Who Would You Have Voted For In Historical Presidential Elections?

[Tywysog Cymru]

In this thread inform everyone how you would have voted in all those important elections that you weren't even alive/old enough to vote in!

Republican
Democrat
Libertarian
Constitution
Independent/Reform


I'm starting at 1912 because I don't know enough about the elections before then except for the fact that I'd vote for Washington, Jefferson, and Cleveland.

1912: Taft/Butler
1916: Hughes/Fairbanks
1920: Harding/Coolidge
1924: Coolidge/Dawes
1928: Hoover/Curtis
1932: Hoover/Curtis
1936: Landon/Knox
1940: Willkie/McNary
1944: Dewey/Bricker
1948: Dewey/Warren
1952: Eisenhower/Nixon
1956: Eisenhower/Nixon
1960: Kennedy/Johnson
1964: None of The Above
1968: Humphrey/Muskie
1972: Hospers/Nathan
1976: MacBride/Bergland
1980: Reagan/Bush
1984: Reagan/Bush
1988: Paul/Marrou
1992: Perot/Stockdale
1996: Perot/Choate
2000: Phillips/Frazier
2004: Peroutka/Baldwin
2008: Baldwin/Castle
2012: Goode/Clymer

GOP Primaries:
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1992: Buchanan
1996: Buchanan
2000: Keyes
2008: Paul
2012: Paul

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Pat Paulsen, Gus Hall, Ross Perot, Mountain Landis, Pancho Villa, among others.

[eduardo89]

You wouldn't have voted for Goldwater?

[Tywysog Cymru]

You wouldn't have voted for Goldwater?

No, he had a lot of good things to say but then suggested using nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

[Cutlerzzz]

You vote for all of those statists and not Goldwater?

[muzzled dogg]

none of those elections were decided by one vote so your vote wouldn't have mattered

[oyarde]

Your pick for 1964 looks pretty good .....

[Tywysog Cymru]

You vote for all of those statists and not Goldwater?

Yes, using nukes carelessly is much worse than creating government programs. A lot can go horribly wrong with nuclear weapons.

And anyway, lets talk about who we would vote for, not about Goldwater. I've argued enough about him on this forum before.

[compromise]

I think this is difficult because with a lot of them we have the benefit of hindsight and so may have a different view than we would hypothetically have if voting in the election on the day. E.g. 2000 election, I probably would have gone with Bush if I had voted then, but now looking back at what he did post-9/11 I would not have voted for Bush. I'd go with something pretty similar to yours, with a few changes.

1912: Taft/Butler
1916: Hughes/Fairbanks
1920: Harding/Coolidge
1924: Coolidge/Dawes
1928: Hoover/Curtis
1932: Hoover/Curtis
1936: Landon/Knox
1940: Willkie/McNary
1944: Dewey/Bricker
1948: Dewey/Warren
1952: Eisenhower/Nixon
1956: Eisenhower/Nixon
1960: Kennedy/Johnson
1964: Goldwater/Miller
1968: No vote
1972: Hospers/Nathan
1976: MacBride/Bergland
1980: Reagan/Bush
1984: Reagan/Bush
1988: Paul/Marrou
1992: Marrou/Lord
1996: Browne/Jorgensen
2000: Buchanan/Foster
2004: Badnarik/Campagna
2008: Baldwin/Castle
2012: Romney/Ryan

GOP Primaries:
1940: Taft
1944: Bricker
1948: Taft
1952: Taft
1956: Bricker
1960: Bender
1964: Goldwater
1968: Reagan
1976: Reagan
1980: Reagan
1992: Buchanan
1996: Forbes
2000: Forbes
2008: Paul
2012: Paul
2016: Paul

[Carson]

Pat Paulsen, Gus Hall, Ross Perot, Mountain Landis, Pancho Villa, among others.

Pat Paulsen was the true winner that year... the man that stood out and above the pack.

[Keith and stuff]

Republicans up through 1968. The Liberty candidate after that. I will not vote for a presidential candidate unless I'm met the candidate. It hasn't been a problem so far ;)

http://www.harrybrowne.org/Journal/Journa1.jpg
There was something special about this guy.

[Christian Liberty]

2012: Romney/Ryan

I hesitate to ask but... why? How was he possibly better than Obama?

I don't know enough about most of these elections. I know in 2012 I wanted to vote for Johnson. Still probably would. Not a huge fan of him but hey, its a protest vote. I don't have any serious problems with Virgil Goode either, but I wasn't thrilled with him in the third party debate. I could be convinced to go with Goode over Johnson, but I haven't really heard any compelling reasons why.

2008... well, knowing what I know now Chuck Baldwin without a doubt.

2004, with the caveat above, Badnarik.

2000 and 1996, I don't know much about him personally ,but all the right people seem to like Harry Browne so I would have gone with him.

I honestly don't know who was an option in '92. I know I wouldn't vote for Clinton or Bush. I haven't heard anything about Perot from anyone I really trust, so I'd have to really look him up. I don't know who the LP or CP candidates were at the time. I'd probably end up voting for some minor party candidate, but exactly which one, I don't know.

In 1988 I would have voted for Ron Paul.

Reagan had all the right rhetoric but not nearly enough of the right actions. I could never knowingly support someone who supports a Federal ban on automatic weapons, no matter what else they support. Maybe for certain lower offices, but not the Presidency. Factor in the War on Drugs, and no. Just no. Without the benefit of hindsight, I might have voted for him, but with hindsight, I once again would have to go with minor party candidates. Exactly which ones, I don't know.

Regarding Goldwater... for me it really depends. If he was really serious about what he was saying about nukes in Vietnam, I have to agree with Tywysog/CelticEmpire and draw my line there. That's an issue I really can't compromise on at all, its even worse than the stuff I discounted Reagan for. On the other hand, if Goldwater didn't really believe that, and it was just a gaffe/something he said when angry but would never have acted on, or something like that, than that would be different. I'm curious what Ron Paul's take on Goldwater is since he was alive at the time, although I don't view Ron as the best judge of other people either.
I definitely would have voted for Coolidge or Robert Taft. Barring unforeseen circumstances, I'd vote for Rand Paul if he won the GOP nomination, and otherwise will likely vote for a minor party candidate in 2016.

Interesting topic, unfortunately not one I know enough about. I know plenty about the people who actually did win, but not nearly enough about the losers.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know enough about the elections before then except for the fact that I'd vote for Washington, Jefferson, and Cleveland.

Van Buren and Tyler were excellent as well.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Van Buren and Tyler were excellent as well.

I don't really know enough about them, my knowledge of US politics pre-1860 is a very shaky, so I would have to do a lot of research on those elections.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't really know enough about them, my knowledge of US politics pre-1860 is a very shaky, so I would have to do a lot of research on those elections.

Get "Recarving Rushmore" by Ivan Elend.

I only red the first half (Up to and including Cleveland IIRC) but its a great "At a glance" source.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Get "Recarving Rushmore" by Ivan Elend.

I only red the first half (Up to and including Cleveland IIRC) but its a great "At a glance" source.

After some quick research, I see that Jimmy Carter gets a good ranking, while Jefferson gets a relatively low one. I found that strange.

[Snew]

1968: none. (RFK had he not been assassinated.)
1972: McGovern/Shriver
1976: none. (maybe Carter/Mondale)
1980: none. (maybe Carter/Mondale)
1984: none.
1988: Paul/Marrou
1992: Marrou/Lord
1996: Browne/Jorgensen
2000: Nader/LaDuke
2004: Badnarik/Campagna
2008: Nader/Gonzalez
2012: Ron Paul write-in

[Christian Liberty]

After some quick research, I see that Jimmy Carter gets a good ranking, while Jefferson gets a relatively low one. I found that strange.

I haven't read the Carter section yet. I wanted to because I found it very odd that Carter got ranked #8. I wanted to look up why that was.

That said, Elend grades on a curve based on the time period one lived in. Jefferson would have been graded more harshly because he was actually alive when the constitution was ratified. Whereas Carter would have been held to the standard of doing as best as he could, he wouldn't be held responsible for government programs that he inherited. And stuff along those lines.

For what its worth, Ron Paul recommended the book. As did Tom Dilorenzo. You probably won't agree with every single ranking. I didn't either (I thought they were a little harsh on Jefferson, and a little soft [although still primarily negative] on Abe Lincoln) but its a good read nonetheless. I intend on finishing it soon.

[Christian Liberty]

1968: none. (RFK had he not been assassinated.)
1972: McGovern/Shriver
1976: none. (maybe Carter/Mondale)
1980: none. (maybe Carter/Mondale)
1984: none.
1988: Paul/Marrou
1992: Marrou/Lord
1996: Browne/Jorgensen
2000: Nader/LaDuke
2004: Badnarik/Campagna
2008: Nader/Gonzalez
2012: Ron Paul write-in

Nader over Baldwin in 2008? Why?

[FSU63]

Elections are rigged, so I wouldn't have voted at all. I wrote-in Ron Paul in 2012, but I now realize that voting is useless.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know if they rig them or not. Why bother when the choice is between one figurehead and another figurehead? Then again, if someone like Ron Paul actually won, I'm sure he would somehow be prevented from taking office. I'd said that Rand should keep his security VERY close if he picks someone less libertarian than him for the VP slot.

[FSU63]

I don't know if they rig them or not. Why bother when the choice is between one figurehead and another figurehead? Then again, if someone like Ron Paul actually won, I'm sure he would somehow be prevented from taking office. I'd said that Rand should keep his security VERY close if he picks someone less libertarian than him for the VP slot.
If someone like Ron Paul won, we'd still have a corrupt Congress, a corrupt media, corrupt bankers, corrupt CEOs, etc.

[oyarde]

If someone like Ron Paul won, we'd still have a corrupt Congress, a corrupt media, corrupt bankers, corrupt CEOs, etc.

And no deficit increases , new taxes , additional UnConstitutional spending signed , no new wars etc

[FSU63]

And no deficit increases , new taxes , additional UnConstitutional spending signed , no new wars etc
Yes, of course. It would be tremendously better, but we'd still be in a lot of trouble economically.

[asurfaholic]

So is this supposted to be before of after I discovered Ron Paul?

If after learning Ron Paul, Id probably say...

Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above
Ron Paul/None of the above



or before I learned Ron Paul/woke up.

Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair
Whoever the media hyped up the most/better hair

Sorry, that's just the truth.

[oyarde]

Yes, of course. It would be tremendously better, but we'd still be in a lot of trouble economically.

I agree with that , tremendous damage has been done , A Liberty President is only going to be able to prevent further damage, is my guess ....

[DamianTV]

Hindsidght is always 20/20

If I had the power, I would NOT have voted for Woodrow Wilson. He was the President who sold his position for campaign contributions in exchange for authorizing the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. Of course, thats not to say that the powers that created the Fed did not have their hands in the pockets of other candidates of that Election. Had people been wiser to the dangers of a Central Bank and knew what was coming, many most surely would have voted in the Ron Paul of their day.

I believe that was the LAST Presidential Election that truly mattered, excluding of course, the Ron Paul Elections, and all that follow because now we are on to their dirty tricks.

[Dianne]

Actually being raised as a democrat who fled to the RINO's quickly realizing no difference in the parties that I fled to being a libertarian ... there is only one President in my lifetime, who I would go out on a limb to say was the best in my lifetime. You guys won't agree but the greatest President in my lifetime was John F. Kennedy. Teddy sucked, probably via blackmail, etc. but JFK was the only President I know of that tried to warn of us secret societies attempting to take over the country. Of course, he was dead, dead, dead, soon thereafter; but although he fooled around and whatever; he tried to warn us and probably knew it might cost him his life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'd say there really are not any good presidents. The nature of the office precludes greatness. Appealing to a good chunk of millions of people means mediocrity.

I don't know why people even grasp with this kind of stuff. Take about four dozen engineers, doctors, etc, and chances are there won't be a great one in the bunch. There is a reason that well under 2% of major league ballplayers make the Hall of Fame. IF you could even use the same number standard for presidents, you still would not have one outstanding president.

Good and great are all around us. Looking for it in the presidential office means there is something seriously lacking in our lives.

[acptulsa]

Elections are rigged, so I wouldn't have voted at all. I wrote-in Ron Paul in 2012, but I now realize that voting is useless.

Their game wouldn't work if they controlled every aspect of the process. They would make themselves much too obvious.

If they rigged elections, why did they have to shoot Kennedy? They never did feel the need to shoot Nixon.

They control the conversation much more than the ballots themselves. Which isn't to say they wouldn't, or that they don't in certain states (say, during the primary season) in order to prevent a candidate who can't be bought or controlled from gaining traction (as we have seen)...

[kcchiefs6465]

And no deficit increases , new taxes , additional UnConstitutional spending signed , no new wars etc
They'd impeach the first week when it became clear anything unconstitutional would be vetoed. Or a bullet.

If the people do not change, I don't care who gets into office. They are restrained in what they can accomplish.

ETA: Aside from having a podium to speak to the country from. (which could theoretically accomplish a lot)

[kcchiefs6465]

Their game wouldn't work if they controlled every aspect of the process. They would make themselves much too obvious.

If they rigged elections, why did they have to shoot Kennedy? They never did feel the need to shoot Nixon.

They control the conversation much more than the ballots themselves. Which isn't to say they wouldn't, or that they don't in certain states (say, during the primary season) in order to prevent a candidate who can't be bought or controlled from gaining traction (as we have seen)...
Kennedy was elected through a rigged election. Why "they" shot him is because he changed his tune.

ETA: And as to another point, they don't have to rig or tamper with every county or city. Some are more valuable than others. (as was Kennedy's case.... or Bush's case)

[acptulsa]

Kennedy was elected through a rigged election. Why "they" shot him is because he changed his tune.

I doubt it. Nixon had been vice president for eight years, and like G.H.W. Bush did to Reagan, he was helping keep Eisenhower on the reservation the whole time. Eisenhower didn't truly speak his mind until the final days when he made his Military Industrial Complex speech, and the Luce-controlled media basically never pointed a microphone at him ever again for the remaining eight years of his life.

Why would they care which one won, if they thought J.F.K. was going to be a 'team player'? That's the basic premise of the one-party, two-team system. If neither party is ever allowed to put up a candidate that will challenge your power, why would you care which one wins the beauty contest? It certainly wouldn't be worth blowing your appearance of respectability over.

[kcchiefs6465]

I doubt it. Nixon had been vice president for eight years, and like G.H.W. Bush did to Reagan, he was helping keep Eisenhower on the reservation the whole time. Eisenhower didn't truly speak his mind until the final days when he made his Military Industrial Complex speech, and the Luce-controlled media basically never pointed a microphone at him ever again for the remaining eight years of his life.

Why would they care which one won, if they thought J.F.K. was going to be a 'team player'? That's the basic premise of the one-party, two-team system. If neither party is ever allowed to put up a candidate that will challenge your power, why would you care which one wins the beauty contest? It certainly wouldn't be worth blowing your appearance of respectability over.
There are finer aspects that I would imagine are discussed. Appearances, for example. JFK was charismatic, young, handsome. He could do things another might not be able to do. Much the way Obama gets away with what McCain never would. I'm not sure of the specifics, or what Joe Kennedy may have promised on behalf of his son, but there was enough of a reason to rig Illinois. And of course there are many different factions that aren't all directly connected. The Mafia made sure Kennedy won. Kennedy pissed off enough people that it is hard to say one way or another about his death. I know a little about Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante and Marcello's toast, but who know if they were just blowing smoke? Marcello's lifelong lawyer has no reason to lie, that I see, but perhaps Marcello lied to him? It's one of those things that serves as a reminder of what could, or as I see it, would happen should someone plan to change the status quo.

Reagan's attempted assassination I'm not so read on aside from the tidbits I read hear. GHWB being involved would not surprise me. Being fairly well read with CIA drug running, Cele Castillo and the "accidents" that perturb the Bush(es) and Clinton(s), nothing would surprise.

[Carson]

Pat Paulsen Editorials (Smothers Brothers Comedy Hr,1967/68)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWLUnorTU

[TaftFan]

Regarding Goldwater, he suggested using smaller nuclear weapons to take out infrastructure. Nuclear is simply a technology.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Regarding Goldwater, he suggested using smaller nuclear weapons to take out infrastructure. Nuclear is simply a technology.

Ask the Iraqis how they feel about the current state of their infrastructure. Nuclear in that sense is not merely just a technology, it is a weapon of destruction and suffering.

[Peace&Freedom]

Every presidential election since the JFK assassination has been basically meaningless, as with his death no subsequent incumbent has put up meaningful resistance to the establishment and infrastructure of the pro-war/pro-Fed Total State. The major party primary process remained significant (as a threat to produce a nominee who would confront said establishment) and retained some semblance of integrity through 1980.

But the unexpected primary race victories and nominations of McGovern, Carter and Reagan (and strong challenges of Reagan in '76 and Kennedy in '80) caused the elite to change/rig the process thereafter to protect the establishment favorite. "Super Tuesday," the South Carolina primary and other devices were set up to lock in the establishment candidate early, and the conventions were neutered and turned into coronations for the anointed one, with no last minute brokering. Until the Paul campaigns, this is why a third party candidate has been the ONLY real presidential choice for the last several decades.

[Christian Liberty]

I'd say there really are not any good presidents. The nature of the office precludes greatness. Appealing to a good chunk of millions of people means mediocrity.

I don't know why people even grasp with this kind of stuff. Take about four dozen engineers, doctors, etc, and chances are there won't be a great one in the bunch. There is a reason that well under 2% of major league ballplayers make the Hall of Fame. IF you could even use the same number standard for presidents, you still would not have one outstanding president.

Good and great are all around us. Looking for it in the presidential office means there is something seriously lacking in our lives.


As an ancap I don't support the office at all. Even holding the office entails some flaw and some aggression. So I agree, there aren't any truly "great" leaders. Their existence is a flaw.

However, I would call a few Presidents "Good" because they had little to no abuses of power and mostly permitted the free markert to function while they were in charge.

Ultimately its really a matter of "Least bads" but Washington, Jefferson, Van Buren, John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, and possibly a few others were pretty free market oriented. I'd be absolutely thrilled if the modern equivalent of any of the above ever took office in the modern era.

[RonZeplin]

If someone like Ron Paul won, we'd still have a corrupt Congress, a corrupt media, corrupt bankers, corrupt CEOs, etc.

With the help of a law abiding Attorney General (Ted Cruz?) Ron would have been able to clean out at least half of Congress, Banks, CEO's, and hang at least a few of them for treason.

Their crimes routinely show up on TV broadcasts. They're proud of them.

[Christian Liberty]

With the help of a law abiding Attorney General (Ted Cruz?) Ron would have been able to clean out at least half of Congress, Banks, CEO's, and hang at least a few of them for treason.

Their crimes routinely show up on TV broadcasts. They're proud of them.

Ron Paul wouldn't support executing them. One of the few things I disagree with him on:)