Dem
47
GOP
53
Here is the question we put before readers two weeks ago:
J.G. in New York City, NY, asks: Before the Twelfth Amendment, the candidate with the second-most votes became vice president, regardless of his party, or his dislike of his opponent.
What if that amendment was never passed? Which resultant president/VP pairing would have been the best combination for America?
And here some of the answers we got in response:
E.S. In Providence, RI : Even though they apparently loathed each other, had George McClellan ended up as Abraham Lincoln's VP in 1864, I can't imagine he would have been worse than Andrew Johnson.
R.S.B. in Cathedral City, CA: Thomas E. Dewey would have been Franklin D. Roosevelt's VP in 1944, would have become president in early 1945, and would have been the incumbent in 1948. He would have only been 50 in 1952 and 54 in 1956, and since the passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment excluded the sitting president, he would have probably run at least in 1952. So, two superstars of the U.S. presidency, Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, would probably never have been President.
Dewey was staunchly anti-communist so the Korean war probably would have still been fought, but I am not sure he would have fired Douglas MacArthur and may have dropped the bomb on China when Mao intervened in the conflict. He was also an honest and liberal Eastern Establishment Republican whose conservatism was fiscal and anti-socialist/communist. The entire anti-New Deal Republicanism that lead to Ronald Reagan would not have happened in the way it did.
C.S. in Waynesboro, PA: I'm gonna go with Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson (1952). They were decent men who appeared to have only the best interests of the country at heart. It doesn't appear there was any outward hatred from one to the other, so they could have worked together.
However, the best thing for America about their hypothetical partnership is that it would have kept Richard Nixon out of the VP slot, and presumably out of the presidency, thus avoiding the damage to the nation that his administration inflicted.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO: I would put forth Eisenhower-Stevenson as a good answer for the "team of rivals" pairing. At least from the distance of 70 years, there was not that much of a difference between what Eisenhower did and what Stevenson would have done if he had won, and Stevenson was certainly a high-caliber option to serve in the "minister without a portfolio" role that the VP has become.
P.F. in Seville, Spain: My answer would be John F. Kennedy as President and Nixon as VP (1960). First, they were of the same generation, both served admirably in World War II, and entered politics immediately after the war, so they had similar political outlooks. Second, both were students of foreign policy and considered foreign policy extremely important. Third, they shared the view that the Soviets were the biggest threat to the U.S., and that the Europeans could be great allies for us against the Soviets. Fourth, since Kennedy was a moderate Democrat and Nixon was fairly liberal for a Republican, they were pretty close on the political spectrum. Fifth, although Nixon was jealous of Kennedy's elite background, charm, and good looks, he had great respect for JFK and the two were actually quite friendly, which would have made a harmonious team. And finally, with JFK as president, he would have been in a position to save Nixon and the country from Nixon's worst excesses.
M.M. in San Diego, CA: Nixon and Hubert H. Humphrey (1968), provided Humphrey could have steered Nixon away from Henry Kissinger and escalating in Vietnam, or could have shamed Nixon into behaving honorably. But knowing what we know about Nixon, he likely wouldn't have allowed Humphrey within a mile of the White House.
J.M. in New York City, NY: Hats off to J.G. in NYC! A great Electoral-Vote.com question, indeed. I like the Ronald Reagan-Walter Mondale duo (1984). Fritz as VP would have leavened Gipper's folksy surface but flaky morals with a Minnesotan's true grit and deep empathy for the farmers, laborers, and many other constituents of the big-tent Democrats. Mondale's influence in the administration might have expanded St. Ronnie's rather narrow actual affinity for various segments of our society.
Runner-up: the Bill Clinton-Bob Dole ticket (1996). For all his brilliant intellect and gregarious manner, Slick Willy could have benefited—meaning we all would have—from a leadership partner possessed of less showmanship and more mettle.
J.B. in Bozeman, MT: Fascinating alternate history scenario! If the VP has power, perhaps Al Gore would have prevented George W. Bush (2000) from instigating our disastrous Middle East involvement and other neo-con impulses.
A.G. in Scranton, PA: President Barack Obama and Vice President/American Hero John McCain (2008). Vice President McCain could have lent some courage to the president to actually use those 60 Senate votes to secure democracy from the assault he knew was coming because of the racist assaults launched against him and his family by Republicans in two primaries. Further an Obama-McCain leadership team would have scared the living crap out of America's enemies after McCain had returned from Pakistan with Osama Bin Laden's ears for a necklace. Ah, remember when politics was fun and not that thing that is no longer even a whisker away from being used to murder people? I miss that.
C.B. in Highlands, NJ: My wife and I agree that the combination of Obama and McCain would have curbed the rise of TCF as well as all of the hatred and animosity that came with him. They genuinely liked each other. They were senators who worked well together in a true bipartisan fashion. Two men of integrity working together for what is best for the people... can you imagine?
E.W. in Silver Spring, MD: Step One: Pick your favorite president that didn't rely much on their VP. Step Two: You're done, because you can assume that the president would have done the same with his opponent.
Here is the question for next week:
M.W. in Ottawa, ON, Canada, asks: Politicians and journalists are fond of telling us that THIS ELECTION is the most important election of our lifetime. What would you say is the least important presidential election in the last hundred or so years, and why?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Elections Have Consequences?"!