Failed Presidential Candidate Tier List

[vcczar]

Here's the list. I'm curious how other people rank them. I'll post mine later: https://tiermaker.com/create/failed-us-presidential-candidates-162170

 

[vcczar]

Mine is based mostly on ideological satisfaction. I make some minor adjustments for ability. The higher up the list, the more satisfied I am in general. I'd say S, A, and B are the only ones I'd have any really excitement for. A C means they're passable. A D means that I likely would never support them but they don't upset me to the degree that I would feel energized to vote against them. F means I could feasibly be more energized to vote against them than for someone else if they were facing a generic candidate. Most of these people would have strengthened slavery or opposed or weakened Civil Rights. I want to put some asterisks next to Henry Clay at A and WJ Bryan at C. Clay didn't really take any official slavery stance as a nominee. If he threw the South a bone on slavery, he would drop considerably. If WJ Bryan made some sort of promise to defend Civil Rights and jobs of black politicians, then he would rise to an A probably. As far as non-race related policy, anyone on S through C is good, and a few on D are acceptable. My top two choices are DeWitt Clinton and Robert LaFollette. The latter is ideal, but Clinton might have been an amazing president, especially on infrastructure and other modernizations. He was a modernist like Clay and JQ Adams but he was also much more in favor of social mobility than these two others. McGovern at A was a terrible campaign candidate, but he was an effective progressive legislator. He was basically the Elizabeth Warren of his time. You can thank him for nationwide primaries too. He was the central mover on that. 

[WVProgressive]

I ranked them by how preferable they were to the historical winner of the election(s) they ran in. I acknowledge that recency bias may be clouding my judgement on some of them.

[ConservativeElector2]

Put together a strange mix of ideological and personal likeability. I haven't really strong emotions on the ones in the middle section. Their ranking might vary from day to day.

[Murrman104]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Mine is based mostly on ideological satisfaction. I make some minor adjustments for ability. The higher up the list, the more satisfied I am in general. I'd say S, A, and B are the only ones I'd have any really excitement for. A C means they're passable. A D means that I likely would never support them but they don't upset me to the degree that I would feel energized to vote against them. F means I could feasibly be more energized to vote against them than for someone else if they were facing a generic candidate. Most of these people would have strengthened slavery or opposed or weakened Civil Rights. I want to put some asterisks next to Henry Clay at A and WJ Bryan at C. Clay didn't really take any official slavery stance as a nominee. If he threw the South a bone on slavery, he would drop considerably. If WJ Bryan made some sort of promise to defend Civil Rights and jobs of black politicians, then he would rise to an A probably. As far as non-race related policy, anyone on S through C is good, and a few on D are acceptable. My top two choices are DeWitt Clinton and Robert LaFollette. The latter is ideal, but Clinton might have been an amazing president, especially on infrastructure and other modernizations. He was a modernist like Clay and JQ Adams but he was also much more in favor of social mobility than these two others. McGovern at A was a terrible campaign candidate, but he was an effective progressive legislator. He was basically the Elizabeth Warren of his time. You can thank him for nationwide primaries too. He was the central mover on that. 

The charles evans hughes  pick is interesting. Is there a particular reason he's in the upper tier for you?

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, Murrman104 said:

The charles evans hughes  pick is interesting. Is there a particular reason he's in the upper tier for you?

Yeah. In 1916 he was still moderately progressive. He was more progressive as Gov of NY before. He moderated on the court with FDR. I’d still prefer Wilson if Wilson wasn’t segregating or ousting black bureaucrats. Hughes was to the left of Taft but to the right of TR which made him the perfect pick for 1916. He would have beat Wilson had he not been a wooden campaigner. If 1932 Hughes were the candidate he’d probably be a C or D on my list. 

[DakotaHale]

Can't wait to rank George Wallave after I get done doing renovations tonight

[Brunell]

 

How I think they would've served as President. Higher the tier, better Presidency I think they would've had.

We've had a lot of terrible people run for this nation's highest office who would've screwed things up much worse than they already are.

 

 

[DakotaHale]

No S-tier candidates. Anyone in the F-tier would have led to the destruction of America as a country (unironically. McGovern was literally the only main party candidate post WW2 who would have lost the Cold War).

[DakotaHale]

wallave

[Euri]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Wallace and Humphrey in the same tier for any context

[jnewt]

[DakotaHale]

17 hours ago, jnewt said:

I would have expected you to have a higher placement for WJB

[DakotaHale]

On 7/31/2023 at 4:51 PM, Euri said:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen Wallace and Humphrey in the same tier for any context

Both would have been good presidents IMO

[jnewt]

1 hour ago, DakotaHale said:

I would have expected you to have a higher placement for WJB

The Scopes Trial/Christian fundamentalism is what knocked him down for me

[Dobs]

[DakotaHale]

23 minutes ago, Dobs said:

Surprised you have cringe Greeley so high

[Dobs]

2 hours ago, DakotaHale said:

Surprised you have cringe Greeley so high

Yeah don't love Greeley and he was definitely an unnecessary pain in Lincoln's ass, but ultimately I feel his heart was very much in the right place. He could be lower C or high D if I really thought harder about it.