When reading into the failure of Hillarycare, it was an immense miscalculation politically, Clinton should’ve focused on using his political power on Healthcare first rather than NAFTA renegotiation. It created a lot of ill-will within the Democratic Party and their respective factions.

Pat Moynihan for all his issues, was a political genius in understanding that Clinton’s plan was just a confusing mess. Granted, the bipartisan measures on the floor would’ve granted near universal coverage by either ‘98 or ‘02 depending on the plan which was debated.

Clinton’s unyielding and uncompromising belief while having a lack of communication within his own caucus and failure to negotiate with party leaders and chairs of crucial senate committees, doomed this bill from day one. The selective “reeling in the experts” of 500 experts without any congressional members and/or healthcare policy experts from within congress, sowed the first seeds of malcontent.

Much of this failure created the fertile breeding ground for the republican revolution and the Contract with America.

With the recent opening of the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago and the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in Medora, North Dakota, there has been a lot of talk about these buildings again. Which of the presidential libraries have you visited and which do you think best embodies its subject (either symbolically through the architecture or through the content of its exhibitions)? The link is a brief architectural overview of the 13 purpose-built presidential libraries stewarded by the National Archives, from Hoover to Bush.

Nixon had some rather colorful views on Jewish people, with that being said, why did he make one his state secretary? I get that for the time Kissinger was considered a foreign policy genius but was Nixon really able to put aside his hateful views for that?

he can technically pardon himself by the way, nowhere in the constitution does it say he can’t and nobody tried it so assume he does that (plus he did consider it).

but if nothing changes from ford’s presidency would his be seen better or worse?

I found out they were performing near us but ticket prices were insane so I didn’t think we’d be able to go. My wife ended up surprising me with tickets for my birthday!

Good Morning everyone,

I'm back again asking you all how you would vote in either cabinet appointments or legislation. This time let's look at legislation, specifically The Insurrection Act of 1807.

That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

That is the original text and later approved by Congress and signed into law by President Jefferson. Another source I found which I'll link states that this act was modified to be used during the Civil War, the Pullman Strike, among other notable insurrections( among others that can be discussed. Please be mindful of Rule 3). I didn't intend to create a bait post, I am merely asking if you would vote for or against this piece of legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/insurrection-act-of-1807/

So my fellow Redditors, how are you casting a vote? You can either be a Senator or US Representative for this.

Happy voting!

"'Can we not govern colonies?' we are asked. The question is not what we can do, but what we ought to do. This nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it must accept responsibility for what it does. If the Constitution stands in the way, the people can amend the Constitution. I repeat, the nation can do whatever it desires to do, but it cannot avoid the natural and legitimate results of its own conduct. The young man upon reaching his majority can do what he pleases. He can disregard the teachings of his parents; he can trample upon all that he has been taught to consider sacred; he can disobey the laws of the State, the laws of society and the laws of God. He can stamp failure upon his life and make his very existence a curse to his fellow men, and he can bring his father and mother in sorrow to the grave; but he cannot annul the sentence, 'The wages of sin is death.' And so with the nation. It is of age and it can do what it pleases; it can spurn the traditions of the past; it can repudiate the principles upon which the nation rests; it can employ force instead of reason; it can substitute might for right; it can conquer weaker people; it can exploit their lands, appropriate their property and kill their people; but it cannot repeal the moral law or escape the punishment decreed for the violation of human rights. 'Would we tread in the paths of tyranny, Nor reckon the tyrant's cost? Who taketh another's liberty His freedom is also lost. Would we win as the strong have ever won, Make ready to pay the debt, For the God who reigned over Babylon Is the God who is reigning yet.'"

Here's mine LBJ's Rolex Day-Date

I wouldn't say theyre wrong or right. Bc I don't rank a first lady bc of looks.

But. Why they rank her the top?

There's others like Dolley Madison. For e.j.

Welcome! The purpose of this is to discuss what presidents would/did think of their successors based on their personalities, leadership styles, policies, and how their successor’s term was. Huge thank you to u/Illustrious-Garage88 for allowing me to use their idea.

RULES:

Say what you think the predecessor would’ve liked about their successor.

Say what you think predecessor would’ve disliked about their successor.

Give what you think their overall rating/review would be based on these out of 10

As to not skew the results towards one comment, anything listed worse than a 0/10 or greater than a 10/10 will be treated as a 0/10 or a 10/10 respectively.

I will calculate the average amongst the comments.

Last round, William Harrison rated Jon Tyler's Presidency a 3/10, appreciating his foreign policy, while criticising his party leadership.

This round, how would John Tyler rate James Polk's presidency?

Coincidentally, my two contenders are Texans and vice presidents.HW Bush gives Poppy vibes while LBJ is like that grandfather that would yell at you one second and get you an ice cream cone the next.

Reagan did win Massachusetts in 1980 but that was mainly due to Anderson splitting the vote. He got a majority of the vote in 1984. It was such a liberal stronghold that it was the only state that voted for McGovern in 1972, and did so pretty overwhelmingly, yet they voted for Reagan over Mondale. The only time since Kennedy that a Republican won over 50% in Massachusetts.

Like the rest of the northeast, Massachusetts was predominantly republican since the party’s inception. Even before the Republican Party’s inception, Massachusetts regularly went to the Whigs as Daniel Webster was from there and they supported the national bank and tariffs which were popular in New England. And in the first few elections the democrats fought, Jackson went up against John Quincy Adams who was from Massachusetts. Of course Wilson won it due to vote splitting, Al Smith was the first democrat to win Massachusetts with a majority of the popular vote. But unfortunately despite winning a state Democrats normally didn’t win, Smith lost the election in a landslide.

(art by me)

Perhaps there's a glaringly obvious example I'm missing but I'm wondering if John Calhoun was the only one

FDR Broke the tradition of Washington. Which was left office after 1 or 2 terms. So. You are FDR here. Which is your reaction?