The most influental U.S. presidential loser of the 20th Century?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:26:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The most influental U.S. presidential loser of the 20th Century?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The most influental U.S. presidential loser of the 20th Century?  (Read 3952 times)
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 29, 2010, 04:55:48 PM »

Out of the major parties, eventually strong third parties, nominees (thus, not counting loser for a nomination).

I'd say Barry Goldwater.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2010, 05:08:03 PM »

Um, how was Goldwater influential after losing in 1964? Nixon basically shut him out and Reagan brought in the influence of the big government evangelical fundamentalists Goldwater loved to criticize.

 That's as ridiculous as saying McGovern was the most influential presidential loser of the 20th century.
Logged
Boris
boris78
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,098
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.55, S: -4.52

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 29, 2010, 05:17:12 PM »

Richard Nixon
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2010, 07:36:39 PM »

Hmm, not counting Nixon, I'm probably going to have to go with Goldwater, considering that he inspired a new generation of conservatives. He's rolling over in his grave today, though.

Other then that, Hughes had a very successful post-loser career, serving as Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2010, 08:01:20 PM »

Bryan.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2010, 08:05:13 PM »


Oh, yeah, how can I forget. Him too.
Logged
feeblepizza
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,910
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.45, S: -0.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2010, 08:29:02 PM »

Not counting Nixon because he won eight years after his loss.

I'd say Goldwater because he inspired a new generation of conservatives, and Bryan because he inspired a new generation of liberals.
Logged
WillK
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,276


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2010, 10:01:07 PM »

Hughes and Gore.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2010, 10:06:47 PM »

AuH2O, assuming incumbents that lost reelection as well as Nixon and TR don't count.
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2010, 10:07:55 PM »

FDR

He ran for VP in 1920 Grin
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2010, 10:10:34 PM »

Hoover.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,899
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2010, 10:14:09 PM »


How was Hoover at all influential after 1932? The Republican Party even abandoned his conservative foreign policy and adopted FDR's internationalism. Robert Taft could not once get nominated.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2010, 10:16:48 PM »

Teddy Roosevelt or Nixon (of course they also won).
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2010, 10:20:46 PM »

The case for Hoover: FDR took some of Hoover's failed policies (particularly towards the end, 1932), multiplied them x10, and succeeded spectacularly. Then when WWII broke out, he took his own policies, multiplied them x10 again, and succeeded even more spectacularly.

The case for Goldwater: It's a little longer, but worth the read.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2010, 11:39:24 PM »

The case for Hoover: FDR took some of Hoover's failed policies (particularly towards the end, 1932), multiplied them x10, and succeeded spectacularly. Then when WWII broke out, he took his own policies, multiplied them x10 again, and succeeded even more spectacularly.

I'll agree that FDR was able to out-Hoover Hoover with his economic policies, but I wouldn't call it a spectacular success, except on the PR front.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 30, 2010, 01:11:43 AM »

Goldwater, while losing badly, with him winning a nomination ended the a longtime domination of people like Dewey and Rockefeller within the Republican Party, changed Republican strategy by aiming on the Dixie.

Yes, despite losing his presidential bid was most influental in a historical perspective.
Logged
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2010, 04:26:31 PM »

The case for Hoover: FDR took some of Hoover's failed policies (particularly towards the end, 1932), multiplied them x10, and succeeded spectacularly. Then when WWII broke out, he took his own policies, multiplied them x10 again, and succeeded even more spectacularly.

I'll agree that FDR was able to out-Hoover Hoover with his economic policies, but I wouldn't call it a spectacular success, except on the PR front.

Decreasing unemployment by 15%, halting a nation-wide banking collapse, ending nearly 50 years of labor-management conflict,building some of the most lasting vestiges of beauty in the entire United States in the process, and then bringing this nation out of its most devastating depression with the buildup to WWII isn't a spectacular success?
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2010, 04:31:02 PM »

And he saved the world (not singlehandedly), don't forget that.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2010, 10:31:10 PM »

FDR was not a "presidential loser". He was a "vice presidential loser", ftr.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2010, 10:52:07 PM »


How was Hoover at all influential after 1932? The Republican Party even abandoned his conservative foreign policy and adopted FDR's internationalism. Robert Taft could not once get nominated.

Hoover managed to singlehandedly ruin America, and the effects of his ruination continue to be felt today.
Logged
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 12:09:32 AM »


How was Hoover at all influential after 1932? The Republican Party even abandoned his conservative foreign policy and adopted FDR's internationalism. Robert Taft could not once get nominated.

Hoover managed to singlehandedly ruin America, and the effects of his ruination continue to be felt today.

Single-handedly ruin? Andrew Mellon, several senators, and the entire Federal Reserve (biggest culprit) certainly had a rather large hand in it themselves.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2010, 09:25:47 AM »


How was Hoover at all influential after 1932? The Republican Party even abandoned his conservative foreign policy and adopted FDR's internationalism. Robert Taft could not once get nominated.

Hoover managed to singlehandedly ruin America, and the effects of his ruination continue to be felt today.

Single-handedly ruin? Andrew Mellon, several senators, and the entire Federal Reserve (biggest culprit) certainly had a rather large hand in it themselves.

Hoover just get the entire s**t hitting the air. While he indeed was a clumsy in dealing with depression, he's not the one responsible for collapse. Such things are long running processes with a deeper roots.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2010, 08:59:15 PM »

The case for Hoover: FDR took some of Hoover's failed policies (particularly towards the end, 1932), multiplied them x10, and succeeded spectacularly. Then when WWII broke out, he took his own policies, multiplied them x10 again, and succeeded even more spectacularly.

I'll agree that FDR was able to out-Hoover Hoover with his economic policies, but I wouldn't call it a spectacular success, except on the PR front.

Decreasing unemployment by 15%, halting a nation-wide banking collapse, ending nearly 50 years of labor-management conflict,building some of the most lasting vestiges of beauty in the entire United States in the process, and then bringing this nation out of its most devastating depression with the buildup to WWII isn't a spectacular success?

Not by 15%, he briefly got it down to 14.3% in 1937 but really it was World War II that ended unemployment, not anything FDR did.

Halting the banking collapse, that was due entirely to his PR skills.

Ending nearly 50 years of labor-management conflict, oh really!?! Tell that to the textile workers.  The reason unions never caught on in the South as they did elsewhere was what happened with the textile workers strike of 1934 that happened under FDR's watch.  So I can't see how anyone with either a pro-labor or pro-management orientation could call FDR's handling of this area a spectacular success.

Building some of the most lasting vestiges of beauty in the entire United States ... Why do I suspect you are not a fan of Robert Moses?  That said, the WPA and the FERA before it were continuations of the ERA set up by Hoover in 1932.  The CCC wasn't started under Hoover, but similar conservation programs were being done in several places in both the US and Europe before FDR took office.

Bringing this nation out of its most devastating depression with the buildup to WWII ...  One would have to be as inept as Buchanan was to not get the US out of a depression thanks to WWII.

That said, while I don't hold FDR to be a saint, neither was he a demon.  He was an average president in extremely unaverage circumstances.
Logged
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2010, 09:40:07 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends on which numbers you use, the statistics you use don't count relief workers which I think is very disingenuous to the topic, and if you use figures that count relief workers it slots in right below 10%. Even using only private nonfarm unemployment it went lower than 14.3%, actually.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes halting the banking collapse was due to his PR skills, why doesn't he deserve due credit for something that was 100% on him such as his PR skills? PR skills are vital to a good presidency in time of crisis and if his were such that he stopped one of the worst threats to our banking system than I'd say he's put them to a very good use.

The RFC helped briefly with Banks as well, but that was Hoovers beast as you know.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were other examples of strikes and labor-management conflict you declined to cite. San Fransisco in 1934, for example, was one rather nasty one that was poorly handled by Roosevelt & Co. He has blemishes on his record for sure. Also the NRA was pretty much fascist and by far the most anti-labor pro-management alphabet agency of the New Deal, so don't discount that in your argument.

The problem with using something that happened in 1934 to say he had a poor record on that, was that it ignores the Wagner Act (1935) which radically altered the balance of power from management to labor, and at least temporarily brought a form of mediation to the constant bickering. It wasn't a perfect system (strikes were rampant and a bit too much power was given to big labor), but it ended the even more unbalanced status quo that had previously existed for 50 years, yes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Robert Moses isn't the sum of all New Deal beautification and construction projects.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The WPA was not really a continuation of the ERA, but rather the Roosevelt era Civil Works Administration. The PWA (Public Works Administration) was continued a good deal of the Public Works spending that was in the ERA.

The FERA emergency dole was a continuation of the relief given by the ERA, but greater in size and administrative prowess (thanks to Hopkins). This is pretty much consistent with my belief that FDR's brand of relief was mostly a continuation of Hoover's policies, but implemented on a larger scale as well as more effective scale (also its important to note most of Hoovers emergency spending didn't really begin until 1932), and that Hoover was simply the wrong man at the wrong time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It well known he was merely a very strong advocate of a national level conservation corps (based on the success of the examples you mentioned) rather than its originator. I think I'm missing your point in this here somewhere?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This postulates that US involvement in WWII was inevitable and a complete accident. Thats not a view I can reconcile with. Certainly the buildup and mobilization could have been ordered much later than it was IRL.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd say the circumstances and the fact that the country is still here today automatically make him above average, but flawed. I don't think the New Deal got us out of the Depression (sane), but certain aspects of it definitely did something to alleviate the worst of it while the Fed got its house in order and WWII loomed.
Logged
Frink
Lafayette53
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 703
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.39, S: -6.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2010, 09:43:51 PM »


How was Hoover at all influential after 1932? The Republican Party even abandoned his conservative foreign policy and adopted FDR's internationalism. Robert Taft could not once get nominated.

Hoover managed to singlehandedly ruin America, and the effects of his ruination continue to be felt today.

Single-handedly ruin? Andrew Mellon, several senators, and the entire Federal Reserve (biggest culprit) certainly had a rather large hand in it themselves.

Hoover just get the entire s**t hitting the air. While he indeed was a clumsy in dealing with depression, he's not the one responsible for collapse. Such things are long running processes with a deeper roots.

I actually exonerate Hoover of the blame. While his attempt at wage-fixing was a definite contributor to the problem (indeed several studies of the Great Depression find Sticky Wages to be among the most compelling causes up there with the tariff and money contraction), I'd generally say he was the wrong man at the wrong time and that a couple of his policies towards the end did genuinely help.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 13 queries.