Presidential Survivor (ROUND 14)

[dazzleman]

As much as I hate to, I am going to vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's a shame that the Democrats have started this aggressive campaign to get rid of the current president, when there's plenty of dead wood left that should be culled first.  I think it's premature to get rid of recent/current and highly consequential presidents, but if the Democrats want to push the issue, we have no choice but to fight back.  That's the only reason I voted for LBJ in the last round, and the only reason I'm voting for FDR now.

[dazzleman]

If Bush goes, we'll target your precious Bill Clinton next.

[dazzleman]

If Bush goes, we'll target your precious Bill Clinton next.

Say good-bye to Ronald Reagan then.

George Washington will likely win, he didn't piss anyone off, at least no where near as much as the others.

My point is that we should not be dealing with these presidents now.  We should save them for later.  And I doubt you'd be successful with Ronald Reagan until much later.

[dazzleman]

This is why the left should have continued to go after 19th century deadwood like Taylor - you just know that the right will turn around and try to eliminate people we don't want to see eliminated.

I'll save my vote for later.

My point exactly.

 There was no concerted Republican attempt to go after a consequential Democratic president like LBJ or FDR until the Democrats started with this premature campaign against Bush. 

Jimmy Carter? Please.  Nobody cares about him, and he's an embarrassment to his own party.  Complaining about him being voted off would be like Republicans complaining about Harding.

And so far, Democrats have failed to remove Bush, while Republicans have now gotten rid of Wilson and LBJ.  This is like a replay of the election, in which Democrats sacrifice all other priorities to their hatred of Bush, and lose everything.

If they want to continue that game, fine.  But it's pretty stupid in my opinion.  I'd much rather get rid of the dead wood presidents, and then deal with the more consequential and controversial ones together.

[dazzleman]

As much as I hate to, I am going to vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's a shame that the Democrats have started this aggressive campaign to get rid of the current president, when there's plenty of dead wood left that should be culled first.

That's what I've been saying all along. Hell, I wanted people to vote for James Garfield, but almost no one did. g partisanship. If you people don't grow up, someone like Harrison is going to win.

That's what I'm afraid of - that we'll eliminate all the good choices because they're controversial, and can attract enough opposition to eliminate them at this relatively early stage.

The only reason I voted for LBJ was because the Democrats were voting for W, and it was the only way to save him at this stage.

I could well support a Democrat at the end.  My sense of partisanship fades the further back in history we go.

The only reason I voted FDR this round is because voting for him was the only chance to save W.  I don't necessarily oppose his elimination at some point, but I think it's crazy to be voting off recent presidents, for whom we don't have a good historical perspective, when there's still so much dead wood left.

Ideally, I'd like to see the consequential presidents go head-to-head after the dead wood has been cleared out.  But at the rate we're going, there won't be anybody good left after a few more rounds.

If the Democrats really want to eliminate a Republican, Nixon would be a better choice, and he's highly comparable to LBJ in certain ways.

[dazzleman]

How is Nixon comparable to FDR?  And if you wanted to see the consequential presidents head-to-head at the end, why wouldn't you support getting rid of GWB before FDR?

If there hadn't been a concerted effort to go after GWB this round, people like me never would have voted for FDR.  I would have voted for some dead-wood 19th century president instead.  I have no desire to see FDR, Truman, etc. eliminated at this stage.  Notice there's been no effort to eliminate Bill Clinton so far.

I say get rid of the dead wood first, then we'll deal with the more controversial and consequential presidents.