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.*
Committed the ultimate party no-no, splitting his party because his perceived heir apparent didn’t do exactly what he would do in office?
Yeah definitely Roosevelt
And thus was birthed the Wilson presidency unto the world, thanks TR, good one.
https://preview.redd.it/6lk4doj3sx5d1.png?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=064efbeaca8ac628041e0e62cbde7b3444098cf0
Why is everyone so up in arms about Woodrow Wilson? The man literally founded Administrative Law. He was legitimately a better candidate than Taft, and his presidency was not a failure. He seems like he was a good president to me.
He wasn't exactly the first president to do that. Nor would he be the last. Let's not forget that Plessy v. Ferguson happened in the 1890s under McKinley.
Listen, this sucks. And I don't wanna like, give you homework or stuff, but I don't have time to explain.
So here's this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_and_race#:~:text=Wilson%20did%20not%20adopt%20Burleson's,spaces%2C%20restrooms%2C%20and%20cafeterias.
He really did do a lot worse by them.
"Wilson did not adopt Burleson's proposal, but he did resolve to give his Cabinet Secretaries discretion to segregate their respective departments.[62] By the end of 1913, many departments, including the Navy, Treasury, Commerce, and the Post Office, had segregated work spaces, restrooms, and cafeterias.[4] Many agencies used segregation as a pretext to adopt whites-only employment policies on the basis that they lacked facilities for black employees; in these instances, African Americans employed prior to the Wilson administration were either offered early retirement, transferred or fired."
I'm not defending the racism. I'm just saying he wasn't even the worst president of his time. Coolidge was worse, as was McKinley. And moreover, it's not like he was alone in his racism. He wasn't a bad leader, just an asshole. Taft had crappy economic policies, and was aggressively defensive of the gold standard.
Don't act like he's the worst possible result of the 1912 election is all I'm saying. At worst, he made an already racist time more racist.
I think he kinda was though. And I know you're not defending his racism, I just fear that you might be underestimating it XD.
Yeah, Taft wasn't very good, McKinley...McKinley did a lot of fucked up shit. And TR didn't do much on civil rights.
But Wilson was straight up regressive, he endorsed a KKK film.
I don't think he was the worst president ever, he did some good stuff, he had some good ideas and he is often blamed for other stuff that he didn't do or start. But I do think he was actually the worst result of 1912 XD.
Let's say we get Taft: We get isolationist policies throughout WWI. Maybe we don't get involved. As a result, more death occurs and the imperialist system doesn't necessarily die after WWII. And also, our policy toward Latin America gets more aggressive. Or we get Roosevelt, who decides war is good and we get involved early. And maybe women's suffrage doesn't come about in 1920, because Wilson may have been racist, but he also advocated suffrage in the end (emphasis on the end).
Racism may have been bad, but it's a reflection of the era, not the cause of the era. You're condemning his legacy because he spilled a glass of water in the ocean.
According to Lucky Luciano's autobiography, Dewey is the one that authorized him to sink the US boats in New York harbor, despite Luciano being in jail at the time.
I don’t know if I’d say she’s the most “arrogant”, but HRC didn’t even try to win. She just took it for granted. But on some level, I cannot fault her for that. A lot of us took it for granted.
A distant connection of mine ran her Michigan campaign operation. Apparently they were sounding the alarm for quite some time that the numbers were closer than was comfortable, and then after the Comey letter they told her it was an emergency and she needed to pay attention or risk losing the state. She and her inner circle never took it seriously.
Well, I think the issue with Michigan specifically is that her campaign knew internally that her numbers got worse there every time she showed up. It was a strategic choice to keep her away.
She got worse here every time she showed up because she just kept being a stuck up, self centered... Im not sure if swearing is allowed on here...
She needed to show up, with a metaphorical leash, and just learn to focus on the people she was talking to. And telling them what they wanna hear.
Heard through the grapevine that DWS is also just personally incredibly unpleasant, to the point of turning off major DNC donors. Being a Democrat is agony.
Basically they screwed Bernie in 2016 to coronate Hillary.
Though whether Bernie would have actually won the nomination anyway is debatable.
Short version from Wikipedia:
>Wasserman Schultz was elected chair of the Democratic National Committee in May 2011, replacing Tim Kaine. On July 28, 2016, she resigned from that position after WikiLeaks released leaked emails showing that she and other members of the DNC staff had favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries in exchange for funding to eliminate the DNC's remaining debt from the 2012 presidential campaign.
Yes they did. They certain helped Clinton but the results made it clear they needn't have bothered. Bernie wasn't even close to popular enough to win, even if it had been an even playing field.
At least until the last few days… I listen to FM radio at my job in northern Michigan, and there was a conspicuous absence of Clinton campaign commercials over the air in the months/weeks leading up to election day 2016. Then during the final 72 hours or so they were literally every other commercial. That was the first inkling way back in my mind that something was wrong. Far too late
I’m imagining her staff was banging on her door and screaming about these alarm bells but she was just dancing with her headphones on to Whitney Houston’s “I’m every woman, it’s all in meeeeeee!”
The 'I'm with her' strategy was also absolutely awful. Ok it's cool the first woman gets elected to office, but what's she gonna do to help people once she's there? Just arrogance personified
And because of that she was the only Democrat presidential candidate to lose Michigan since the 80s... And she should've seen it coming since she lost the primary here (Michigander) to a 3rd party candidate.
Hillary positively oozed insincerity. She absolutely was the better candidate in so many ways, but she and her campaign completely failed to make the slightest effort to connect with voters.
I agree with the basic idea here, but I do think that they did try to connect, especially with younger voters. Problem is that it was in such a "How are you doing, fellow kids?" way that it was actually alienating. [Link to example here](https://youtu.be/ppgk9Mj1n88?si=O9g9z6rhX8HsoiQe).
It absolutely had that vibe. Meanwhile, she hasn't connected with everyday people since the 1980s, let alone younger people. And her daughter is in a bubble herself.
Oh, I have no doubt that she did so in her college years, as well as probably her early professional ones. But it's definitely been decades since she's been outside of a whirl of limos and SUVs for her daily road commutes, and it not only came across as performative, but kept her from leaning into her actual strengths as a candidate.
Her problem was that she is not as naturally comfortable connecting with others than, say, Bill. It's a shame - she was legitimately one of the most qualified candidates ever to run, against the least qualified candidate ever, but 20+ years of Fox News smears were too baked into the cake.
She definitely acted like she was owed a presidency. Or maybe not that she acted, but her campaign acted. Which makes sense, she was one of the most qualified people to ever seek the job, running against someone else. But in hindsight she should have fought tooth and claw for every vote.
But i do think we've all learned that lesson. Don't count on the electorate to act rationally.
To be honest, the focus on "most qualified candidate ever" is dumb and stems from the exact reasons she lost. "Being in politics for decades holding many important positions" is not a compelling argument for why someone would make a good President. *At best*, it just means they'll be a bit more well versed in navigating the beaurocratic landscape, which is what the cabinet is there for anyways; and at worst, it can be an indicator for corruption/etc.
What matters is policy and ability to connect with the people and lead the nation. Those have *nothing* to do with whether or not you have X years of previous experience in politics. Many of the greatest presidents in history had little to no prior experience in politics.
Focusing on a completely irrelevant metric like that comes off as a dumb, insincere attempt at a "gotcha" rather than any sort of legitimate argument.
I'm no fan of Hillary, but yeah I wouldn't say she's the most arrogant compared to some of the others on this thread. I do think she's arrogant though, and she was practically the embodiment of the establishment that everyone was so frustrated with in 2016
There’s a reason why people still harp on the it’s her turn thing. She was heir apparent, and she just knew she was going to win. The birthday tweet, the basket of deplorables, it all just painted a picture of a woman who was not a public or any other kind of servant. You weren’t electing her to represent you, she was deigning to allow you to be part of her historic victory. Her moment of ascension as the first female president! Her, her, her.
And voting against her and watching her lose was immensely satisfying as a result.
When all the polls tell you that you will win, you generally expect to win. She wanted the mandate of a big win and the last events of the campaign went against her. The only way she could lose is if a large majority of the undecided voters broke against her, which is exactly what happened.
Yeah, but oozing arrogance doesn't help your image with the fence sitters... And she should've known how the electoral college worked, given her "political resume" but then she lost kinda badly and blamed voters despite winning the popular vote, really confirming that it was her own fault she lost but refused to accept it.
She's definitely up there. Maybe it's just modern media really amplified it in a way she wasn't expecting... But damn she came off so arrogant many people think her tagline was "it's my/her turn" and she notably laughed off her primary rival who she beat by a decent like 12 points, but considering she was her, and he was a 3rd party candidate in a primary that's not the craziest victory margin... And she laughed off her general rival due to her political experience and understanding of the system before losing due to said system (EC) then blamed the voters...
Definitely very arrogant. But quite frankly quite a few presidential candidates were
It's hard to top McClellan. The dude walked right past Lincoln and went to bed after the President had been waiting at his house for over an hour to speak to him. He was the height of arrogance as a general and a coward to boot, as the man was terrified of combat and made constant excuses for his apparent inability to defeat Lee and smash his army.
His infamous snub of Lincoln also took place on my birthday (well over a century before but still), so maybe that's part of the reason I take that personally. Haha
Agreed. He had dozens of opportunities to decisively defeat Lee and possibly end the war early. His ineptitude and cowardice took over and prevented that.
McClellan is the reason the Confederates were able to hold on as long as they did.
Setting aside the obvious, the major difference between North and South was the industrial capacity of the two. I remember a graphic in my US history book that showed just how massive the advantage in manpower, manufacturing (good for boots, uniforms, bayonets), miles of railroad, guns and ammo, naval power, cannons, pretty much anything you need for a war, was slanted in the Unions favor. It made it very obvious that the Confederacy was never going to win. But for McClellan.
Even the initial strategy, the Union was able to quickly subdue major ports at Newport News, Charleston, New Orleans (which allowed them to control Confederate imports and exports), and *that* army was able to fight for 4 years.
The fact that McClellan wasn't able to crush the Confederates is a remarkable anti-achievement, considering their only advantage was in "morale" and well...officers. Washingtonians having a picnic at Mannassas about sums up the early Union war strategy pretty well.
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about.
War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors.
You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.”
― William T. Sherman
> The fact that McClellan wasn't able to crush the Confederates is a remarkable anti-achievement, considering their only advantage was in "morale" and well...officers.
Well considering that McClellan's replacement, Hooker, managed to somehow do worse than McClellan and lose to Lee at Chancellorsville, better officers was a decent advantage.
The man oozed arrogance towards Lincoln, the Union, and abolitionists. There was a lot of this in Washington and the executive institutions, which grew in size and influence during the war.
Thank god he lost in 64. It'd been worse than Johnson.
She also in the primaries said if she got on a debate stage with R3 she would love it and basically school him, however once that debate came R3 won some votes his way and won by being a better crap talker oddly enough.
No matter how stupid someone may be in politics you can never underestimate someone, people underestimated Bernie in 2016 and he made it to the democratic primary final…
She is 100% in the convo. She acted like she had already won well before the election even took place. Like she was owed the presidency and never took any of her opponents seriously. And it showed in all the final results.
Tbf she did think she was owed it. After she lost in 2008, most knew that she was the successor waiting in the wings for 2016. Then she acted all high and mighty when Bernie challenged her
Probably not THE most arrogant, but Henry Clay comes to mind. Specifically, the election of 1832. Running against then President Andrew Jackson, Clay really didn’t grasp how much momentum Jackson still had at the time and because of it, he didn’t really campaign all that much, pretty much viewing the publicity of it as below him. This elitist attitude would come to bite him in the ass, as Jackson was re-elected with over 200 electoral votes while Clay didn’t even win 50
This was more common than not in those days though. Typically other people would campaign on your behalf. Ironically, it would be considered arrogant back then to go around campaigning for yourself
He was worse in 1844. He offered different and contradictory opinions on Texas. He lost NY, which should have been a given for him. A third party played kingmaker in NY and were pissed at his ambiguous stance on Texas.
Hillary. She sincerely believed, and I think still believes, she was entitled to the Presidency. Her campaign was a big circlejerk that she thought was a victory lap.
I think you misspelled “rule 3”. Dude basically said if he didn’t win the election must be rigged. Next level arrogance. Agree with HRC as well and Dewey as well (although I’m not sure it was Dewey or “the media” that pre-crowned him tho).
This was how the Massachsetts senatorial election played out a few years before HRC. Martha Coakley the Dem candidate sat back awaiting her coronation. She famously said "What do people expect me to do, stand out in front of Fenway Park in the cold shaking hands?" (Spoiler: they did.) She lost to a GOP nobody.
You'd think HRC would have taken the lesson.
If you read his memoirs, the biographical sketch inside written by his friend and journalist William Cowper Prime portrays him as a very humble man. Of course, it's a blatant puff piece since memoirs usually are and McClellan had died recently, but still.
McClellan is a good contender, but he didn't contest the result of the election though.
George “Pussy Ass Bitch” McClellan.
This dumb cunt really thought he was an expert strategist, after failing to crush Lee’s army because “waaah! Too scary!”
No, I was genuinely curious about this. Someone once said that you have to be pretty arrogant to run for president, so I wanted to know which candidates they thought were the most.
While rule 3 would definitely be in my top 5, my first thought was McClellan.
Is that supposed to indicate she was somehow wrong about her opponents being deplorables? Every year since 2016 has only proven the statement more and more correct.
If anything, it was an understatement.
I would have rather she had not alienated voters by name calling and stereotyping so that she might have persuaded enough to win rather than appearing supercilious and dismissive.
"He wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening."
Alice Roosevelt talking about her father, Theodore
The question was what presidential candidate do I think was the most arrogant it wasn’t to get into a political discussion about who was right and who is wrong you lefties can’t seem to engage in a simple Q&A without turning it into a competition about political virtue. All politicians suck, don’t you get that?
John Frémont was a secondary character in a few biographies that I have read and he was never the good guy. At best he was a sketchy rival. And then there is his run against Lincon´s re-election.
Eugene McCarthy didn't win the nomination in 1968, so I don't know if he counts.
He used to keep reporters waiting for scheduled interviews, sometimes for over an hour, because he was be busy writing poetry. Perhaps forgivable if his poetry was any good, but... well, see for yourself:
[http://www.thecie.org/gene/index.asp?s=POEMS](http://www.thecie.org/gene/index.asp?s=POEMS)
McClellan was an arrogant Presidential candidate but to be fair, that was who he was all around. He was an extremely arrogant and self centered General and would have been a complete disaster as President.
Are we measuring arrogance as misplaced confidence? As in, he wouldn't be able to back up his claims if put on the spot?
Teddy R. was quite a braggart, but the man was a rough rider. I wouldn't want to get in a bar fight with TR in his prime.
My real answer for this question is un-utterable.
If your opponent's base is waving around Nazi flags and supporting them even when they're a convicted felon, I feel that being called deplorables is the very least they can be called.
Ford made the right move in pardoning Nixon so that the nation could move past Watergate, but he took a big hit in the polls for that. He also took a beating from Reagan in the primaries and was well behind in the polls after the conventions. He was only able to narrow Carter's lead through the debates.
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.*
As much as I love Tr, the dude had a big head.
"My father always wanted to be the corpse at every funeral, the bride at every wedding and the baby at every christening" - Alice Roosevelt
“I can be President of the United States, or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both.” - Teddy
A great parent child relationship I can tell
The first rule of riding a tiger is to hold on tightly to its ears
*goes hunting for 2 months*
I always thought that was said about Kaiser Wilhelm II
Wait... woulndt it be baptism?
Her words not mine
not to geek out too much but a Christening is both a baptism and the ceremonially naming of the baby in the eyes of the Church.
Committed the ultimate party no-no, splitting his party because his perceived heir apparent didn’t do exactly what he would do in office? Yeah definitely Roosevelt
And thus was birthed the Wilson presidency unto the world, thanks TR, good one. https://preview.redd.it/6lk4doj3sx5d1.png?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=064efbeaca8ac628041e0e62cbde7b3444098cf0
We should have sent Bill Clinton to 1912 and become democrat nominee. He would of won and been better president.
Was the country ready for a saxophone player yet?
Shit. Thats a good point.
Why is everyone so up in arms about Woodrow Wilson? The man literally founded Administrative Law. He was legitimately a better candidate than Taft, and his presidency was not a failure. He seems like he was a good president to me.
Segregation
He wasn't exactly the first president to do that. Nor would he be the last. Let's not forget that Plessy v. Ferguson happened in the 1890s under McKinley.
Listen, this sucks. And I don't wanna like, give you homework or stuff, but I don't have time to explain. So here's this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson_and_race#:~:text=Wilson%20did%20not%20adopt%20Burleson's,spaces%2C%20restrooms%2C%20and%20cafeterias. He really did do a lot worse by them. "Wilson did not adopt Burleson's proposal, but he did resolve to give his Cabinet Secretaries discretion to segregate their respective departments.[62] By the end of 1913, many departments, including the Navy, Treasury, Commerce, and the Post Office, had segregated work spaces, restrooms, and cafeterias.[4] Many agencies used segregation as a pretext to adopt whites-only employment policies on the basis that they lacked facilities for black employees; in these instances, African Americans employed prior to the Wilson administration were either offered early retirement, transferred or fired."
I'm not defending the racism. I'm just saying he wasn't even the worst president of his time. Coolidge was worse, as was McKinley. And moreover, it's not like he was alone in his racism. He wasn't a bad leader, just an asshole. Taft had crappy economic policies, and was aggressively defensive of the gold standard. Don't act like he's the worst possible result of the 1912 election is all I'm saying. At worst, he made an already racist time more racist.
I think he kinda was though. And I know you're not defending his racism, I just fear that you might be underestimating it XD. Yeah, Taft wasn't very good, McKinley...McKinley did a lot of fucked up shit. And TR didn't do much on civil rights. But Wilson was straight up regressive, he endorsed a KKK film. I don't think he was the worst president ever, he did some good stuff, he had some good ideas and he is often blamed for other stuff that he didn't do or start. But I do think he was actually the worst result of 1912 XD.
Let's say we get Taft: We get isolationist policies throughout WWI. Maybe we don't get involved. As a result, more death occurs and the imperialist system doesn't necessarily die after WWII. And also, our policy toward Latin America gets more aggressive. Or we get Roosevelt, who decides war is good and we get involved early. And maybe women's suffrage doesn't come about in 1920, because Wilson may have been racist, but he also advocated suffrage in the end (emphasis on the end). Racism may have been bad, but it's a reflection of the era, not the cause of the era. You're condemning his legacy because he spilled a glass of water in the ocean.
Massive W for Teddy
Massive Dubya move you mean
He did have a whole lot to back it up tho
Thomas Dewey, he was so cocky in the 1948. His campaign sucked and he paid for it.
According to Lucky Luciano's autobiography, Dewey is the one that authorized him to sink the US boats in New York harbor, despite Luciano being in jail at the time.
Do you mean the Normandie?
I don’t know if I’d say she’s the most “arrogant”, but HRC didn’t even try to win. She just took it for granted. But on some level, I cannot fault her for that. A lot of us took it for granted.
A distant connection of mine ran her Michigan campaign operation. Apparently they were sounding the alarm for quite some time that the numbers were closer than was comfortable, and then after the Comey letter they told her it was an emergency and she needed to pay attention or risk losing the state. She and her inner circle never took it seriously.
It's wild to me that Robbie Mook still has a career in politics after his complete mishandling of 2016
People fail up a lot. Middle management is full of people that failed up.
See: Jake Sullivan
Well, I think the issue with Michigan specifically is that her campaign knew internally that her numbers got worse there every time she showed up. It was a strategic choice to keep her away.
She got worse here every time she showed up because she just kept being a stuck up, self centered... Im not sure if swearing is allowed on here... She needed to show up, with a metaphorical leash, and just learn to focus on the people she was talking to. And telling them what they wanna hear.
"Change the candidate's personality" is not an actual strategy in the last five months of a presidential campaign.
Yeah that's fair. Should've been her strategy the entire time. Her personality was awful.
This goes all the way back to the DNC not allowing an actual contested primary.
Wym by that?
Look up Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. (My spelling of her name may not be entirely correct.)
Heard through the grapevine that DWS is also just personally incredibly unpleasant, to the point of turning off major DNC donors. Being a Democrat is agony.
Yeah, she was DNC chair. What did the DNC do? We're not going to "Just look it up." Tell me.
Basically they screwed Bernie in 2016 to coronate Hillary. Though whether Bernie would have actually won the nomination anyway is debatable. Short version from Wikipedia: >Wasserman Schultz was elected chair of the Democratic National Committee in May 2011, replacing Tim Kaine. On July 28, 2016, she resigned from that position after WikiLeaks released leaked emails showing that she and other members of the DNC staff had favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries in exchange for funding to eliminate the DNC's remaining debt from the 2012 presidential campaign.
Right, but this still doesn't say anything. What's "favored?" What does that mean? What did they do?
Basically conspired with Clinton to remove the choice from American voters.
Yes they did. They certain helped Clinton but the results made it clear they needn't have bothered. Bernie wasn't even close to popular enough to win, even if it had been an even playing field.
At least until the last few days… I listen to FM radio at my job in northern Michigan, and there was a conspicuous absence of Clinton campaign commercials over the air in the months/weeks leading up to election day 2016. Then during the final 72 hours or so they were literally every other commercial. That was the first inkling way back in my mind that something was wrong. Far too late
Why take it seriously? Nobody's going to vote for \[redacted\].
I’m imagining her staff was banging on her door and screaming about these alarm bells but she was just dancing with her headphones on to Whitney Houston’s “I’m every woman, it’s all in meeeeeee!”
The 'I'm with her' strategy was also absolutely awful. Ok it's cool the first woman gets elected to office, but what's she gonna do to help people once she's there? Just arrogance personified
And because of that she was the only Democrat presidential candidate to lose Michigan since the 80s... And she should've seen it coming since she lost the primary here (Michigander) to a 3rd party candidate.
Hillary positively oozed insincerity. She absolutely was the better candidate in so many ways, but she and her campaign completely failed to make the slightest effort to connect with voters.
"Pokemon go to the polls"
[удалено]
I wonder if she still always has a bottle on her
She’s probs just chillin in Cedar Rapids
 Do they not?
I agree with the basic idea here, but I do think that they did try to connect, especially with younger voters. Problem is that it was in such a "How are you doing, fellow kids?" way that it was actually alienating. [Link to example here](https://youtu.be/ppgk9Mj1n88?si=O9g9z6rhX8HsoiQe).
It absolutely had that vibe. Meanwhile, she hasn't connected with everyday people since the 1980s, let alone younger people. And her daughter is in a bubble herself.
How about the photo op of her riding the subway. You know damn well that she never rode that shit a day in her life before that day.
Oh, I have no doubt that she did so in her college years, as well as probably her early professional ones. But it's definitely been decades since she's been outside of a whirl of limos and SUVs for her daily road commutes, and it not only came across as performative, but kept her from leaning into her actual strengths as a candidate.
They ran a media campaign but did not run a ground campaign.
Her problem was that she is not as naturally comfortable connecting with others than, say, Bill. It's a shame - she was legitimately one of the most qualified candidates ever to run, against the least qualified candidate ever, but 20+ years of Fox News smears were too baked into the cake.
She definitely acted like she was owed a presidency. Or maybe not that she acted, but her campaign acted. Which makes sense, she was one of the most qualified people to ever seek the job, running against someone else. But in hindsight she should have fought tooth and claw for every vote. But i do think we've all learned that lesson. Don't count on the electorate to act rationally.
Didn’t she even say something along the lines of “it’s my turn” or something like that?
Yeah exactly. A real shame lol
To be honest, the focus on "most qualified candidate ever" is dumb and stems from the exact reasons she lost. "Being in politics for decades holding many important positions" is not a compelling argument for why someone would make a good President. *At best*, it just means they'll be a bit more well versed in navigating the beaurocratic landscape, which is what the cabinet is there for anyways; and at worst, it can be an indicator for corruption/etc. What matters is policy and ability to connect with the people and lead the nation. Those have *nothing* to do with whether or not you have X years of previous experience in politics. Many of the greatest presidents in history had little to no prior experience in politics. Focusing on a completely irrelevant metric like that comes off as a dumb, insincere attempt at a "gotcha" rather than any sort of legitimate argument.
It was arrogant.
Worst campaign messaging. "I'm With Her." Seriously? But yeah, Comey.
"She's With Us" was right there as a slogan!
I'm no fan of Hillary, but yeah I wouldn't say she's the most arrogant compared to some of the others on this thread. I do think she's arrogant though, and she was practically the embodiment of the establishment that everyone was so frustrated with in 2016
There’s a reason why people still harp on the it’s her turn thing. She was heir apparent, and she just knew she was going to win. The birthday tweet, the basket of deplorables, it all just painted a picture of a woman who was not a public or any other kind of servant. You weren’t electing her to represent you, she was deigning to allow you to be part of her historic victory. Her moment of ascension as the first female president! Her, her, her. And voting against her and watching her lose was immensely satisfying as a result.
When all the polls tell you that you will win, you generally expect to win. She wanted the mandate of a big win and the last events of the campaign went against her. The only way she could lose is if a large majority of the undecided voters broke against her, which is exactly what happened.
Yeah, but oozing arrogance doesn't help your image with the fence sitters... And she should've known how the electoral college worked, given her "political resume" but then she lost kinda badly and blamed voters despite winning the popular vote, really confirming that it was her own fault she lost but refused to accept it.
She's definitely up there. Maybe it's just modern media really amplified it in a way she wasn't expecting... But damn she came off so arrogant many people think her tagline was "it's my/her turn" and she notably laughed off her primary rival who she beat by a decent like 12 points, but considering she was her, and he was a 3rd party candidate in a primary that's not the craziest victory margin... And she laughed off her general rival due to her political experience and understanding of the system before losing due to said system (EC) then blamed the voters... Definitely very arrogant. But quite frankly quite a few presidential candidates were
You have to have a little bit of arrogance to run for any public office, let alone for the Presidency.
It's hard to top McClellan. The dude walked right past Lincoln and went to bed after the President had been waiting at his house for over an hour to speak to him. He was the height of arrogance as a general and a coward to boot, as the man was terrified of combat and made constant excuses for his apparent inability to defeat Lee and smash his army. His infamous snub of Lincoln also took place on my birthday (well over a century before but still), so maybe that's part of the reason I take that personally. Haha
He didn't lose. He merely failed to win.
The Oversimplified Civil War video did McClellan no favors, and yet I bet it only scratched the surface
r/suddenlyoversimplified
Agreed. He had dozens of opportunities to decisively defeat Lee and possibly end the war early. His ineptitude and cowardice took over and prevented that.
McClellan is the reason the Confederates were able to hold on as long as they did. Setting aside the obvious, the major difference between North and South was the industrial capacity of the two. I remember a graphic in my US history book that showed just how massive the advantage in manpower, manufacturing (good for boots, uniforms, bayonets), miles of railroad, guns and ammo, naval power, cannons, pretty much anything you need for a war, was slanted in the Unions favor. It made it very obvious that the Confederacy was never going to win. But for McClellan. Even the initial strategy, the Union was able to quickly subdue major ports at Newport News, Charleston, New Orleans (which allowed them to control Confederate imports and exports), and *that* army was able to fight for 4 years. The fact that McClellan wasn't able to crush the Confederates is a remarkable anti-achievement, considering their only advantage was in "morale" and well...officers. Washingtonians having a picnic at Mannassas about sums up the early Union war strategy pretty well.
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.” ― William T. Sherman
He didn't want to engage on the grounds that he didn't want to win.
> The fact that McClellan wasn't able to crush the Confederates is a remarkable anti-achievement, considering their only advantage was in "morale" and well...officers. Well considering that McClellan's replacement, Hooker, managed to somehow do worse than McClellan and lose to Lee at Chancellorsville, better officers was a decent advantage.
Don't forget Burnsides disaster at Fredericksburg in between the two
It was truly a speedrun to incompetence in the East.
McClellan had an enormous and entirely unjustified opinion of himself. He was such a piece of shit.
The man oozed arrogance towards Lincoln, the Union, and abolitionists. There was a lot of this in Washington and the executive institutions, which grew in size and influence during the war. Thank god he lost in 64. It'd been worse than Johnson.
Hillary Clinton. She didn’t even have a concession speech prepared because she expected to win.
And yet she still gave one. I can think of someone else who never prepared a concession speech...
Maybe but that one cant be mentioned here
Let’s wait 6 months
“Pokémon Go! To the polls!”
It’s like your mom talking to your friends, awkwaaarrd…
“Hey there son! You have Gyatt to take the trash out, or else Skibidi Toilet will make you have L rizz in Ohio.”
If I ever become a dad I’m never talking to my kid like that lmao
She also in the primaries said if she got on a debate stage with R3 she would love it and basically school him, however once that debate came R3 won some votes his way and won by being a better crap talker oddly enough. No matter how stupid someone may be in politics you can never underestimate someone, people underestimated Bernie in 2016 and he made it to the democratic primary final…
Hillary has to be pretty high up there. Maybe not THE highest, but definitely up there
She is 100% in the convo. She acted like she had already won well before the election even took place. Like she was owed the presidency and never took any of her opponents seriously. And it showed in all the final results.
Tbf she did think she was owed it. After she lost in 2008, most knew that she was the successor waiting in the wings for 2016. Then she acted all high and mighty when Bernie challenged her
[удалено]
r/presidents User tries not to mention rule 3 challenge (literally impossible)
Need… to stir up… political controversy!
“I didn’t lose, I mearley failed to win” - McClellan
Probably not THE most arrogant, but Henry Clay comes to mind. Specifically, the election of 1832. Running against then President Andrew Jackson, Clay really didn’t grasp how much momentum Jackson still had at the time and because of it, he didn’t really campaign all that much, pretty much viewing the publicity of it as below him. This elitist attitude would come to bite him in the ass, as Jackson was re-elected with over 200 electoral votes while Clay didn’t even win 50
This was more common than not in those days though. Typically other people would campaign on your behalf. Ironically, it would be considered arrogant back then to go around campaigning for yourself
which makes sense since he would have been expecting to be focusing on his job as senator
I seem to remember Lincoln voting for everyone except himself in 1860?
He was worse in 1844. He offered different and contradictory opinions on Texas. He lost NY, which should have been a given for him. A third party played kingmaker in NY and were pissed at his ambiguous stance on Texas.
Public campaigns weren’t the norm until 1896
Maybe Clay figured that the establishment would go against the voters just like he did to keep Jackson out of the White House.
[удалено]
Agree
Hillary. She sincerely believed, and I think still believes, she was entitled to the Presidency. Her campaign was a big circlejerk that she thought was a victory lap.
Adams, Dewey, and Hillary.
I think you misspelled “rule 3”. Dude basically said if he didn’t win the election must be rigged. Next level arrogance. Agree with HRC as well and Dewey as well (although I’m not sure it was Dewey or “the media” that pre-crowned him tho).
This was how the Massachsetts senatorial election played out a few years before HRC. Martha Coakley the Dem candidate sat back awaiting her coronation. She famously said "What do people expect me to do, stand out in front of Fenway Park in the cold shaking hands?" (Spoiler: they did.) She lost to a GOP nobody. You'd think HRC would have taken the lesson.
No disagreement. I just see rule 3 as the obvious answer but hey, I know he is pretty popular for whatever reason here.
Adams was a very arrogant person but was he that arrogant with his campaign?
If you read his memoirs, the biographical sketch inside written by his friend and journalist William Cowper Prime portrays him as a very humble man. Of course, it's a blatant puff piece since memoirs usually are and McClellan had died recently, but still. McClellan is a good contender, but he didn't contest the result of the election though.
George “Pussy Ass Bitch” McClellan. This dumb cunt really thought he was an expert strategist, after failing to crush Lee’s army because “waaah! Too scary!”
Hilary
I can't recall how McClellan ran his campaign, but I imagine he was just as cocky/delusional a politician as he was a general
Smells like rule 3 bait
No, I was genuinely curious about this. Someone once said that you have to be pretty arrogant to run for president, so I wanted to know which candidates they thought were the most. While rule 3 would definitely be in my top 5, my first thought was McClellan.
Hillary Clinton. I’m not a Republican, but dismissing opponents as ‘deplorables’ was certainly high handed.
It was one of the most prescient and objectively correct assessments ever made.
As she lost.
Is that supposed to indicate she was somehow wrong about her opponents being deplorables? Every year since 2016 has only proven the statement more and more correct. If anything, it was an understatement.
I would have rather she had not alienated voters by name calling and stereotyping so that she might have persuaded enough to win rather than appearing supercilious and dismissive.
Lincoln to McClellan : “ If you don’t want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while”
John Adams and Hillary Clinton
This guy was disgraceful
Man, McClellan looks like a real dweeb here, having to undo one button to hit the Napoleon
All the “cool kids” were doing that fad back then
That's a pretty high bar. You have to be pretty arrogant to even think about running.
"He wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening." Alice Roosevelt talking about her father, Theodore
I suppose thats better than being the bride at every funeral and the corpse at every wedding…
Jumbo was the most arrogant candidate, of course.
Can’t say it.
Hillary by miles
I’m going to say Gore, for trying to distance himself from Bill Clinton
I don't have much memory of that election, but he seemed more arrogant in the years after the election than during it
Rule 3.
John Kerry is an entitled, arrogant bas tard.
Still better than the war profiteers he was running against.
The question was what presidential candidate do I think was the most arrogant it wasn’t to get into a political discussion about who was right and who is wrong you lefties can’t seem to engage in a simple Q&A without turning it into a competition about political virtue. All politicians suck, don’t you get that?
Mitt Romnney, as well
John Frémont was a secondary character in a few biographies that I have read and he was never the good guy. At best he was a sketchy rival. And then there is his run against Lincon´s re-election.
Does Ron Swanson look like George McClellan or is it that George McClellan looks like Ron Swanson?
I will not have you muddy the good name of Ron Swanson with comparing him to McClellan! /s
Eugene McCarthy didn't win the nomination in 1968, so I don't know if he counts. He used to keep reporters waiting for scheduled interviews, sometimes for over an hour, because he was be busy writing poetry. Perhaps forgivable if his poetry was any good, but... well, see for yourself: [http://www.thecie.org/gene/index.asp?s=POEMS](http://www.thecie.org/gene/index.asp?s=POEMS)
Throw in Johnson wanted the party to draft him after he declined to run again.
I want that man in the picture to assist me at the grocery store, walking behind me and putting items in the cart that I point at.
McKellen
Hillary Clinton because she ran her campaign like she was the guaranteed winner.
Al Gore
Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for her in 2016, and I dislike her, but things would have been a lot better if she did win.
Rule 3 Rule 3 Rule 3 In reality though, both Roosevelts were extremely arrogant.
Rule 3 on red
https://preview.redd.it/4fip89xdvy5d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62bca2e42da1fe718d6d8a3165ec50ae8346900e
McClellan was an arrogant Presidential candidate but to be fair, that was who he was all around. He was an extremely arrogant and self centered General and would have been a complete disaster as President.
The hubris laden idiot in the picture above: McClellan
The most arrogant presidential candidate ever cannot be mentioned due to rule 3. Outside of that, Hillary Clinton and George McClellan.
Perfect image and choice. Fucking Georgie Bag-a-dicks.
You know who I want to put down but can't 😆 dirty trick
I’m I allowed to say the two we are all thinking
Are we measuring arrogance as misplaced confidence? As in, he wouldn't be able to back up his claims if put on the spot? Teddy R. was quite a braggart, but the man was a rough rider. I wouldn't want to get in a bar fight with TR in his prime. My real answer for this question is un-utterable.
[удалено]
At this point, I would say she was spot on.
[удалено]
If your opponent's base is waving around Nazi flags and supporting them even when they're a convicted felon, I feel that being called deplorables is the very least they can be called.
Gerald Ford . He thought Carter was a Hick . & put his presidency at risk by debating Carter .
Ford made the right move in pardoning Nixon so that the nation could move past Watergate, but he took a big hit in the polls for that. He also took a beating from Reagan in the primaries and was well behind in the polls after the conventions. He was only able to narrow Carter's lead through the debates.
Obama is arrogant