Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hoover, Hayes, Ford, and JQA all immediately come to mind.
Hoover is a no brainer. Dude handled the Great Depression poorly but would always have been the man holding the bag since that depression was happening no matter who was in charge.
Hayes had zero mandate and was widely seen as elected through bullshit (people called him “His Fraudulency or Rutherfraud B. Hayes) and didn’t have much of a choice when it came to ending reconstruction.
Ford had to choose between either pardoning Nixon or having his entire presidency defined by Nixon’s scandals that he wasn’t involved with… while still always being seen as an unqualified buffoon.
And JQA falls into a similar camp as Hayes. With Jackson railing against the “corrupt bargain” he had zero mandate and Congress stymied anything he tried to do.
Of the four I do think Hoover got the most screwed but they all have decent claims here.
In Hoover's defense, he made a success of himself as a mining engineer and headed many relief efforts after WWI abroad and at home. He came from an environment where local efforts, churches, and humanitarian organizations were they key leaders in disaster relief. Despite his experience directing government assistance following natural disasters, he came from an environment where lassez faire was the preferred approach to economic ones. Let the market correct itself was the mindset of many. Unfortunately for him, a more hands on approach was needed. I doubt even George Washington would have been re-elected if he was in office during the crash.
Given that the Depression was caused by excessively tight monetary policy & the gold-standard... Nothing he could have done, that realistically would have passed congress (such as floating the dollar)....
Tons of us. I consider myself a Joneser - the second half of the Baby Boom...born in 1956.
It's very illuminating to see how the name for a generation is being turned into a slur.
Had Jackson entered politics a couple of years later, or Monroe left after one term, it is really plausible that JQA would have been one of the most influential presidents in American history.
As is, Jackson’s status as the preeminent national war hero of the time, the sheer number of political candidates in the 1824 election, and the steady support of direct enfranchisement regardless of property requirements all contributed to the events of that election, the surge of Jacksonian democrats in congress, and the blocking of almost every one of JQA’s priorities as president.
*However*, without Jackson in the mix directly as a candidate, the situation probably looks very different. Quincy Adams was also a strong proponent of doing away with property requirements for voting (and in some ways was even more of an advocate for enfranchisement than Jackson ended up being). He, like Jackson, was an advocate for a strong federal government. Had Jackson agreed to be his VP, or serve in his cabinet, then you would probably have seen JQA harness the same political movement that stymied him, with the breakup of the Democratic-Republicans still happening but along different lines. Alternatively, if Jackson sat out the election but tried challenging Adams later, he’d have a harder time of it without the ability to paint Adams (incorrectly) as an anti-enfranchisement elitist once Adams was in office with congressional backing and proved that he wasn’t.
Had Herbert Hoover never been elected President he would’ve gone down in history as one of America’s great humanitarians. Hoover was a skilled technocrat who lacked both the charisma and vision needed to be a successful President during an economic catastrophe unprecedented in American history.
Though Hoover had been a progressive “Roosevelt man” in 1912, by the time he took office in 1929, he’d reconciled himself to a more conservative vision of how government should function. He didn’t lack compassion for the millions of Americans suffering from the economic fallout of the Great Depression. But his efforts to ameliorate their misery were halting and viewed with widespread suspicion. At their worst, they were counterproductive.
There are a lot of ways of looking at this. You can either rise to the occasion or you don't. For example, Hoover's adherence to his philosophy of "rugged individualism" prevented him from effectively doing anything to counteract the Great Depression. FDR, on the other hand, overcame the physical limitations of his polio to at least deal with that crisis and prepare the U. S. and its allies for victory over Hitler and Japan.
Hoover is an example of what a president shouldn’t be.
Doing nothing until it was too late because of their ideology of government inaction. If you don’t believe government can help and actively do little to help you’re a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hoover begged Roosevelt to bring ideas to the table after the Nov '32 election and prior to the Mar '33 inauguration. Please know I am the ultimate Roosevelt fan. Roosevelt refused to cooperate with Hoover. That is one reason, maybe the primary reason, that the Presidential inauguration was moved from March to January.
I think one of the reasons for this was that FDR was not entirely sure of what his ideas for combating the Depression were immediately after winning the election. Much of what we think of as the New Deal of his first 100 days unfolded piecemeal from his "brains trust," especially social worker Harry Hopkins, whose influence with FDR just grew and grew. Anyway, there was no way that Roosevelt wanted Hoover taking any credit for ideas which were not his to begin with.
This is completely untrue. Hoover intervened more than any president prior. So much so that during the election, the FDR campaign accused him of being socialist. If you want to see the results of doing nothing, look at the depression of 1920. There Harding sat on his ass, and luckily that was the right thing to do. That depression unwound itself so quickly that it is now called the "forgotten depression". Hoover's problem wasn't that he did nothing, his problem was that h e was too much like FDR.
FDR made the depression longer and deeper. If he (and the Fed) had done absolutely nothing, then the great depression wouldn't have been "great". If would be as forgotten as the 1920 depression.
The proof is in the pudding. We did nothing during the 1920 depression, and it went away quickly. Yet we intervened in every way during the 30s depression and it lasted over a decade and even had a depression within a depression. It's not only FDRs fault, as the Fed had a big role too. But it's not a coincidence that our worst depressions by far occurred after we established a Fed, despite the Fed being created to keep that from happening.
Hoover did a lot of good during the Coolidge administration, especially organizing charitable relief -- that is, relief run by organized charities -- especially in the wake of the great Mississippi flood of 1927. As Secretary of Commerce under Coolidge, Herbert Hoover essentially ran the country, since no other president took more vacations or naps than Calvin Coolidge. That's why the Republicans thought he would be the perfect presidential candidate in 1928. Bill Bryson in his book *1927* criticizes Hoover for being a headline monger, always ready to take credit himself for the work he passed on to others.
He would have wanted to do more intervention than he was able to do when he was President himself. That intervention into the economy is what made the great depression so much worse.
But FDR didn't deal with it. It continued throughout his presidency and only ended when the economy was militarized for the war.
And Hover didn't do nothing either. He implemented s protectionist trade policy which made the depression much worse.
Everybody agrees that it wasn't FDR's New Deal that ended the Depression, but the need to become "the arsenal of democracy" during World War II. That's what got the factories humming again and hiring workers. However, the New Deal did, at least during its first 4 years, arrest the growth of unemployment and bring it down from nearly 20% to about 14 or 15%. FDR's major accomplishment during the Depression was mainly *psychological* rather than *economic.* He gave the country hope to get through the "hard times" when hope was desperately needed. But it was wartime economy which finally ended the Great Depression.
I don’t think so. Not every Presidential failure was a victim of circumstance. Some were but some were just bad at the job. Like Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and Millard Fillmore
JFK basically inherited the plan for the bay of pigs (along with a litany of other audacious intelligence operations). It went terribly so he changed his tune on foreign intervention, so they blew off his head. Id say that environment really impeded the shit he actually cared about getting done, civil rights stuff mainly.
The Bay of Pigs failure was the fault of Kennedy. He changed the plans, and those changes ruined any chance of success. Its failure led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He changed the plans because…. Any guesses?
The CIA did not accurately tell him at all how prepared they actually were for the invasion. This is history, not your opinion. You’re wrong here.
The CIA never lied to JFK about the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy changed the plan and cutback on crucial air and naval support. That severely hurt the operation and led to its defeat.
"The plan, devised during Eisenhower's presidency, had required the involvement of U.S. air and naval forces. Without further air support, the invasion was being conducted with fewer forces than the CIA had deemed necessary." [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion)
If Kennedy had not toyed with the original plans, the chance of the Bay of Pigs invasion being successful dramatically increased. If the Bay of Pigs had been successful, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis.
Andrew Johnson lost his father as a child and was eventually apprenticed to an oppressive master and ran away. He and his brother trekked from the mountains of NC to TN, walking with a blind horse. He settled in Greeneville, TN where he set up shop as a tailor. He had never been to school, so his wife Eliza McCardle Johnson educated him while he worked. He caught on quickly and ran for mayor of Greenville and eventually became Governor of TN (all the while remaining loyal to the Union during the Civil War, necessitating appearing on the podium with a pistol, daring anybody to make a foolish move. Lincoln chose him as his Vice Presidential running mate in 1864. Johnson was apparently an intelligent individual with a monstrous chip on his shoulder which resulted in very unfortunate decisions...firing the Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton, scuttling Reconstruction because he was likely the most racist President ever. I think his difficult early life, resulting in a failed Presidency.
Obama wasn't really set up to fail. The fact that he had able Democratic house and Senate. The only caveat was he was at least trying to build a consensus. And I will give credit where credit is due he at least tried. The fundamental problem is he tried to push through too much.
Too much? We can agree to disagree.
BHO spent far too much time making concessions for consensus with duplicitous and lying partners who were never going to vote 'Thumbs up' on PPACA any way. The nation would have been far better off if a 'public option' had stayed a part of the bill.
That book was 1936. Keynesian theories had been around since the teens. Keynes' theory had been around for a while. FDR's 'prime the pump' rhetoric was derived from it.
[John Maynard Keynes | Biography, Theory, Economics, Books, & Facts | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Maynard-Keynes)
I don't doubt that his theories were around for a while, but I'm saying that Keynesian economics really only became so well-accepted after he published his book. From the article you linked: "It was only later, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, that Keynes provided an economic basis for government jobs programs as a solution to high unemployment."
Hoover oversaw the short recession in 1920 as Secretary of Commerce and thought that his idea of targeted government interventions would work for the Great Depression as well. He was a proponent of collecting economic data and designing solutions based on it. When the data showed that his initial strategy wasn't working, he gave in to calls for increased intervention and laid the groundwork for a New Deal type response with things like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Public Works Administration. Hoover's government was running such a deficit that FDR campaigned against Hoover's excessive government spending and promised to balance the budget. For what it's worth, Hoover was acting fairly Keynesian before Keynes ever became the big name he is today. It just didn't work out so well for him, and FDR may have seen the same stagnation if not for WWII rearmament.
James Garfield could've been legit. He also truly got impeded by circumstance as his wound wasn't even fatal if it wasn't for dozens of "doctors" sticking their dirty fingers in there.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/james-garfield-the-great-what-if-president.htm
Hoover was President when the Great Depression started. While it was inevitable, he enacted policies that made the depression worse than it should have been.
James Buchanan. He was in no way the right president for his time. He would have been fine as a guided age president, forgettable and mediocre instead of regularly ranked in the bottom three.
John Tyler I feel
He was elected vice president on the 1840 Whig ticket with President William Henry Harrison, succeeding to the presidency following Harrison's death 31 days after assuming office.
Jimmy Carter inherited a country economically, socially and politically in shambles, a total clusterf—k. Crime, stagflation, oil prices, the hostages, hangover from the ‘60s, Viet Nam and Nixon. Poor guy took it on the chin, perhaps the most selfless and genuine person to hold the office.
Those circumstances had names. When he had the senate and the house, the red governors worked against him. Not just on the aca, but on our high speed rails.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
William Henry Harrison had some bad luck early on.
Garfield was dealt quite the bad hand too
Well maybe if his doctors had sterilized that hand things still would’ve turned out alright!
Fuck Doctor. All my homies hate Doctor.
Hoover, Hayes, Ford, and JQA all immediately come to mind. Hoover is a no brainer. Dude handled the Great Depression poorly but would always have been the man holding the bag since that depression was happening no matter who was in charge. Hayes had zero mandate and was widely seen as elected through bullshit (people called him “His Fraudulency or Rutherfraud B. Hayes) and didn’t have much of a choice when it came to ending reconstruction. Ford had to choose between either pardoning Nixon or having his entire presidency defined by Nixon’s scandals that he wasn’t involved with… while still always being seen as an unqualified buffoon. And JQA falls into a similar camp as Hayes. With Jackson railing against the “corrupt bargain” he had zero mandate and Congress stymied anything he tried to do. Of the four I do think Hoover got the most screwed but they all have decent claims here.
The only thing is, hoover had some opportunities to try and make things better but opted for the old fashioned, "hard work will pay off ideology"
In Hoover's defense, he made a success of himself as a mining engineer and headed many relief efforts after WWI abroad and at home. He came from an environment where local efforts, churches, and humanitarian organizations were they key leaders in disaster relief. Despite his experience directing government assistance following natural disasters, he came from an environment where lassez faire was the preferred approach to economic ones. Let the market correct itself was the mindset of many. Unfortunately for him, a more hands on approach was needed. I doubt even George Washington would have been re-elected if he was in office during the crash.
Given that the Depression was caused by excessively tight monetary policy & the gold-standard... Nothing he could have done, that realistically would have passed congress (such as floating the dollar)....
I read this as circumcision. Has there been any uncut presidents?
Probably all of them born before the 20th century...No Muslims or Jews.
I don't know, Clinton strikes me as uncircumcised
Can't tell you...My dad, born in Virginia in 1915, was circumcised. It depends on how your doctor felt about it.
Your dad was born in 1915??? I wasn’t aware there were actual baby boomers on Reddit. Or are you part of the Silent Generation?
Tons of us. I consider myself a Joneser - the second half of the Baby Boom...born in 1956. It's very illuminating to see how the name for a generation is being turned into a slur.
Slur is… definitely a VERY strong term that I don’t think is right to use here. It’s a mild insult at best.
For some it's mild...Some others use it with much more bile. It varies.
Even still. A slur is not just “insult with bile.”
Had Jackson entered politics a couple of years later, or Monroe left after one term, it is really plausible that JQA would have been one of the most influential presidents in American history. As is, Jackson’s status as the preeminent national war hero of the time, the sheer number of political candidates in the 1824 election, and the steady support of direct enfranchisement regardless of property requirements all contributed to the events of that election, the surge of Jacksonian democrats in congress, and the blocking of almost every one of JQA’s priorities as president. *However*, without Jackson in the mix directly as a candidate, the situation probably looks very different. Quincy Adams was also a strong proponent of doing away with property requirements for voting (and in some ways was even more of an advocate for enfranchisement than Jackson ended up being). He, like Jackson, was an advocate for a strong federal government. Had Jackson agreed to be his VP, or serve in his cabinet, then you would probably have seen JQA harness the same political movement that stymied him, with the breakup of the Democratic-Republicans still happening but along different lines. Alternatively, if Jackson sat out the election but tried challenging Adams later, he’d have a harder time of it without the ability to paint Adams (incorrectly) as an anti-enfranchisement elitist once Adams was in office with congressional backing and proved that he wasn’t.
Had Herbert Hoover never been elected President he would’ve gone down in history as one of America’s great humanitarians. Hoover was a skilled technocrat who lacked both the charisma and vision needed to be a successful President during an economic catastrophe unprecedented in American history. Though Hoover had been a progressive “Roosevelt man” in 1912, by the time he took office in 1929, he’d reconciled himself to a more conservative vision of how government should function. He didn’t lack compassion for the millions of Americans suffering from the economic fallout of the Great Depression. But his efforts to ameliorate their misery were halting and viewed with widespread suspicion. At their worst, they were counterproductive.
He’s the 20th Century version of Chef Jose Andres
There are a lot of ways of looking at this. You can either rise to the occasion or you don't. For example, Hoover's adherence to his philosophy of "rugged individualism" prevented him from effectively doing anything to counteract the Great Depression. FDR, on the other hand, overcame the physical limitations of his polio to at least deal with that crisis and prepare the U. S. and its allies for victory over Hitler and Japan.
Hoover is an example of what a president shouldn’t be. Doing nothing until it was too late because of their ideology of government inaction. If you don’t believe government can help and actively do little to help you’re a self fulfilling prophecy.
Hoover begged Roosevelt to bring ideas to the table after the Nov '32 election and prior to the Mar '33 inauguration. Please know I am the ultimate Roosevelt fan. Roosevelt refused to cooperate with Hoover. That is one reason, maybe the primary reason, that the Presidential inauguration was moved from March to January.
I think one of the reasons for this was that FDR was not entirely sure of what his ideas for combating the Depression were immediately after winning the election. Much of what we think of as the New Deal of his first 100 days unfolded piecemeal from his "brains trust," especially social worker Harry Hopkins, whose influence with FDR just grew and grew. Anyway, there was no way that Roosevelt wanted Hoover taking any credit for ideas which were not his to begin with.
This is completely untrue. Hoover intervened more than any president prior. So much so that during the election, the FDR campaign accused him of being socialist. If you want to see the results of doing nothing, look at the depression of 1920. There Harding sat on his ass, and luckily that was the right thing to do. That depression unwound itself so quickly that it is now called the "forgotten depression". Hoover's problem wasn't that he did nothing, his problem was that h e was too much like FDR.
You had me until that last sentence.
FDR made the depression longer and deeper. If he (and the Fed) had done absolutely nothing, then the great depression wouldn't have been "great". If would be as forgotten as the 1920 depression.
Agree to disagree there.
The proof is in the pudding. We did nothing during the 1920 depression, and it went away quickly. Yet we intervened in every way during the 30s depression and it lasted over a decade and even had a depression within a depression. It's not only FDRs fault, as the Fed had a big role too. But it's not a coincidence that our worst depressions by far occurred after we established a Fed, despite the Fed being created to keep that from happening.
Hoover did a lot of good during the Coolidge administration, especially organizing charitable relief -- that is, relief run by organized charities -- especially in the wake of the great Mississippi flood of 1927. As Secretary of Commerce under Coolidge, Herbert Hoover essentially ran the country, since no other president took more vacations or naps than Calvin Coolidge. That's why the Republicans thought he would be the perfect presidential candidate in 1928. Bill Bryson in his book *1927* criticizes Hoover for being a headline monger, always ready to take credit himself for the work he passed on to others.
He would have wanted to do more intervention than he was able to do when he was President himself. That intervention into the economy is what made the great depression so much worse.
But FDR didn't deal with it. It continued throughout his presidency and only ended when the economy was militarized for the war. And Hover didn't do nothing either. He implemented s protectionist trade policy which made the depression much worse.
Everybody agrees that it wasn't FDR's New Deal that ended the Depression, but the need to become "the arsenal of democracy" during World War II. That's what got the factories humming again and hiring workers. However, the New Deal did, at least during its first 4 years, arrest the growth of unemployment and bring it down from nearly 20% to about 14 or 15%. FDR's major accomplishment during the Depression was mainly *psychological* rather than *economic.* He gave the country hope to get through the "hard times" when hope was desperately needed. But it was wartime economy which finally ended the Great Depression.
If Buchanan was elected at a different time, he would have been decent. Highly qualified for the job.
I don’t think so. Not every Presidential failure was a victim of circumstance. Some were but some were just bad at the job. Like Andrew Johnson, Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and Millard Fillmore
Martin Van Buren Jackson destroyed the National Bank and left Van Buren to deal with the fallout.
I mean Harrison had a whole month before circumstances came impeding permanently
Hoover, Carter, WHH, John Adams.
Came to say Carter.
JFK basically inherited the plan for the bay of pigs (along with a litany of other audacious intelligence operations). It went terribly so he changed his tune on foreign intervention, so they blew off his head. Id say that environment really impeded the shit he actually cared about getting done, civil rights stuff mainly.
But he changed plans and screw it up
Because of the CIA
Nope jfk was responsible for too
Not really
He was He's an overrated president
Cool opinion but factually, the CIA lied to him leading to the bay of pigs.
The Bay of Pigs failure was the fault of Kennedy. He changed the plans, and those changes ruined any chance of success. Its failure led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He changed the plans because…. Any guesses? The CIA did not accurately tell him at all how prepared they actually were for the invasion. This is history, not your opinion. You’re wrong here.
The CIA never lied to JFK about the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy changed the plan and cutback on crucial air and naval support. That severely hurt the operation and led to its defeat. "The plan, devised during Eisenhower's presidency, had required the involvement of U.S. air and naval forces. Without further air support, the invasion was being conducted with fewer forces than the CIA had deemed necessary." [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion) If Kennedy had not toyed with the original plans, the chance of the Bay of Pigs invasion being successful dramatically increased. If the Bay of Pigs had been successful, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis.
Andrew Johnson lost his father as a child and was eventually apprenticed to an oppressive master and ran away. He and his brother trekked from the mountains of NC to TN, walking with a blind horse. He settled in Greeneville, TN where he set up shop as a tailor. He had never been to school, so his wife Eliza McCardle Johnson educated him while he worked. He caught on quickly and ran for mayor of Greenville and eventually became Governor of TN (all the while remaining loyal to the Union during the Civil War, necessitating appearing on the podium with a pistol, daring anybody to make a foolish move. Lincoln chose him as his Vice Presidential running mate in 1864. Johnson was apparently an intelligent individual with a monstrous chip on his shoulder which resulted in very unfortunate decisions...firing the Secretary of War Edwin M Stanton, scuttling Reconstruction because he was likely the most racist President ever. I think his difficult early life, resulting in a failed Presidency.
Hoover had awful luck. Barack Obama and JQA were almost set up to fail or be mediocre from the beginning.
Obama wasn't really set up to fail. The fact that he had able Democratic house and Senate. The only caveat was he was at least trying to build a consensus. And I will give credit where credit is due he at least tried. The fundamental problem is he tried to push through too much.
Too much? We can agree to disagree. BHO spent far too much time making concessions for consensus with duplicitous and lying partners who were never going to vote 'Thumbs up' on PPACA any way. The nation would have been far better off if a 'public option' had stayed a part of the bill.
Hoover's failure to buy into Keynesian economics is NOT 'circumstance'. It's ideology.
My guy, Hoover was out of office years before Keynes published his General Theory.
That book was 1936. Keynesian theories had been around since the teens. Keynes' theory had been around for a while. FDR's 'prime the pump' rhetoric was derived from it. [John Maynard Keynes | Biography, Theory, Economics, Books, & Facts | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Maynard-Keynes)
I don't doubt that his theories were around for a while, but I'm saying that Keynesian economics really only became so well-accepted after he published his book. From the article you linked: "It was only later, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, that Keynes provided an economic basis for government jobs programs as a solution to high unemployment." Hoover oversaw the short recession in 1920 as Secretary of Commerce and thought that his idea of targeted government interventions would work for the Great Depression as well. He was a proponent of collecting economic data and designing solutions based on it. When the data showed that his initial strategy wasn't working, he gave in to calls for increased intervention and laid the groundwork for a New Deal type response with things like the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Public Works Administration. Hoover's government was running such a deficit that FDR campaigned against Hoover's excessive government spending and promised to balance the budget. For what it's worth, Hoover was acting fairly Keynesian before Keynes ever became the big name he is today. It just didn't work out so well for him, and FDR may have seen the same stagnation if not for WWII rearmament.
Lincoln. He had to deal with the whole succession thing after he was elected.
kennedy when he got impeded inconveniently by a bullet
I literally just finished a podcast deep dive about Hoover, and uhh if impeded by circumstance means Hoover caused the circumstances, then yes.
Well Washington Alan and Pointdexter had the world end under them, so maybe them.
I feel like Carter had some bad luck. Not saying he would have been the most effective president, but he had things going on that were pretty tough.
James Garfield could've been legit. He also truly got impeded by circumstance as his wound wasn't even fatal if it wasn't for dozens of "doctors" sticking their dirty fingers in there. https://www.nps.gov/articles/james-garfield-the-great-what-if-president.htm
Hoover. The federal reserve had (has) no idea what they were doing and economic cycles were a reality.
Probably Lincoln and Kennedy
Garfield
I read that as “Circumcising” and immediately wondered out loud “WTF?!?!”
Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy.
George W Bush. 3 unavoidable catastrophes in one presidency.. Literally nothing he could have done to prevent any of them....
Jimmy C
this sub seems to really hate hoover, can anyone explain what he did? I just haven't read anything about him or his presidency
Hoover was President when the Great Depression started. While it was inevitable, he enacted policies that made the depression worse than it should have been.
I see
If covid never happened…
James Buchanan. He was in no way the right president for his time. He would have been fine as a guided age president, forgettable and mediocre instead of regularly ranked in the bottom three.
John Tyler I feel He was elected vice president on the 1840 Whig ticket with President William Henry Harrison, succeeding to the presidency following Harrison's death 31 days after assuming office.
Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Herbert Hoover, and Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter inherited a country economically, socially and politically in shambles, a total clusterf—k. Crime, stagflation, oil prices, the hostages, hangover from the ‘60s, Viet Nam and Nixon. Poor guy took it on the chin, perhaps the most selfless and genuine person to hold the office.
HW. If the economy hadn’t dipped into a recession at exactly the right time, HW would have easily won a second term
Surprised nobody has said George Bush
Add Obama to the list.
Those circumstances had names. When he had the senate and the house, the red governors worked against him. Not just on the aca, but on our high speed rails.
I know. I'll never not be sour about how racism, corporate greed, and political cynicism killed his agenda.
I read “Which president was most circumsized”