who would you prefer to have won?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Hughes of course.

[Cryptic]

Roosevelt (1912) just to see what effects a third party victory would've had on politics and history. 

[Never]

Definitely Hughes.

[SWE]

Hughes

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Hughes of course.

[ElectionsGuy]

Definitely Hughes.

[H. Ross Peron]

TR of course

[BaconBacon96]

Definitely Teddy.

[nolesfan2011]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Hughes, hands down.

[DC Al Fine]

Roosevelt (1912) just to see what effects a third party victory would've had on politics and history. 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

You're against the Federal Reserve?

[SNJ1985]

Roosevelt (mistakenly voted Hughes though).

[Deus Naturae]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

Roosevelt was a war hawk who agitated for US intervention in Europe from the time the war began. He also certainly would've signed the Sedition Act considering that he viewed opponents of the war as Un-American.

[SWE]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

Roosevelt would have been much, much worse than Wilson on the issue of WWI

[TNF]

Hughes (sane)

Why on Earth would you want Teddy Roosevelt to win in 1912? The U.S. would have been balls deep in Europe by 1915 and far more people would have died as a result.

[H. Ross Peron]

Hughes (sane)

Why on Earth would you want Teddy Roosevelt to win in 1912? The U.S. would have been balls deep in Europe by 1915 and far more people would have died as a result.

Hughes was far more hawkish then Wilson on the war issue (except when he was trying to appeal to the German and Irish vote). At least with TR at the helm, there is the chance that an earlier American intervention would have ended the war earlier.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I suppose Hughes because for me 1912 is Debs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wilson>>>>>>>>TR>Taft, whereas Hughes would've simply be a somewhat more corporatist and less racist Wilson (albeit one with even less credibility among British and French leaders).

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

TR was an extremely racist war-mongerer who would've very likely passed an even harsher version of the sedition acts had he been President

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

TR was an extremely racist war-mongerer who would've very likely passed an even harsher version of the sedition acts had he been President

TR while having some awful racist aspects was at least anti segregation and Jim Crow.  He criticized Wilson's sedition acts for going after the wrong people, so maybe his policy would have been more narrow - on the other hand if he was in office his attitude would likely have been different.  And it is true WW1 would not have happened as it did - the US would have entered much sooner, if TR had his way.

my answer to this question is Hughes of course.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

TR was an extremely racist war-mongerer who would've very likely passed an even harsher version of the sedition acts had he been President

TR while having some awful racist aspects was at least anti segregation and Jim Crow.  He criticized Wilson's sedition acts for going after the wrong people, so maybe his policy would have been more narrow - on the other hand if he was in office his attitude would likely have been different.  And it is true WW1 would not have happened as it did - the US would have entered much sooner, if TR had his way.

my answer to this question is Hughes of course.

On the other hand, TR frequently called for the mass-murder of all native-Americans

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

TR because Wilson was awful, and the Progressive party would have become some sort of a political force. Wouldn't have had WW1 happen as it did, no sedition acts and no federal reserve, less racism too.

TR was an extremely racist war-mongerer who would've very likely passed an even harsher version of the sedition acts had he been President

TR while having some awful racist aspects was at least anti segregation and Jim Crow.  He criticized Wilson's sedition acts for going after the wrong people, so maybe his policy would have been more narrow - on the other hand if he was in office his attitude would likely have been different.  And it is true WW1 would not have happened as it did - the US would have entered much sooner, if TR had his way.

my answer to this question is Hughes of course.

On the other hand, TR frequently called for the mass-murder of all native-Americans

It is certainly the case that those who are awful racists toward one group have often not been the same people as those who are awful racists toward another group.

[TDAS04]

Hughes.