|
Title: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on January 10, 2009, 09:11:26 PM So, in your opinion, what election had the best group of candidates running for President? You can define that by the primaries, the convention (pre 1972), or by the general election. I'm inclined to say 1976, based on the great Democratic field.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on January 10, 2009, 11:48:54 PM I would say 2008. Every election cycle it seems as if we have to pick the lesser of two evils. Last year (2008) was better, but still not great.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 11, 2009, 12:59:44 AM 1789
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Raoul on January 12, 2009, 05:45:03 AM 1912! Epic showdown.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Nixon in '80 on January 12, 2009, 10:44:25 PM 1980 had an all-star field for both parties:
Sitting President vs. The Liberal Lion vs. Moonbeam The Great Communicator vs. Crazy Gov't Experience vs. Most Respected Man in Senate vs. Genuine War Hero vs. Conservative Firebrand vs. Mr. Independent vs. More Crazy Gov't Experience I'll leave it to you to label all of those. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Nym90 on January 14, 2009, 11:33:09 AM 1792 wasn't bad either. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on January 14, 2009, 01:57:04 PM 1792 wasn't bad either. No election until 1836 was Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: phk on January 14, 2009, 02:35:48 PM In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Associate Justice PiT on January 14, 2009, 03:45:05 PM 1792 wasn't bad either. 1792 was indeed another good one. :) Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Keystone Phil on January 14, 2009, 04:56:59 PM I think I would have absolutely loved 1980 and even 1976. 1976 would have been hard for me though since I have a great appreciation for both Reagan and Ford.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 14, 2009, 09:58:25 PM 1912 of course.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: aaaa2222 on January 19, 2009, 09:38:02 AM I'm going to have to go with 1992. Perot and Clinton in one year sounds pretty good to me.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Erc on January 24, 2009, 03:21:27 AM In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992. The general election candidates in '96 were fine, certainly...but the primary candidates? Apart from Dole, the Republican primary field was simply pathetic. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Nixon in '80 on January 24, 2009, 06:05:45 AM In recent times 2008, 1996, 1992. The general election candidates in '96 were fine, certainly...but the primary candidates? Apart from Dole, the Republican primary field was simply pathetic. It was certainly a diverse and interesting field... kind of a celebrity showcase of Republicans who had no business running for President (apart from Dole, of course). It may not have been a great field, but it was fun. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on January 24, 2009, 07:18:13 PM 1940-1956 weren't bad
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: pbrower2a on February 21, 2009, 11:28:27 AM 1912 and 1992; there were three candidates in each election, including an incumbent President who lost.
1912 was the ultimate, including a fairly-good incumbent President who created no problems, a great ex-President (TR) who still had much to offer, and the winner Woodrow Wilson. 1968? If only Wallace hadn't been a racist. Perot wasn't TR, but there is no question that had he won he would have left his mark. Perot won more popular votes than any 3rd Party candidate ever, and proportionally more than any since TR (but no electoral votes -- very different from racists Thurmond and Wallace who had their support concentrated in "Kukluxistan". That's a smear of the South then -- not now). Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Antonio the Sixth on February 22, 2009, 12:25:01 PM 1896 ( with two very modern candidates ), 1912 ( with the clash of progressivisms : Wilson vs Roosevelt ), 1960 ( A passionating and hardly-fought campaign ), 1976 ( two honest and moderate candidates ), 2000 ( if you put McCain at the place of Bush ).
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Psychic Octopus on February 26, 2009, 08:11:30 PM 1912, 1972, 2008.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on March 01, 2009, 06:33:21 PM I actually think 2008 was a bad year. None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Psychic Octopus on March 15, 2009, 01:34:20 PM I actually think 2008 was a bad year. None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general. Really? that's kind of why I liked it. And if you look at all the major republican candidates, none of them were true conservatives (minus Thompson) so it was kind of funny to watch them pander to the base massivly. For the Democrats, It was boring and lasted too long. I only enjoyed it in the beginning, and was hoping this struggle would go all the way to the convention. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on March 15, 2009, 01:48:01 PM I actually think 2008 was a bad year. None of the candidates were particularly great on either side, in the primaries or in the general. Really? that's kind of why I liked it. And if you look at all the major republican candidates, none of them were true conservatives (minus Thompson) so it was kind of funny to watch them pander to the base massivly. For the Democrats, It was boring and lasted too long. I only enjoyed it in the beginning, and was hoping this struggle would go all the way to the convention. It was certainly an interesting primary season, but the candidates weren't all that good. Some years, like 1976, saw a collection of great candidates run for President; that was lacking in 2008, I thought. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: pogo stick on August 06, 2009, 10:24:11 PM 1980.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Stranger in a strange land on August 06, 2009, 11:32:00 PM I would say 2008. Every election cycle it seems as if we have to pick the lesser of two evils. Last year (2008) was better, but still not great. 2008 had the best selection of candidates in any election since at least 1956, and probably the best we're likely to have in any election while I'm alive. Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: Alexander Hamilton on August 07, 2009, 01:50:27 AM 1948 and 1960, I guess. I don't think I could be undecided in any election. Too many concrete differences between the candidates.
Title: Re: Year with the best group of candidates Post by: hcallega on August 07, 2009, 02:06:15 PM For me 1988 has got to be a good one, at least on the Democratic side. While the candidates weren't great, you really saw all the different parts of the Democratic Party in one race:
Dukakis/Simon: Liberals Hart/Biden: Yuppies Gephardt: Labor Jackson: Minorities Gore/Babbit: Moderates (if Clinton had run it would have been interesting to see what would have happened) This is a big reason why there was no one frontrunner, whereas if Cuomo or Kennedy had run you would have seen a much more united field (Liberals, Labor, Minorities at the very least). 1976 was good, but the campaigns of a lot of Democrats sort of died (Bayh, Humphrey, Jackson, Udall) |