Jump to content
270soft Forum

Every President Nominee Scenario update


vcczar
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've finally done all the % for the regions. This list will include only the top 10 for both parties, and the % of the current nominees, and the % of the weakest candidate. 

[Note: Historical presidents have been thrown into the two major parties based off which party I think would be most welcoming to them, and which party I think the candidate would want to join after being updated on the history they missed after their deaths.]

---------------------------------------------
REPUBLICANS
Washington 10.7%
Reagan 8.9%
Eisenhower 4.7%
Jefferson 4.6%
Jackson 2.8%
GHW Bush 2.7%
Romney 2.6%
GW Bush 2.5%
McKinley 2.4%
Madison 2.4%
...
Trump 2.3%
...
Landon 0.3%
-----------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATS
Lincoln 11.1%
FDR 7.7%
JFK 7.4%
Teddy Roosevelt 7.4%
Obama 6.2%
B Clinton 5%
LBJ 3.3%
Truman 2.9%
Wilson 2.8%
Bryan 2.4%
...
H Clinton 2.4%
...
McGovern 0.3%
--------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I've finally done all the % for the regions. This list will include only the top 10 for both parties, and the % of the current nominees, and the % of the weakest candidate.

[Note: Historical presidents have been thrown into the two major parties based off which party I think would be most welcoming to them, and which party I think the candidate would want to join after being updated on the history they missed after their deaths.]

---------------------------------------------
REPUBLICANS
Washington 10.7%
Reagan 8.9%
Eisenhower 4.7%
Jefferson 4.6%
Jackson 2.8%
GHW Bush 2.7%
Romney 2.6%
GW Bush 2.5%
McKinley 2.4%
Madison 2.4%
...
Trump 2.3%
...
Landon 0.3%
-----------------------------------------------
DEMOCRATS
Lincoln 11.1%
FDR 7.7%
JFK 7.4%
Teddy Roosevelt 7.4%
Obama 6.2%
B Clinton 5%
LBJ 3.3%
Truman 2.9%
Wilson 2.8%
Bryan 2.4%
...
H Clinton 2.4%
...
McGovern 0.3%
--------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, as a suggestion, as it's a generic, across the board every candidate election, use party labels like "Progressive" and "Conservative" to avoid justifying party placements to literal-thinking pedantic members who might a make a meal about who was placed where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patine

Yeah, I have been considering that. I'm trying to decide between the following:

Progressive Party vs. Conservative Party

Social Progress Party vs. Fiscal Conservative Party

Union Party vs. American Party

Labor Party vs. Corporate Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

It's interesting, Lincoln while obviously being socially liberal was quite the fiscally conservative fellow.

Every 19th century president is going to seem fiscally conservative. Yet, Lincoln increased government spending, the size of government, and enforced social progress reforms more than any president before him. He massively funded infrastructure, he put money towards public universities, homesteads, he created Greenback currency. Whereas many in his party favored strict immigration, Lincoln, partially because he wanted immigrant to fight perhaps, was very tolerant and encouraging towards immigrants and immigrant communities. I'm not quite sure where you are getting "quite the fiscally conservative fellow." Unless, you're looking through contemporary eyes. If we were judging solely on 19th century presidents, he would probably be the least fiscally conservative. JQ Adams might be the only other rival, but he couldn't get most of his proposals through Congress. US Grant was an odd person, because he return us to the Gold Standard (after Lincoln took us off it), but he also was a big spender by 19th century standards. Benjamin Harrison also spent a lot of money on Civil War pensions, but would be considered fiscally conservative.

In all, both parties would be considered fiscally conservative until FDR. Both parties had a mix of social conservative and liberal before FDR. Democrats generally were pro-labor, while Republicans were generally pro-civil rights. Because of the Gilded Age, both parties had Progressive Wings, that would promote social progress, even if it meant spending more money and creating an income tax. Some conservative expansionists/Empire builders also favored an income tax, because expanding territory and influence and maintaining it cost money. 

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. Lincoln wasn't that fiscally conservative. We don't know how he would have operated if there wasn't a Civil War, but many of his measures I mentioned above, were dependent on a war occurring. He definitely believed in the government as an activist for good, even when he was more moderate on slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Every 19th century president is going to seem fiscally conservative. Yet, Lincoln increased government spending, the size of government, and enforced social progress reforms more than any president before him. He massively funded infrastructure, he put money towards public universities, homesteads, he created Greenback currency. Whereas many in his party favored strict immigration, Lincoln, partially because he wanted immigrant to fight perhaps, was very tolerant and encouraging towards immigrants and immigrant communities. I'm not quite sure where you are getting "quite the fiscally conservative fellow." Unless, you're looking through contemporary eyes. If we were judging solely on 19th century presidents, he would probably be the least fiscally conservative. JQ Adams might be the only other rival, but he couldn't get most of his proposals through Congress. US Grant was an odd person, because he return us to the Gold Standard (after Lincoln took us off it), but he also was a big spender by 19th century standards. Benjamin Harrison also spent a lot of money on Civil War pensions, but would be considered fiscally conservative.

In all, both parties would be considered fiscally conservative until FDR. Both parties had a mix of social conservative and liberal before FDR. Democrats generally were pro-labor, while Republicans were generally pro-civil rights. Because of the Gilded Age, both parties had Progressive Wings, that would promote social progress, even if it meant spending more money and creating an income tax. Some conservative expansionists/Empire builders also favored an income tax, because expanding territory and influence and maintaining it cost money.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic. Lincoln wasn't that fiscally conservative. We don't know how he would have operated if there wasn't a Civil War, but many of his measures I mentioned above, were dependent on a war occurring. He definitely believed in the government as an activist for good, even when he was more moderate on slavery.

Was it Cleveland or Harrison who got a lot flack in their day for passing the first "billion-dollar budget?"

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...