• 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 was the biggest missed opportunity for us?

M

Mcgovern_Gore

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
64
Reaction score
29
People often speculate how different our country would be if the losing presidential candidate had been the winner.
One example is that people often say if Al Gore had been elected then we would have never gone to war in Iraq and climate change would have been taken seriously by his adminstration.

Another great example is Hubert Humphrey losing in 1968 because had he won there is little doubt that he would have continued and expanded upon the liberal policies of his predecessor. In terms of having genuine domestic liberal policies I feel both of Richard Nixon's opponents in his last two presidential campaigns (Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern) were the greatest missed opportunities our country has had when it comes to liberalism. Heck I think even an argument can even be made for both Adlai Stevenson and Michael Dukakis being a huge missed opportunity for our country growing and progressing. Atleast if Dukakis was elected it would have been more likely that without Bush winning his son George W. Bush also never becomes president.
 
Last edited:
Mcgovern_Gore said:
People often speculate how different our country would be if the losing presidential candidate had been the winner.
One example is that people often say if Al Gore had been elected then we would have never gone to war in Iraq and climate change would have been taken seriously by his adminstration.

Another great example is Hubert Humphrey losing in 1968 because had he won there is little doubt that he would have continued and expanded upon the liberal policies of his predecessor. In terms of having genuine domestic liberal policies I feel both of Richard Nixon's opponents in his last two presidential campaigns (Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern) were the greatest missed opportunities our country has had when it comes to liberalism. Heck I think even an argument can even be made for both Adlai Stevenson and Michael Dukakis being a huge missed opportunity for our country growing and progressing. Atleast if Dukakis was elected it would have been more likely that without Bush winning his son George W. Bush also never becomes president.
Click to expand...

You posted this exact thread a few months ago.

My answer is still George Wallace.
 
I'd have to go with Goldwater in 1964, which would probably have eliminated Carter from ever becoming President.
 
I'm extremely cynical about Gore. I think being the centrist he was he would have put climate change on the back burner as president (though I don't remember how hard he campaigned on it). It seems to me he embraced the climate crusader persona only after his political career was over, as a sort of second choice. But yes, imagine a president governing on that. World changing.
 
uptower said:
I'm extremely cynical about Gore. I think being the centrist he was he would have put climate change on the back burner as president (though I don't remember how hard he campaigned on it). It seems to me he embraced the climate crusader persona only after his political career was over, as a sort of second choice. But yes, imagine a president governing on that. World changing.
Click to expand...

I understand why you'd think that and honestly I did not like that Gore supports the death penalty but as for as ecological issues go it was always something he had a genuine interest in before the 2000 election. He often talked about it and in 1992 he even wrote a book about it called Earth in the Balance.

I watched the 2000 debates on YouTube and when any ecological questions came up Gore sounded more concerned (and informed) about them compared to Bush. I think it's safe to say that even if it wound up being little it still would have been an improvement over Bush's complete indifference to climate change.
 
I would even add Republican Charles Evan Hughes from the 1916 election just for the simple fact our country would have been spared a second term from Woodrow Wilson.
 
i'm still pretty meh about Gore. would he have started the Iraq war? probably not. that alone would be better, though i have to admit that i thought that i was a right winger and supported the war at the beginning just like a lot of other fools with no skin in the game. i wonder if i would have clung harder to right wing nonsense if he had been elected.
 
There have been several. Gore the most recent (ignoring the debacle of 2016 for the moment) I am certain that if Gore had been elected there would not have been a war in Iraq. He would have paid attention to the intelligence that existed at the time about Bin Laden, and would not have chosen a man such as Cheney to serve in his administration. Cheney and Rumsfeld always wanted to go to Iraq, and used 9/11 as an excuse. I imagine we would have a vastly different world than we have today. Social Security would have been secured, rather than using the huge surplus Clinton passed on to a tax cut. Oil companies would not be treated as kings allowed to do their own environment study, and real action would have been taken on climate change.

The country also lost a great opportunity when Humphrey lost to Nixon.
 
JMR said:
There have been several. Gore the most recent (ignoring the debacle of 2016 for the moment) I am certain that if Gore had been elected there would not have been a war in Iraq. He would have paid attention to the intelligence that existed at the time about Bin Laden, and would not have chosen a man such as Cheney to serve in his administration. Cheney and Rumsfeld always wanted to go to Iraq, and used 9/11 as an excuse. I imagine we would have a vastly different world than we have today. Social Security would have been secured, rather than using the huge surplus Clinton passed on to a tax cut. Oil companies would not be treated as kings allowed to do their own environment study, and real action would have been taken on climate change.

The country also lost a great opportunity when Humphrey lost to Nixon.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said on Gore and I'm glad you feel the same way about Humphrey.
Hubert Humphrey was pretty liberal and our country would have been very different had he been elected.

He would have expanded and added to the great society programs and I even believe he would have handled the ending of the Vietnam war a lot better than Nixon did. I always got the impression he wanted to speak out against the war and never really favored it but since he was Johnson's VP that he felt like he had his hands tied on the issue which is a shame because with the exception of George McGovern he was probably the most liberal presidential nominee to lose an election in the 20th century.
 
Mcgovern_Gore said:
People often speculate how different our country would be if the losing presidential candidate had been the winner.
One example is that people often say if Al Gore had been elected then we would have never gone to war in Iraq and climate change would have been taken seriously by his adminstration.

Another great example is Hubert Humphrey losing in 1968 because had he won there is little doubt that he would have continued and expanded upon the liberal policies of his predecessor. In terms of having genuine domestic liberal policies I feel both of Richard Nixon's opponents in his last two presidential campaigns (Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern) were the greatest missed opportunities our country has had when it comes to liberalism. Heck I think even an argument can even be made for both Adlai Stevenson and Michael Dukakis being a huge missed opportunity for our country growing and progressing. Atleast if Dukakis was elected it would have been more likely that without Bush winning his son George W. Bush also never becomes president.
Click to expand...
As horrible as McCain was, it was still a massive lost opportunity to dodge the regressive Obama years.
 
JMR said:
There have been several. Gore the most recent (ignoring the debacle of 2016 for the moment) I am certain that if Gore had been elected there would not have been a war in Iraq. He would have paid attention to the intelligence that existed at the time about Bin Laden, and would not have chosen a man such as Cheney to serve in his administration. Cheney and Rumsfeld always wanted to go to Iraq, and used 9/11 as an excuse. I imagine we would have a vastly different world than we have today. Social Security would have been secured, rather than using the huge surplus Clinton passed on to a tax cut. Oil companies would not be treated as kings allowed to do their own environment study, and real action would have been taken on climate change.

The country also lost a great opportunity when Humphrey lost to Nixon.
Click to expand...

I would pick the same year but another person who probably would have been the candidate. I think RFK would have gone on to win the nomination and presidency.
 
Simpletruther said:
As horrible as McCain was, it was still a massive lost opportunity to dodge the regressive Obama years.
Click to expand...
It's funny you say that because I think had I been able to vote in that election i would have voted third party just because I feel both McCain and Obama were terrible but in different ways.
Just curious but in your opinion what made the Obama years regressive?
 
Mcgovern_Gore said:
I agree with what you said on Gore and I'm glad you feel the same way about Humphrey.
Hubert Humphrey was pretty liberal and our country would have been very different had he been elected.

He would have expanded and added to the great society programs and I even believe he would have handled the ending of the Vietnam war a lot better than Nixon did. I always got the impression he wanted to speak out against the war and never really favored it but since he was Johnson's VP that he felt like he had his hands tied on the issue which is a shame because with the exception of George McGovern he was probably the most liberal presidential nominee to lose an election in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

Humphrey's loss was due to not carrying the far left vote, and we end up with Nixon!
 
washunut said:
I would pick the same year but another person who probably would have been the candidate. I think RFK would have gone on to win the nomination and presidency.
Click to expand...

I agree that RFK would have gotten the nomination and the presidency, had he not been assassinated. Horrible times in our history.
 
AmNat said:
You posted this exact thread a few months ago.

My answer is still George Wallace.
Click to expand...

"Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

That's quite a pick.
 
Mcgovern_Gore said:
People often speculate how different our country would be if the losing presidential candidate had been the winner.
One example is that people often say if Al Gore had been elected then we would have never gone to war in Iraq and climate change would have been taken seriously by his adminstration.

Another great example is Hubert Humphrey losing in 1968 because had he won there is little doubt that he would have continued and expanded upon the liberal policies of his predecessor. In terms of having genuine domestic liberal policies I feel both of Richard Nixon's opponents in his last two presidential campaigns (Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern) were the greatest missed opportunities our country has had when it comes to liberalism. Heck I think even an argument can even be made for both Adlai Stevenson and Michael Dukakis being a huge missed opportunity for our country growing and progressing. Atleast if Dukakis was elected it would have been more likely that without Bush winning his son George W. Bush also never becomes president.
Click to expand...

Stevenson, Dukakis and McGovern, not so sure, but certainly HHH would have changed history.
I think Gore would have been a kind president but not so sure he would have been an excellent one. Maybe a survivable slightly better than mediocre kind of guy. But yes, he would have been better for the environment in some ways. Maybe we would have injected a lot more help in alternative energy ideas. I sure would love to know his views on Thorium power.
 
Individual said:
I'd have to go with Goldwater in 1964, which would probably have eliminated Carter from ever becoming President.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure he would have been that great of a president in 1964 but 1972 or 1976, perhaps.
1980? Definitely better than Reagan.

I still would have disagreed with him on a lot of issues but I know he was a good man anyway.
In 1964 he was too hotheaded. Goldwater just got better and better with age, from where I sit.
 
JMR said:
Humphrey's loss was due to not carrying the far left vote, and we end up with Nixon!
Click to expand...

Heh heh, not "carrying"...I blame the idiot far Left for staying home and having a snit. HHH probably would have tried to make progress with them had he won. He was a Minnesotan, and I know what the typical "blue" Minnesotan is like. We would probably have gotten national health care.

RFK, hard to say, I think he would have ignited our social conscience in a lot of wonderful ways but I have my doubts about foreign policy.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Heh heh, not "carrying"...I blame the idiot far Left for staying home and having a snit. HHH probably would have tried to make progress with them had he won. He was a Minnesotan, and I know what the typical "blue" Minnesotan is like. We would probably have gotten national health care.

RFK, hard to say, I think he would have ignited our social conscience in a lot of wonderful ways but I have my doubts about foreign policy.
Click to expand...

I was trying to "be nice" about the far left having a snit. They've done that a couple of times now with disastrous results...Somehow we have to all make friends.
 
JMR said:
I was trying to "be nice" about the far left having a snit. They've done that a couple of times now with disastrous results...Somehow we have to all make friends.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100% and it's a shame that we got Nixon because of Humphrey not speaking out against the Vietnam War. It really set our country back and I feel the only time it is appropriate to vote third party is if you live in a deep blue state (fortunately I do) but I also understand the frustration of voting for a candidate you don't feel good about but feel you have to vote for just because they are a lesser evil.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Heh heh, not "carrying"...I blame the idiot far Left for staying home and having a snit. HHH probably would have tried to make progress with them had he won. He was a Minnesotan, and I know what the typical "blue" Minnesotan is like. We would probably have gotten national health care.

RFK, hard to say, I think he would have ignited our social conscience in a lot of wonderful ways but I have my doubts about foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Speaking of typical blue Minnesotan do you feel Mondale would have done as well as Humphrey had he beaten Reagan in 84?
 
JMR said:
I was trying to "be nice" about the far left having a snit. They've done that a couple of times now with disastrous results...Somehow we have to all make friends.
Click to expand...

Yup. I used to be nice about it but I am so fed up with the purity ponies. Maybe THEY DO need twenty years of Trump to get it through their thick heads but I cannot afford that.
 
Mcgovern_Gore said:
It's funny you say that because I think had I been able to vote in that election i would have voted third party just because I feel both McCain and Obama were terrible but in different ways.
Just curious but in your opinion what made the Obama years regressive?
Click to expand...

His biggest regression was enabling the false racism narrative and caused major harm in race relations. But also the march toward globalism and central planning was greater.
 
Mcgovern_Gore said:
Speaking of typical blue Minnesotan do you feel Mondale would have done as well as Humphrey had he beaten Reagan in 84?
Click to expand...

I do not feel qualified to speak with authority on Mondale. He seemed to be a pretty good guy but I'd have to "thunk" on that one for a long time. :)
 
Definitely Humphrey for me, but Stevenson is my second choice. Voters were just plain stupid to pick Trump over Clinton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom