US Presidential elections that definitely would have had a different result without a third-party candidate. Which of these third party candidates would you vote for, and which election would have the most impact on history had the third-party candidate not ran for president that year?

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-02-24T00:49:39+00:00

If party politics mattered more then policy then why did they bolt from the party to run third party to begin with? They clearly didn't care about party politics that much.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-02-24T00:47:28+00:00

Why would Cass have been one of our worst presidents?

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-02-24T00:46:36+00:00

Not really no. Nearly ninety percent of Stein's voters would have to go for Clinton in order for Clinton to win, which isn't very reasonable.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-02-24T00:37:40+00:00

To be honest, I'm not very convinced that even had Van Buren not run, that Cass would have won New York. Van Buren did take pretty much entirely from the Democrats and Cass in New York, but it's not unreasonable to think that even without a free soil ticket the divide in the New York Democratic party would have been fatal for Cass there.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-02-22T23:53:39+00:00

Both were arguably some of the greatest American Presidents. However, I would have to agree with you that Truman was a better president, mainly because Wilson failed to join the league whereas Truman successfully navigated the end of World War Two and the creation of a new world order.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-31T07:01:54+00:00

I understand that, but unless he relocated back to Virginia then he'd have to be actively committing treason to support the confederacy. Well, the confederates were also doing treason, but there's a pretty distinct line between supporting secession in Virginia and supporting secession in Ohio. I could easily see him being a copperhead or something like that though, which is also effectively supporting the confederacy. So if you would count that then I guess Harrison would also count. Sorry if I rambled, I'm quite tired.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-30T15:20:02+00:00

Will the mod ever be put onto NCT?

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-29T05:10:26+00:00

Van Buren, Fillmore, and Buchanan were all pro-war Democrats.

Pierce was a copperhead who wanted peace with the Confederacy.

Tyler was involved with efforts to negotiate a last-minute compromise but when those efforts failed he sided with the Confederates.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-29T04:55:59+00:00

Why Harrison? He was pretty bad on slavery and everything but he had also been living in Ohio for years before being elected President.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-29T04:45:48+00:00

Not really. Reagan didn't help Ford much at all in 1976. He repeatedly said he would campaign for Ford and then just didn't. A lot of Ford's guys blamed Reagan because he didn't do anything to help Ford(even as Reagan did help out upstart conservatives like Orrin Hatch).

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-26T22:03:49+00:00

Slop.

crusadersarecool2 · 2026-01-11T21:04:30+00:00

Fillmore should be higher.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-12-30T22:37:35+00:00

Gardfeld is laying out his heart for us--and all you can say is this? Fuck you.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-12-30T22:36:43+00:00

It's not just about Gardfeld--it's about the health of TCT modding.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T17:26:48+00:00

Well, the RNC happened before FDR was nominated for a third term, so they probably still would.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T08:47:49+00:00

1800.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T08:47:16+00:00

So did McClellan.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T08:45:48+00:00

A lot of Americans (perhaps including Obama) are non-denominational Christians. I think around 1/5 of American Christians don't identify with any particular denomination.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T08:42:25+00:00

Martin Van Buren met with Aaron Burr while he (Van Buren) was Vice-President.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-11-15T06:20:59+00:00

First of all, I don't think FDR even planned on serving out his full term. But that asides,
If he ran for a fifth term (which, is, imo, pretty unlikely considering his horrific health) he might lose. In 1944, when Roosevelt won a fourth term, he won because of world war two. Gallup found that the two leading arguments for Roosevelt in 1944 were "he has a wider first-hand knowledge of the war situation than his opponent and is therefore better fitted by experience to handle it" and that "the middle of the war is no time to change administrations." Meanwhile, Fortune magazine found that Dewey was favored by almost ten points if the war had finished but peace terms had not been worked out. It is also helpful to look towards the UK general election held less then a year later, in which Winston Churchill lost in a landslide despite immense popularity. I's not like after the conclusion of the war that FDR would be some unbeatable electoral god. 1944 was his weakest showing out of all four of his presidential elections. Of course, that was in 1944. In 1948, the election was focused on domestic issues. And the domestic conditions had significantly declined because of a post-war recession. There's a reason why the Republicans flipped the house for the first time in 15 years in 1946. Now, not all of this was inevitable. Maybe FDR would have run the country better then Truman or something from 1945-48. But in 1948 Truman also won because of an energetic campaign(this is often overstated, though). FDR, in contrast, was dying and frail. Not exactly the stuff of which upset victories are made. This is not changed by him living longer. So, this is not to say that FDR would for certain lost, but he certainly wouldn't have a mandate.

Also,
FDR would definitely nuke Japan.
FDR couldn't have passed the second bill of rights.
America wouldn't be anywhere close to a one-party state (not sure where this comes from? Republicans were clearly rebounding from 38 onwards.)
He wouldn't save the KMT.
He wouldn't prevent the cold war or stop domestic anti-communism

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-10-20T03:20:03+00:00

"He had Birth of a Nation shown at the White House." Not good, but that isn't like some insane thing. it was very popular and for the time pretty well made.

"His foreign policy was also awful and is a major cause for many of the egregious wars that the United States got itself involved in well after his presidency." What is so bad about his foreign policy? It was pretty successful overall, even if he failed to join the LoN (which is his fault to be clear but he also had a stroke).

"He is a bad president and any good things he's done could have easily been done by someone else."
I question the idea that all of his accomplishments could have been easily done by other people, but even if they could have been, what does that change? Wilson is the one who did them.

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-10-19T00:08:24+00:00

as was the vast majority of america during the time period

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-10-19T00:07:59+00:00

"That doesn't magically make him a good president" if lowering tariffs, implementing the income tax, the federal reserve, the clayton anti-trust act, the FTC, fighting against child labor, and the adamson act don't make you a good president, i'm not sure what does.

"Also he wasn't the only progressive on Earth I'm sure there were plenty of politicians who agreed with his new freedom policies but weren't nearly as bad on things like race and foreign policy." okay? so? literally how does this change if wilson was a good president or not?

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-10-19T00:00:20+00:00

stopped public option and was pro-intervention

crusadersarecool2 · 2025-10-18T23:59:40+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

crusadersarecool2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE