to ever hold the position. Unfortunately, the most qualified doesn't necessarily mean they are the most effective with the voters.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think one of the best and most qualified people to ever run for President was Jon Huntsman back in 2012, I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, but there was something about him, I thought he was by far one of the best candidates I've ever seen run.

Huntsman was OK but I believe the OP's question was which nominee of a major party who lost would have made a good president. Huntsman
was an also ran! Better than the losing nominee but an also-ran.
 
The freedom George Wallace wanted was people being able to associate with whoever they pleased. Something which is anathema to petty bureaucrats, people who can only find meaning by intruding into other peoples' lives.

In private, sure. People can do whatever they want and associate with whomever they want in private. In the public sphere, however, like public schools, drinking fountains, ability to vote, job opportunities, etc... no.

Let me ask you this: if a state in the future becomes majority black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or whatever, and they decide they want the freedom to pass laws to keep whites from voting, or from being able to use certain public facilities, or force them to sit in the back of the bus, etc... would you be OK with it? Would you oppress their "freedom" to do so?
 
In private, sure. People can do whatever they want and associate with whomever they want in private. In the public sphere, however, like public schools, drinking fountains, ability to vote, job opportunities, etc... no.

Let me ask you this: if a state in the future becomes majority black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or whatever, and they decide they want the freedom to pass laws to keep whites from voting, or from being able to use certain public facilities, or force them to sit in the back of the bus, etc... would you be OK with it? Would you oppress their "freedom" to do so?

If a state became majority black, I would hope and pray that they'd let whites have separate facilities and free association. It's very unlikely that they would, however.
 
If a state became majority black, I would hope and pray that they'd let whites have separate facilities and free association. It's very unlikely that they would, however.

So you would be OK with being told you have to sit in the back of the bus?
 
This is my first post here so hi everyone :) I have had a huge interest in politics from a young age and have studied elections and even watched all the presidential debates online from 1960 to 2016. One topic that has always interested me is the idea that with any election there have been people who would have made great presidents but for whatever reason did not resonate with people enough to win.

For the democrats I think George McGovern would have made a great president (or even Hubert Humphrey 4 years earlier). He seemed genuinely committed to progressive ideas and his commitment to ending the war in Vietnam was admirable (although he did vote in favor of The Gulf of Tonkin resolution he later admitted it was one of his biggest regrets). so it was a shame he lost in such landslide to Nixon who was a much less moral man than McGovern. Since I am a Democrat I also want to give a shout out to Michael Dukakis and Al Gore (who I strongly believe was the genuine winner of that election) both I think would have been great presidents despite being less liberal than McGovern.

Of the republicans I strongly feel John Anderson should have been the Republican nominee in 1980 and after failing to win the nomination against Reagan in the primaries launched an independent run in 1980 and did well enough to be the first third party candidate to be included in a presidential debate (although Carter refused to debate Anderson so it was just between him and Reagan). What struck me about Anderson was just how liberal he was and Reagan might as well have been debating a democrat instead of a fellow republican. Anderson was pro-choice, pushed strongly for women's rights (and even supported gay rights!), Believed in climate change and felt the government had a responsibility to help African American living in poor urban areas. I can only imagine how different the 1980s (and even the Republican Party) would be if it had been Anderson in the White House instead of Reagan. If I was alive and of voting age in 1980 I would have gladly cast my ballot for Anderson.

Who is your pick for the best Presidential nominee to not win the White House? You can pick one candidate or several if you feel there were many that warranted it

Humphrey, excellent political and had the Nation's best interests at heart. The guy was just too mild mannered for the times.
 
We agree on the move of the party and on trump.

But I suspect the 'worship' of Reagan is also the case, about his manufactured image - it's typical for people who do fall for that to think they have not.

You mention to things about him as a "man" and a "patriot".

Let's start with patriot - I strongly disagree. His campaign committing treason with Iran to prevent the release of the hostages in order to win the election was not the campaign of a patriot, nor was his lawbreaking and deceit in any number of cases from the Iran-Contra crimes involving Israel (obligating us to them such that he sent the Marines to help them in Lebanon, where 249 were blown up, after which he said the act would
have no effect on our determination to remain, weeks before withdrawing), to his support for utter monsters in places such as El Salvador, and his calling hired criminals and thugs to fight the elected government in Nicaragua - who he illegally funded, another act against patriotism - the 'moral equivalent of our founding fathers'. None of that says much good about him as a man, much less a 'patriot'. So what do you mean exactly?

Try to answer what about him that doesn't fit an 'image' to 'worship' you can say you see in him. That isn't like people who watch John Wayne in movies and are convinced what a patriot and great man he is from that, and deny they're just worshiping his image.

That would explain why your view of Reagan is so distorted. You don't know history. IC Walsh completely exonerated Reagan of any wrong-doing in the Iran-Contra investigation. There was never any crimes of any kind.

The 1983 Beirut barracks bombings killed 307 people: 241 US and 58 French military personnel, 6 civilians, and the 2 attackers. Reagan essentially pulled a Carter and ran-away, displaying disgraceful cowardice.

You apparently are not aware that the Contras, whom Reagan supported, were fighting against the fascist leftists in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Reagan used the proceeds from an arms sale to Israel, who in turn sold those weapons to the revolutionary Reform Party in Iran, in order to fund the Contras. What do you think the Iran-Contra investigation was all about?

Once again, there was nothing illegal about funding the Contras, as IC Walsh proved when he exonerated Reagan. Furthermore, the Contras were fighting the socialist Sandinista Junta (a.k.a. "Sandinista National Liberation Front") which was supported and funded by the USSR.

John Wayne was very active in politics, and he was a patriot and a very staunch conservative Republican. Wayne was also a terrible actor. He only actually acted in two movies: The Searchers, and a parody of himself in True Grit. In every other movie he just played himself.
 
Um, did you know Huntsman accepted the offer from trump to be his ambassador to Russia?

Whataguy.

Huntsman also accepted the offer from Obama to be his ambassador to China. Don't look now, but your partisanship is showing.
 
Wallace had virtually no chance of being elected.

Wallace had a better shot at becoming President than any other third party candidate in US history. No other third party candidate in US history, besides George Wallace, received 46 Electoral College votes.
 
So you would be OK with being told you have to sit in the back of the bus?

I'd love it if buses were still segregated. What would the location matter?
 
He almost certainly would have won the 1972 Democratic primary, though it doesn't seem liely that he could've beat Nixon. Still, a conservative recapture the Democratic Party would've had a wonderful effect on subsequent politics.

Though I think his best chance for changing things for the better was in 1968. He came within an inch of stopping Nixon from winning an EC majority. Had he done so, he could have forced the Republicans to get behind a policy of leaving people alone.

Ultimately, Wallace failed because in his time, the true evils of egalitarian technocracy were not yet apparent.

Incorrect. After Wallace's defeat in 1968 the southern States began electing Republicans. They had had enough of the Dixiecrat bigots. That is when Lamar Alexander, Newt Gingrich, and many other southern Republicans were elected to office. By 1972 all of those 5 southern States that voted for Wallace in 1968 voted for Nixon. Because of Democrat bigotry, epitomized by Wallace, they had completely lost the south.
 
Back
Top Bottom