Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Fantasy Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

If the candidates for 2016 were:

Republican primaries:

Abraham Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt

Calvin Coolidge

Dwight D Eisenhower

Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan

George HW Bush

George W Bush

Democratic primaries:

Andrew Jackson

James K Polk

Grover Cleveland

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D Roosevelt

John F Kennedy

Lyndon B Johnson

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

3rd parties (no primary, all running independently)

George Washington

John Adams

John Quincy Adams

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

James Monroe

Assuming they were the age they were during their election and were caught up to date on the issues, but stayed with their original party:

1) Who would you vote for in the primaries?

2) Who would is most likely to be the Republican nominee in 2016?

3) Who is most likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2016?

4) Who would you vote for in the general election?

5) Who is most likely to win an election in 2016?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but my choice is not on the list. I'd choose William Henry Harrison. He's the only US President who made no controversial decisions, had no embarrassing scandals or cockups, and left no legacy of any sort of shame or failure. Possibly because he died about a month into office! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were being serious, and weren't being cynical, though, I'd have to go with FDR, or maybe LBJ, for the Democratic Primary, and Teddy Roosevelt for the Republican one. I'd say who would win would depend on the economy (FDR if it was bad, TR if it was good, LBJ; hard to say). A GE of Roosevelt v. Roosevelt would be a riot, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.

Republican: either Abraham Lincoln or Dwight D. Eisenhower or Reagan

Democrat: James K. Polk (he said that he would only run once and came through on it. He also improved the country)

2.

Lincoln, Eisenhower or Reagan

3.

James K. Polk; FDR might have a chance, but he was terrible on foreign affairs. He was a terrible negotiator. His policy was give the Soviets what they wanted.

4.

George Washington

5.

George Washington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Lincoln (Rep) FDR (Dem)

2. In today's political climate, Republicans select Reagan over Lincoln.

3. In today's political climate, Democrats barely select FDR over JFK in a close primary.

4. I vote for FDR, even though I want to vote for John Quincy Adams.

5. General Election Results: FDR wins because Rep vote loses many votes to 3rd parties.

FDR 40% 270 EV

Reagan 21% 197 EV

Washington 20% 68 EV

JAdams 2% 0 EV

JQAdams 1% 0 EV

Jefferson 12% 0 EV

Madison 1% 0 EV

Monroe 3% 0 EV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the thing. FDR was terrible in foreign affairs. He would probably give Ukraine to Russia. And, he really did not get the US out of the Great Depression. World War Two got the world our of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that he was terrible at foreign affairs. I think most scholars would consider him average to very good. The Soviets were central to winning WWII in Europe, and indirectly in the Eastern Theatre as well. I seriously doubt he'd give Ukraine to the Soviets today. He didn't ally with them during WWII for ideological reasons, he did it for strategic reasons. There's a reason why the overwhelming amount of scholars that study the presidency place him in the top 3 routinely. Sometimes he's placed #1. I do agree that he didn't get us out of the depression in the way that we think he did. In fact, as things were improving, another recession hit in the late 30s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He gave the Soviets Eastern Germany(Churchill's plan was the have 3 different sections of Germany that were independent) without a fight even though Churchill was fighting against it and he also gave them Manchuria just because they send troops in the day before Japan surrendered. Also, against the wills of Churchill. They were not really allies. They just had a common enemy. He gave the Soviets what they wanted an ignored our strongest ally's(Winston Churchill's) demands. I agree that one some things that he was great. Even though it was not really him that got us out of the depression, he did create programs that created jobs and helped slow the decline. He also was the President during World War 2(wars help Presidents a lot in the future when looking back at previous Presidents; just like Lincoln is considered one of the greatest because of the Civil War). The war is really why he I considered one of the greatest. He was just a bad negotiator in foreign affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think FDR just gave those places to the Soviets. He probably had a good foreign policy reason for doing so. The Manchuria part, I admit, doesn't make sense to me, but my knowledge of that part of the world isn't as strong as my knowledge of Europe.

The goal of any interventionist, which FDR, and many of the Democrats, and some Republicans (except for the Taft Conservative Wing), is to gain influence in a region. Here are the reasons why they might not accept independent regions:

1) Germany had been a major antagonist in two World Wars within 30 years. Could they be trusted to have any independence?

2) Would Russia, which lost the most people in WWII, accept an independent Germany right after the war?

3) FDR may not have had the lead say over Germany, after all, Russia captured Berlin.

4) Churchill may have wanted independent regions to keep America's influence away from continental Europe. A US presence in Europe undermines Britain's previous sphere of influence.

5) By limiting the Soviets to Eastern Germany and East Berlin it creates a wall, which Russia cannot expand out of. We talk of the Iron Curtain as if it is just a Soviet thing, but I think the US helped in creating the Communist cage.

6) We still have bases Germany and a great influence over most of Europe. This would not have happened if not for FDR. Note, many of the Republicans were isolationists. If a goal is to be the most powerful country in foreign relations then you can thank FDR.

7) It set the Soviets up as the prime antagonist. Europe is in danger! We set up a national security state, ensure our Navy controls every ocean. This latter part is Truman, but it was set up by FDR who died in office.

Personally, I'm generally a pacifist. I'd like our country to look more to domestic issues than foreign policy. Greatness doesn't always mean goodness, but FDR is central to why our country is the only hyperpower. This would not have happened if we didn't join WWII and this would not have happened if FDR didn't control the foreign policy the way he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World War Two is my best part of history. I know a ton about it. Roosevelt gave unnecessary land and influence to the Soviets and also helped the Communists in China. When he gave the Soviets Manchuria, then the Communists had an easier fight. The Soviets did not let the Chinese Nationalists go into Manchuria. It also made it easier for the Soviet to supply the Communists in China as well.

1) Germany would have still been cut down to size

2) It was mostly their part why thy lost so many people. If the US and the rest of the allies agreed on it then Russia would have to comply

3) The western allies had an opportunity to capture Berlin and if they would have agreed on the 3 independent Germanys, then they would have. They all 3 had a say. It was the Yalta Conference.

4) The US would still have had influence because of the peace deal. We would still have helped rebuild.

5) It led the USSR to expand into areas near Greece(including Italy) easily because there was no other influence. If they would have done Churchill's idea, the Westerners would have had an opportunity to influence those areas.

6) They would still have had bases because of the peace deal. I am not saying that FDR was a bad President and I did not say Republicans would have been better. Also, without the war, we would not have gotten bases in Germany(so it was the war that got the bases there)

7) They still would have been the antagonist, they just would not have as much influence. We still would have had to build up.

The only reason we got into the war was because Japan attacked us. Also, if Churchill was not the leader of Great Britain or Eisenhower the Supreme Allied Commander, the allies may not have won.

Also, people that opposed his policy, Roosevelt ordered IRS auditing and FBI investigations on them without reason. He also imprisoned a ton of Japanese Americans in camps that were separated from everyone else. He also tried to pack the courts, so he would have control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDR foreign policy with starting with his 3rd term with how I'd grade him:

- Announces that the US should be the "Arsenal of Democracy", violates the Neutrality Act by giving Britain 50 American destroyers in exchange military base rights in the Caribbean. (A+)

- Lend-Lease Act, which gave major military supplies to predominately Britain, but also to the other allies gradually. (A+)

- Signs the Atlantic Charter with allies, which set goals for the post-WWII world. (A)

- Quickly enters WWII after bombing of Pearl Harbor (A+)

- FDR and Churchill meet in late 1941 to hash out the details for an alliance to include China and the Soviets (A)

- Signs order for Japanese internment camps (F, but mainly a domestic and not foreign policy area)

- Cairo Conference: Fight Japan until unconditional surrender, return all land taken by Japanese to China, create free and independent Korea (A)

- Tehran Conference: Allies agree to have Russia open a 2nd front in Europe; bring Turkey into the war against Germany (A+)

- Yalta Conference: Independent Poland from Germany; Independent Mongolia from China; Russia enters Pacific theatre; all three leaders, including Churchill, agree to the occupation zones; accepts Ukraine and Belarus into UN membership, but not all 16 Soviet Socialist Republics, which Stalin wanted recognized; unconditional surrender of Germany. FDR wanted Germany divided into 6 nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Plan) (C+, because both FDR and Churchill erred in thinking Stalin would allow free elections in Poland)

- Met with the Saudis after Yalta to begin what became our strong relationship with the Saudis (C, mixed blessing)

Overall, I'd give him an A- based off these major accomplishments. I don't see how he'd be considered a terrible foreign policy president. Considering he was dealing with a World War, it's pretty amazing. Both he and Churchill erred on Stalin. Churchill even said this (from wikipedia), "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I am wrong about Stalin." He's probably the best foreign policy president of the 20th century. He improved relations, made us the first hyperpower. If FDR had lived, I think the world might have been better. I think Truman did a lot of harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did forget giving Manchuria to Russia(temporary, but I allowed the Communists to gain a lot of strength in the area). Also, by that time, we did not need the USSR in the Pacific theatre. That really had no Pacific navy and he Japanese couldn't get their soldiers back to the mainland. So, that was a bad decision to include them on that front.

The lend lease and the arsenal of democracy were good. The Atlantic Charter just stated that the Allies would not take land that they liberated. I do give him credit for trying to get the Baltic States freed, but he did not say anything to Stalin about it. He died before he did say anything, so it was useless. He had no choice to get in World War Two after we were bombed so that should not be included because everyone was wanting to be in and we had to join because we were attacked. It was also a good decision to let the Soviets be their ally. They needed them to survive and keep German forces occupied. Of course China was going to get it land back if Japan was defeated. That was not a monumental decision. The only thing that happened was Korea was going to be independent(which ended up back firing because of the separated Korea). There were already plans to open a second front in Europe. And, Turkey was not ever involved. They declared war on the axis powers right at the end for political reasons. They wanted a better position with the allies because they were going to win. Their soldiers did not fight a single battle. They just did not have the supplies or man power yet. They just were promising Stalin the other front to keep him happy. I agree that both got fooled about Poland, but that still has to be a D or an F because of what happen, it would just be for both of them. Poland was already going to be freed because that was why the allies got involved. Churchill was forced to agree because Roosevelt's plan was very similar to what the Soviets wanted. The only difference was that there were only 4 states and Austria was free(but divided between the Soviets and the Westerners). Accepting Ukraine and Belarus helped the Soviets because they were under Soviet influence. I agree the relations with the Saudis is both good and bad, but it is because of the friendship.

Like I said before, he is only considered a great President because of World War Two, which we won and it got us out of the depression. I give him a C on foreign policy because of the fact that he sided with the Communists in dividing up Germany. He was going to fight for the Baltic States(but he died before he could do anything, so he does not get credit). He did have those programs that helped the Allies before we were in the war. This is what helps his foreign policy not be lower. This probably helped England stay in the war. But, most of those meeting were pre-planned stuff and they were keeping Stalin appeased by promising him a second front and stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FDR foreign policy with starting with his 3rd term with how I'd grade him:

- Announces that the US should be the "Arsenal of Democracy", violates the Neutrality Act by giving Britain 50 American destroyers in exchange military base rights in the Caribbean. (A+)

- Lend-Lease Act, which gave major military supplies to predominately Britain, but also to the other allies gradually. (A+)

- Signs the Atlantic Charter with allies, which set goals for the post-WWII world. (A)

- Quickly enters WWII after bombing of Pearl Harbor (A+)

- FDR and Churchill meet in late 1941 to hash out the details for an alliance to include China and the Soviets (A)

- Signs order for Japanese internment camps (F, but mainly a domestic and not foreign policy area)

- Cairo Conference: Fight Japan until unconditional surrender, return all land taken by Japanese to China, create free and independent Korea (A)

- Tehran Conference: Allies agree to have Russia open a 2nd front in Europe; bring Turkey into the war against Germany (A+)

- Yalta Conference: Independent Poland from Germany; Independent Mongolia from China; Russia enters Pacific theatre; all three leaders, including Churchill, agree to the occupation zones; accepts Ukraine and Belarus into UN membership, but not all 16 Soviet Socialist Republics, which Stalin wanted recognized; unconditional surrender of Germany. FDR wanted Germany divided into 6 nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Plan) (C+, because both FDR and Churchill erred in thinking Stalin would allow free elections in Poland)

- Met with the Saudis after Yalta to begin what became our strong relationship with the Saudis (C, mixed blessing)

Overall, I'd give him an A- based off these major accomplishments. I don't see how he'd be considered a terrible foreign policy president. Considering he was dealing with a World War, it's pretty amazing. Both he and Churchill erred on Stalin. Churchill even said this (from wikipedia), "Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don't think I am wrong about Stalin." He's probably the best foreign policy president of the 20th century. He improved relations, made us the first hyperpower. If FDR had lived, I think the world might have been better. I think Truman did a lot of harm.

CouldnĀ“t agree more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the candidates for 2016 were:

Republican primaries:

Abraham Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt

Calvin Coolidge

Dwight D Eisenhower

Richard Nixon

Ronald Reagan

George HW Bush

George W Bush

Democratic primaries:

Andrew Jackson

James K Polk

Grover Cleveland

Woodrow Wilson

Franklin D Roosevelt

John F Kennedy

Lyndon B Johnson

Bill Clinton

Barack Obama

3rd parties (no primary, all running independently)

George Washington

John Adams

John Quincy Adams

Thomas Jefferson

James Madison

James Monroe

Assuming they were the age they were during their election and were caught up to date on the issues, but stayed with their original party:

1) Who would you vote for in the primaries?

2) Who would is most likely to be the Republican nominee in 2016?

3) Who is most likely to be the Democratic nominee in 2016?

4) Who would you vote for in the general election?

5) Who is most likely to win an election in 2016?

1. Republican: Abraham Lincoln

Democrat: Franklin Roosevelt

Independent: George Washington

2. Ronald Reagan.

3. John F Kennedy.

4. Abraham Lincoln.

5. George Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...