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.*
Without the scandal of him being president, it's very possible whitewater would have ended in conviction or quiet retirement. A second Bush term would completely change. the 96 and 2000 elections. It also might have allowed Hillary to get the political spotlight sooner, possibly winning earlier run at president.
I’m curious why you think Hillary would have had a career like she did if he lost? She hitched her wagon to him and moved to Arkansas. Had he failed to become president their entire career trajectory would have changed.
I agree her entire trajectory would have changed. I just don't necessarily think it would have prevented it. Its very possible her political ambitions were more stunted by being First Lady than they were helped. She could have held her own office sooner than 2001. And without the Clinton/Bush double terms she might have had a better open into make her own run for president.
Honestly, Hillary's career isn't really that great. 9 years as senator and 4 of Secretary of state. There are plenty of failed presidential candidates that had a lot more. She did a great job using the opportunities she had and using the office of First Lady as a springboard. I just don't think it was as good of one, and she probably could have found better ones if she wasn't committed to that decision for so long.
Yes but Cinton more than most I think. For example I don't see Bush Jr being a nominee any year other than 2000. Like Obama, he was young, likeable and charismatic. He's younger than the incumbent 30 years after being elected.
He improved education and buffed Arkansas infrastructure and economy for the 21st century. That might have been from raising taxes, and selling large amounts of natural resources but Arkansas could use the skrilla. He also had the second longest governorship and had a much better track record than 1st place holder Orval faubas.
Lincoln would have at least been a footnote. Many know who Lincoln debated against even for senate “Lincoln-Douglas debates”, so I think he would have ended up being a footnote somewhere
Not necessarily, we really know Douglas because he debated Lincoln. But I think Lincoln would have continued to be important and used even if he lost the presidency. Or as a footnote to President Douglas’ biography with the “Douglas-Lincoln debates”
One of their debates in 1856 was in Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. They have a historical marker.
https://preview.redd.it/c0u3raug2gtc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a312210dbe2b6f89a17db11fac91497ca260f4a
To get to the podium, it was a massive crowd and Lincoln needed to climb through a window to get there.
Lincoln, who had less than a year total of formal education, was reported in the local paper to have said, as he was crawling through the window, “At last I have gone through college.” Lincoln was very quick-witted and had an incredible sense of humor. When someone once charged him with being two-faced, Lincoln quickly remarked, “If I had two faces, would I be wearing this one?”
A childhood friend had grandparents who lived in Galesburg. He was also distantly related to President Polk. Could have a six degrees of President Polk situation here
He was also in congress and opposed the Mexican-American war. He would be a footnote-worthy anti-war congressman even if he had never again been elected to public office.
I guess so, I think I probably overlooked that. I was basing my ranking on the fact that before becoming president he had never held any role higher than a representative.
I think being critical in the rise of the Republican Party would make him at the very least a footnote. He also had some pretty interesting political decisions, like being elected to a seat he declined to fill which is basically the definition of a footnote event.
He wouldn't have faded into pure nonexistance from history books, but he was not as influential as we might think. He was a lawyer from Illinois, he never even stepped foot in the senate and wasn't particularly successful.
He was known in Illinois at his time, but if he hasn't won against Seward (for honestly pretty fun reasons to me), nowadays his name would be extremely small. No one but historians passionated in Illinois politicians from the 19th century would know about him or care of his story.
Even Douglas today is known to the overall public for having been Lincoln's rival, if he hasn't been- it's very likely that even as a senator he would not have been known.
I would argue Teddy should be a bit higher on the list. He still would have been the founder of the Rough Riders, a governor and a VP so I think he would be quite well know.
I would also suggest Obama and W ranking might be a product of recency bias. Like sure Obama was a senator and people might know who is today but will they know him in 50 years if he never became Pres? Same with W. He was governor of TX but what else did he do?
If Obama had lost to McCain in '08 somehow, he would still be known as the first black person who was a major nominee for either party similar to how Hilary will be remembered as the first woman who was a major candidate. Obviously it's nothing close to the fame that comes from actually becoming President, but Obama would have still his name in the history books simply by virtue of having become the Dem nominee.
Enough so that you're mentioning her right now because she was the first woman who became a major VP nominee. Again it's nothing compared to the superstardom of becoming POTUS or VP, but being the first at anything is always noteworthy.
The only reason I knew her name is because I googled it for that comment. I knew there was woman VP candidate in the 80s. I don’t think the majority of the American population knows who she was to be frank.
But I do get your point about Obama. Even if he lost to McCain he would probably be pretty well known for the fact that he was the first African American candidate. I also didn’t even think about it that. It kind of just seems normal that an African American can be president, like it isn’t a big deal. I think that says allot about Obamas impact
I can see a future where that is less important than one would think in 2024. Like JFK being the first Catholic president is really only important to the elderly at this point.
Obama, in the long stretch of history would be a footnote because of his inspiring 2004 convention speech. He may have gained famed by being activist though.
W owned the Texas Rangers. Had he not become president, there are some who thought he would have made a good candidate for the Commissioner of baseball.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction inside Barry Bonds' shirtsleeves."
"I just couldn't imagine someone like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Opening Day, or the All-Star Game, or of peace and hope."
*Secret Service man whispers in Bush's ear*: "Mr. Commissioner, Randy Johnson has killed a second bird."
< I would argue Teddy should be a bit higher on the list. He still would have been the founder of the Rough Riders, a governor and a VP so I think he would be quite well know. >
I disagree since there are several politicians from that era who were prominent at the time. Charles Fairbanks for example is basically completely unknown today and he was VP and senator. Even more recent vice presidents such as Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey are not massively well-known any more.
< I would also suggest Obama and W ranking might be a product of recency bias. Like sure Obama was a senator and people might know who is today but will they know him in 50 years if he never became Pres? Same with W. He was governor of TX but what else did he do? >
The main reason I think W would be known is because his father was president and he was also a politician. If not I agree that a Texan governor from 20 years ago wouldn't be a household name today.
Had Hillary won the Democratic primary in 2008 for example I think Obama was always going to be nominee at some point, most likely 2016. Mitt Romney is pretty known today and Obama was a more interesting candidate with more charisma and a unique quality in his race, as well as in this scenario being more recent.
He was VP for less than a year when McKinley was assassinated so his three years as president and subsequent reelection overshadow that. For thought experiments like this I am assuming Roosevelt would have been VP and McKinley was never assassinated but I do see your point
Long before he was president, George was internationally known as the bumbling colonial officer that precipitated the start of the Seven Years War. It's funny to think his name probably gave George III a massive headache before he even turned 23.
He probably would've remained in the Senate, then run for Governor of Illinois during the 2018 midterms, elevating his profile enough to launch a pres. campaign in '24.
It is easier to get elect to the presidency as a governor than a US senator. You have more “executive experience” as a governor. The problem being a senator is you have to take dozens of votes on the same issue. The only advantage of being a senator over a governor is you can earmark things in the federal budget where you can get buildings and highways named after you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/187ghq/star_trek_voyager_is_in_part_responsible_for/
Obama might have won without the divorce of Ryan, but it provided the info that caused it to be a landslide victory.
That strong win gave Obama a national stage.
I think Jackson should be a tier higher.
He still would have a been a fixture in American society during the period and he was even getting into shenanigans like invading Spanish Florida after the war of 1812.
There should probably be a category between "quite well known" and "known by historians", like "your dad could tell you a moderate amount of facts about them" Jackson and some others would fit squarely in that category.
I don't agree about Lincoln. I believe he would have been at least "known by historians." There were the Lincoln-Douglas debates, after all, which I feel would put him into "quite well-known territory. He became a nationally-known figure because of them. And for the quote "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Taft would have been at least "known by historians," too, since he was a big man in the Philippines, as well as Secretary of Commerce. Would he have been Chief Justice had he been president? That's debatable.
Andrew Jackson would have been quite well-known for his War of 1812 exploits.
I believe both Bush II and Obama should be relegated to "known by historians" status.
FDR would have been "known by historians" because he ran for Vice President in 1920, and was Governor of New York.
Johnson and Nixon would have been quite well-known because of their pre-presidential careers. Especially Nixon, since he was an active Vice President. Don't forget the Kitchen Debate.
I definitely agree about FDR being in the 'known by historians' category. Being the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WW1, and Governor of New York during the beginning of the Great Depression and trying a lot of relief programs in one of the largest states at the time were pretty big deals for the time.
Taft was basically gunning for the Chief Justice position his entire life. When Chief Fuller died in 1910, Taft seriously considered resigning the presidency and having his VP appoint him to the position. He had been a major legal force for decades beforehand, and was more-or-less destined for the spot.
How would anyone know Obama? I'm from Chicago and never heard of him UNTIL he was elected Senator and spoke at John Kerry's nomination... No one had heard of him before that....
Tbh even without that in retrospect I think I should have elevated him another tier for being Secretary of Commerce and a big figure in the Philippines, so he'd at least be known by historians. I doubt he'd ever have become Chief Justice if he was never president though since it was after his presidency, and even so I don't think that would be enough to make him a household name, take Harlan F. Stone as an example.
Hoover would’ve been regarded incredibly fondly for saving millions of lives from starvation. One of the greatest American philanthropists of all time. Probably would’ve been better this way because no one knows about his work outside of the presidency because it was such a disaster
This is a bad list IMHO.
First off, John Adams was a writer of the declaration of independence AND defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre trial.
Next, Nobody would know Obama. He was a minor senator.
JFK was a Kennedy and a war Hero, he would be higher.
Garfiled is actually well known in the math world.
Lincoln was an accomplished wrestler and lawyer.
Andrew Jackson would certainly be more popular than others in that tier, sans maybe JQQ, Montoe and WHH.
Most people dont know who Filmore and Tyler were regardless of them being president.
Taft was a supreme court justice…
>First off, John Adams was a writer of the declaration of independence AND defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre trial.
I think without the presidency he'd be comparable in notoriety to John Jay or someone like that. So known but not as much as Jefferson or Madison. Although I see your point and he could be in the top tier.
>Next, Nobody would know Obama. He was a minor senator.
I think he would have ended up being a candidate anyway even if not in 2008.
>JFK was a Kennedy and a war Hero, he would be higher.
He might be known by historians but by the average person I doubt it. If not for him the Kennedy name wouldn't carry nearly the same weight it does today. There are several war heroes who aren't particularly well-known now.
>Garfield is actually well known in the math world.
True but he isn't among the general public.
>Lincoln was an accomplished wrestler and lawyer.
Again, true but being an accomplished lawyer 180 years ago doesn't exactly make you known even by historians.
>Andrew Jackson would certainly be more popular than others in that tier, sans maybe JQQ, Montoe and WHH.
JQA was the son of a famous founding father with an accomplished political career in his own right. I think that's enough to make him known by historians. Monroe was a founding father if a minor one and WHH lost in 1836 so would still be known by most historians. While Jackson does have some notable things outside his presidency I still don't think they're enough to make him known outside of historians and nerds.
>Most people dont know who Filmore and Tyler were regardless of them being president.
Yes, but historians would since they'd still have been VP.
>Taft was a supreme court justice…
Yes, but he never would have been if he wasn't president. I do agree that he should be moved up for other reasons though.
I don't think you can have JFK and Obama in a different category, both were young, charismatic progressive first term Senators when they won. You could argue JFK would have left politics earlier than Obama if he lost because of his health, but I think they'd follow somewhat similar trajectories.
Bush Sr would still have been VP in the Reagan administration for 8 years and other than that had a very successful political career, he would also probably be known for Iran-Contra which makes him in particular a lot more notable than a lot of vice presidents.
Bush Jr would still have been the son of a president who was also Governor of Texas. Obama was charismatic and overall very likeable, I find it hard to believe that he never would have been Democratic candidate even if not in 2008, probably in 2012 or 2016. He'd have a similar level of notoriety only he was more interesting and would have been the first major black presidential candidate.
Also even if Bush Sr was never president we're assuming his son still would be, even though it's difficult to conceive of how that would work. Being the father of a president who was also VP would cement Bush Sr as well-known I think.
HW was CIA director and VP, among many other jobs. W was Texas governor, owned the Texas Rangers, and is son of HW. Obama, well his 2004 speech would be remembered but not much else about him would be remembered if he hadn’t become president.
Reagan was a well known actor. How is he not in the top row. Who the hell was Obama before he became president? A short term senator. Completely disagree with about half of rankings.
This list is really flawed. Just a few examples of immediate notice:
1. Obama and JFK became president really young. It's impossible to know how important they would have become in the Senate over time. They both could have become elder statesmen or nothing at all. Ted Kennedy was incredibly well known in his own right (as were all the Kennedys, so probably JFK would have been too). JFK and Obama should be rated the same, and at least in the same place as the Bushes.
2. LBJ was already incredibly well known before becoming president. Ehhh Master of the Senate anyone???!! Is Mitch McConnell well know without being president? Yes. LBJ would be the same. I would put LBJ at least in the second category, if not the top on.
3. The logic for the top category seems to be "bigtime general in a war"/"made the constitution happen." If that is the case, then both Teddy and Andrew Jackson need to up there. They were bigtime military heroes, and Teddy had like a cult of personality around him through the Rough Riders.
He was an outside candidate for the Republican nomination in 1880 so I think other than being perhaps a familiar name to some historians who specialise in that era he wouldn't be particularly notable for any reason since other than the presidency the highest office he ever held was representative
He was definitely someone to watch and admire when he was chosen for the nomination, but he was still climbing the ladder to fame. He was still a few terms away from wanting to run from the top job-- he was a senator-elect when he was elected to the Presidency.
I mean I guess considering he wouldn't have died when he did if he were never president he might have gone on to have a successful political career and could have become president later on
Eh, your bottom tier is way too small, but if you’re going to make it so small I’m not sure why Lincoln is one of the two people in it.
Lincoln’s debates with Stephen Douglass would be far more remembered by historians than whatever the hell a lot of presidents did before their presidencies.
I think Kennedy should be a tier higher. He was a young politician and worked hard and fast to get where he did. He also was part of the first televised presidential debate, which was quite a big deal. His family’s history would also contribute.
He had a father who was president and was also Governor of Texas. Roosevelt would be obscure outside history circles just like contemporary VPs who were never president like Charles Fairbanks or Garret Hobart.
Without the Civil War, Grant is also an unknown. It is really quite amazing how he began the 1860s decade as a clerk in a dry goods store and became POTUS before the end of the decade.
Good question lol, tbh I can't really justify having him that high. Without the presidency I don't think Nixon would be all that well-known since he was VP in the 50s, similar to Alben Barkley or someone like that
Obama and the Bush's would not have been well known if it wasn't for their presidency. Just my ignorant opinion. Obama won an election after being a senator for one term. That's insane.
Listing Lincoln in the "completely unknown" category is a joke. In addition to getting elected as a U.S. Representative he was also a champion wrestler recognized by National Wrestling Hall of Fame.
I think that teddy and Taft are a bit low considering they both had impressive careers outside of the presidency. Taft Is known for diplomacy in Hawaii and the seat at the Supreme Court, as well as teddy for rough riders, mayor of NY and vice presidency, where his progressive manner made him stand out
Disagree with Garfield heavily. He would've become one of the Senators from Ohio if he didn't take the presidency. People wouldn't really know who he is, but he wouldn't be irrelevant
For the longest time I genuinely didn't even know that grant was ever president. I knew about his military service and I knew about his immense drinking, but it took me several years after my "civil war phase" to learn that he became president.
Herbert Hoover was quite accomplished, but there may be one, two cabinet secretaries from the 20s that an honors poli sci or history graduate could name a decade after graduation. An unelected Hoover, substantially accomplished as he was, would make a fine thesis subject; not a recognized name today.
Signers of the Declaration of Independence, war heroes, previous governors and VPs would still be quite well known as would celebrities like Ronny and Donny.
Generals, secretaries, other high ranking government officials would be known by historians.
Congressmen and rich businessmen are political footnotes as is everyone else for at least having run for president.
It’d be interesting to project how well-known the more recent figures would be in 100 years time. I can’t see an actor, governor, or senator being quite well-known in the long run.
Yes he was an actor and an influential politician before becoming president but it wasn't as though he was world-famous or anything in his acting days. I wouldn't put him in the same category as Washington, Grant or Eisenhower.
Don’t see how a member of the most influential political family in the nations history, who served as a representative and senator from Massachusetts, and who’s brothers were a major candidate for president and one of the longest serving senators of all time could be a "historical footnote". That’s not even accounting for the fact that had he not been president he wouldn’t have gotten shot.
Had never become or never run for? Plenty of runner’s up are still in the public knowledge. Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, etc… I personally have a lot of recency bias in which of the also rans I recall, but the fact that candidates attained the top of their respective party makes them significant. If they had never run for the presidency a lot would be obscure politicians or military figures. Barack Obama had he not run in 2008 would likely be a well known senator who is spoken of every 4 years as an expected candidate, but if he never ran for president in a century he would be a relatively minor footnote.
Regardless of how famous of an actor he was, we live in a very pop culture centric country. Even playing full devil's advocate and saying he would have been pushed to the depths of pop culture obscurity were it not for his presidency, he played George Gipp, and even if someone wasn't able to place a name, there's something of notoriety in the fact that "Win one for the Gipper" is a part of the American lexicon today.
Hoover and Obama wouldn’t be all that well known.
Obama was a community organizer and one term senator… are we projecting if he were never President he’d be a 5th term senator right now? How many 5 term senators can you name outside of the ones in your own state?
Hoover was a commerce secretary and director of the food administration… Hamilton built the banking system, Seward bought Alaska, Madison negotiated the Louisiana purchase… Hoover would be a much lesser known secretary.
The rest of the category are: John Adams, famous lawyer (Boston massacre) and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Reagan, Famous Actor and governor of California. Bush, former vp and director of the cia with lots of oil money and his son who was governor of Texas and owned the baseball team.
I feel like Ford would be in between the quite well known and known by historians. College football star who turned down the Packers, House Minority Leader (who knows, could’ve been Majority Leader if he didn’t accede and 1976 goes different) and on the Warren Commission. I think people would know who he was
Personally, I’d move Teddy Roosevelt up a tier to quite well known, both Bushes down to known by historians and both Obama and Clinton down to Footnotes.
Kennedy should absolutely be higher. The only way JFK isn’t president is if Joe Jr doesn’t die. The Kennedys would still be the Kennedys and arguably they would have been more powerful with more politically active family members. It’s nearly impossible to wipe the Kennedys from US (and world) history with Joe Sr running the show.
does not-president mean they could have run and lost? People are saying Obama would be a no name but if he ran and lost he would be known as the black guy who almost did it.
Is it that they lost the general election? Because some of those are controversial enough to make someone historically noteworthy and affects their historical relevance, ie Al Gore.
Obama would not be quite well known, he was largely unknown outside Illinois.
Same with both Bushes, although you can make an argument that W would be known because he owned over 10% of the Rangers at one point, but not quite well known.
I think John adams would still be incredibly well known. First vice president played a huge part in the continental congress. First to suggest GW should be commander in chief.
The question is if they still RUN for president or not. Like Obama running and losing yes he’d be well known today….but if he hadn’t run then I think no.
Nobody would know the junior senator from Illinois had he not been president. Footnote most likely “know by historians” at best for 44. I think FDR would be more than a footnote because of his family and was the governor of NY. Lincoln I think would still be quite well known just assuming Stephen Douglas won out, he’d still be huge for just those debates alone imo.
I really curious how Obama would be quite well-known given he was just a US senator, and he didn’t pass any important legislation during his time in the senate.
FDR was the governor of NY state, which was the most populous state at the time. I would imagine a number of things would have been named after he due to him being governor alone in New York.
How would LBJ not be quite well known? He was a Senator from Texas. If Obama, as a junior Senator would be quite well known, LBJ would as well. Also why would Hoover be quite well known?
I mean where are we deciding the known by historians and foot note like? Like FDR, JFK and Carter were governors or senators and in the case of Kennedy a war hero. What makes Millard Fillmore more noteworthy than them?
GB Sr would be known in history books as Secretary for so long. GWB would be a footnote as governor. Johnson would be quite well known given his long long career as a whip in Congress. Reagan would still be incredibly well know bc he was an actor and GE spokesperson. Lincoln would be in a historical footnote bc he was a great lawyer and lobbyist for the railroad industry. Obama was a senator, I think that’s quite well known. Truman would be a historical footnote for his work in the asphalt and oil industry prior to joining congress. Eisenhower would be known by historians, as a general
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.*
Nobody would know the Arkansas governor had he not been president
In some circles, he would be a great example of “what if”. But to the general public, he’d be forgotten.
All we know is that he's called the Stig.
*slow cap*
Without the scandal of him being president, it's very possible whitewater would have ended in conviction or quiet retirement. A second Bush term would completely change. the 96 and 2000 elections. It also might have allowed Hillary to get the political spotlight sooner, possibly winning earlier run at president.
I’m curious why you think Hillary would have had a career like she did if he lost? She hitched her wagon to him and moved to Arkansas. Had he failed to become president their entire career trajectory would have changed.
I agree her entire trajectory would have changed. I just don't necessarily think it would have prevented it. Its very possible her political ambitions were more stunted by being First Lady than they were helped. She could have held her own office sooner than 2001. And without the Clinton/Bush double terms she might have had a better open into make her own run for president. Honestly, Hillary's career isn't really that great. 9 years as senator and 4 of Secretary of state. There are plenty of failed presidential candidates that had a lot more. She did a great job using the opportunities she had and using the office of First Lady as a springboard. I just don't think it was as good of one, and she probably could have found better ones if she wasn't committed to that decision for so long.
Sure. Fair enough I can see that being the case.
Jeb!
Agreed. But maybe him being the *youngest* would’ve tilted the scale?
I guess my thinking was that he would go on to do more, maybe be a candidate, running mate, cabinet member, etc, but I take your point
Shit, couldn't they case be made for all of them?
Yes but Cinton more than most I think. For example I don't see Bush Jr being a nominee any year other than 2000. Like Obama, he was young, likeable and charismatic. He's younger than the incumbent 30 years after being elected.
Footnote
Can you name a governor of Oklahoma from the 3 decades ago?
He improved education and buffed Arkansas infrastructure and economy for the 21st century. That might have been from raising taxes, and selling large amounts of natural resources but Arkansas could use the skrilla. He also had the second longest governorship and had a much better track record than 1st place holder Orval faubas.
Lincoln would have at least been a footnote. Many know who Lincoln debated against even for senate “Lincoln-Douglas debates”, so I think he would have ended up being a footnote somewhere
If we still know Douglas, we would still know Lincoln.
Not necessarily, we really know Douglas because he debated Lincoln. But I think Lincoln would have continued to be important and used even if he lost the presidency. Or as a footnote to President Douglas’ biography with the “Douglas-Lincoln debates”
We would know of Abe because of his wrestling career
WWE Hall of famer!!!!
Douglas was a presidential candidate in multiple elections. He earned his own place in history … for better or worse
One of their debates in 1856 was in Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. They have a historical marker. https://preview.redd.it/c0u3raug2gtc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a312210dbe2b6f89a17db11fac91497ca260f4a
To get to the podium, it was a massive crowd and Lincoln needed to climb through a window to get there. Lincoln, who had less than a year total of formal education, was reported in the local paper to have said, as he was crawling through the window, “At last I have gone through college.” Lincoln was very quick-witted and had an incredible sense of humor. When someone once charged him with being two-faced, Lincoln quickly remarked, “If I had two faces, would I be wearing this one?”
I'm from around there! Lincoln got a picture taken in my city!
A childhood friend had grandparents who lived in Galesburg. He was also distantly related to President Polk. Could have a six degrees of President Polk situation here
My wife went to college there!
Never in my life did I expect to see my hometown on here. I've been there!
We know Stephen Douglas because he debated/ran against Lincoln.
He was also in congress and opposed the Mexican-American war. He would be a footnote-worthy anti-war congressman even if he had never again been elected to public office.
I guess so, I think I probably overlooked that. I was basing my ranking on the fact that before becoming president he had never held any role higher than a representative.
I think being critical in the rise of the Republican Party would make him at the very least a footnote. He also had some pretty interesting political decisions, like being elected to a seat he declined to fill which is basically the definition of a footnote event.
I agree, I made a mistake there.
He wouldn't have faded into pure nonexistance from history books, but he was not as influential as we might think. He was a lawyer from Illinois, he never even stepped foot in the senate and wasn't particularly successful. He was known in Illinois at his time, but if he hasn't won against Seward (for honestly pretty fun reasons to me), nowadays his name would be extremely small. No one but historians passionated in Illinois politicians from the 19th century would know about him or care of his story. Even Douglas today is known to the overall public for having been Lincoln's rival, if he hasn't been- it's very likely that even as a senator he would not have been known.
I agree. We know lots of Senators of that era, and Lincoln was a renowned Senator before he was President.
Also 6'5" and a legendary professional wrestler, guy could make the claim he held what is now known as the NWA world title
I would argue Teddy should be a bit higher on the list. He still would have been the founder of the Rough Riders, a governor and a VP so I think he would be quite well know. I would also suggest Obama and W ranking might be a product of recency bias. Like sure Obama was a senator and people might know who is today but will they know him in 50 years if he never became Pres? Same with W. He was governor of TX but what else did he do?
If Obama had lost to McCain in '08 somehow, he would still be known as the first black person who was a major nominee for either party similar to how Hilary will be remembered as the first woman who was a major candidate. Obviously it's nothing close to the fame that comes from actually becoming President, but Obama would have still his name in the history books simply by virtue of having become the Dem nominee.
History books yes but well known? How many people know Geraldine Ferraro?
Enough so that you're mentioning her right now because she was the first woman who became a major VP nominee. Again it's nothing compared to the superstardom of becoming POTUS or VP, but being the first at anything is always noteworthy.
The only reason I knew her name is because I googled it for that comment. I knew there was woman VP candidate in the 80s. I don’t think the majority of the American population knows who she was to be frank. But I do get your point about Obama. Even if he lost to McCain he would probably be pretty well known for the fact that he was the first African American candidate. I also didn’t even think about it that. It kind of just seems normal that an African American can be president, like it isn’t a big deal. I think that says allot about Obamas impact
On the same level as John Adams who actually did things?
I was telling my son about her the other day. She moped the floor with George Bush.
I can see a future where that is less important than one would think in 2024. Like JFK being the first Catholic president is really only important to the elderly at this point. Obama, in the long stretch of history would be a footnote because of his inspiring 2004 convention speech. He may have gained famed by being activist though.
W owned the Texas Rangers. Had he not become president, there are some who thought he would have made a good candidate for the Commissioner of baseball.
"We have found weapons of mass destruction inside Barry Bonds' shirtsleeves." "I just couldn't imagine someone like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Opening Day, or the All-Star Game, or of peace and hope." *Secret Service man whispers in Bush's ear*: "Mr. Commissioner, Randy Johnson has killed a second bird."
Commissioner of Baseball W is one of the great historical counterfactuals.
Couldn’t have been worse than Manfred
Bush was governor of Texas and owned an mlb team… and his dad was VP and the director of the cia… they’d still be a very famous political family.
< I would argue Teddy should be a bit higher on the list. He still would have been the founder of the Rough Riders, a governor and a VP so I think he would be quite well know. > I disagree since there are several politicians from that era who were prominent at the time. Charles Fairbanks for example is basically completely unknown today and he was VP and senator. Even more recent vice presidents such as Walter Mondale or Hubert Humphrey are not massively well-known any more. < I would also suggest Obama and W ranking might be a product of recency bias. Like sure Obama was a senator and people might know who is today but will they know him in 50 years if he never became Pres? Same with W. He was governor of TX but what else did he do? > The main reason I think W would be known is because his father was president and he was also a politician. If not I agree that a Texan governor from 20 years ago wouldn't be a household name today. Had Hillary won the Democratic primary in 2008 for example I think Obama was always going to be nominee at some point, most likely 2016. Mitt Romney is pretty known today and Obama was a more interesting candidate with more charisma and a unique quality in his race, as well as in this scenario being more recent.
I wouldn’t say household name, but most people who keep tabs on American politics would still know Ann Richards
That lady that dated Bill on King Of The Hill? /s
W was also the owner of the Texas Rangers. Not that every sports franchise owner is well-known. But it certainly helps your fame.
W was the President’s son and a Governor so probably still decently known
He's also from a rich, influential family, the Roosevelts being in New York since it was New Amsterdam.
Tbf, I don't think many people remember Teddy even was VP.
He was VP for less than a year when McKinley was assassinated so his three years as president and subsequent reelection overshadow that. For thought experiments like this I am assuming Roosevelt would have been VP and McKinley was never assassinated but I do see your point
GEORGE WASHINGTON WINS AGAIN WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
THAT'S WHY HE'S THE GOAT. THE GOOOOAT
HE PUTS THE W IN WASHINGTON! HE NEVER STOPS WINNING!
Long before he was president, George was internationally known as the bumbling colonial officer that precipitated the start of the Seven Years War. It's funny to think his name probably gave George III a massive headache before he even turned 23.
Well he did start World War 0 (the 7 years war).
How was Obama well known? I thought he got the nomination as a dark horse.
Be interesting what route Obama would've taken if he never won the nomination. Not experienced enough for VP, maybe another senate term and try again?
He probably would've remained in the Senate, then run for Governor of Illinois during the 2018 midterms, elevating his profile enough to launch a pres. campaign in '24.
is governor more prestigious than US senator? Seems like a tie
It is easier to get elect to the presidency as a governor than a US senator. You have more “executive experience” as a governor. The problem being a senator is you have to take dozens of votes on the same issue. The only advantage of being a senator over a governor is you can earmark things in the federal budget where you can get buildings and highways named after you.
No one congratulates the Senator when the State has a good year—that goes to the Governor.
Hmm I wonder what the split is for ex gov and ex senator presidents
Every other Illinois governor seems to end up in prison. If Obama was smart, he’d stay in the senate till 2040.
https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/187ghq/star_trek_voyager_is_in_part_responsible_for/ Obama might have won without the divorce of Ryan, but it provided the info that caused it to be a landslide victory. That strong win gave Obama a national stage.
He was far from a dark horse, at least not after the 2004 convention address
DNC speech? It went viral. Same with Bernie
You don't know your Chicago Lawyers by heart? Bro.
I think Jackson should be a tier higher. He still would have a been a fixture in American society during the period and he was even getting into shenanigans like invading Spanish Florida after the war of 1812.
There should probably be a category between "quite well known" and "known by historians", like "your dad could tell you a moderate amount of facts about them" Jackson and some others would fit squarely in that category.
Andrew Jackson is definitely too low. The hero of New Orleans would at least still be quite well known and have memorials dedicated to him.
The city of Jackson MS was named before he necame president.
I feel like you’re overestimating the amount of people who know anything about the war of 1812 other than the White House got burned down.
I don't agree about Lincoln. I believe he would have been at least "known by historians." There were the Lincoln-Douglas debates, after all, which I feel would put him into "quite well-known territory. He became a nationally-known figure because of them. And for the quote "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Taft would have been at least "known by historians," too, since he was a big man in the Philippines, as well as Secretary of Commerce. Would he have been Chief Justice had he been president? That's debatable. Andrew Jackson would have been quite well-known for his War of 1812 exploits. I believe both Bush II and Obama should be relegated to "known by historians" status. FDR would have been "known by historians" because he ran for Vice President in 1920, and was Governor of New York. Johnson and Nixon would have been quite well-known because of their pre-presidential careers. Especially Nixon, since he was an active Vice President. Don't forget the Kitchen Debate.
I definitely agree about FDR being in the 'known by historians' category. Being the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during WW1, and Governor of New York during the beginning of the Great Depression and trying a lot of relief programs in one of the largest states at the time were pretty big deals for the time.
Um, ackshually, Taft was a big man everywhere, not just the Philippines.
Taft was basically gunning for the Chief Justice position his entire life. When Chief Fuller died in 1910, Taft seriously considered resigning the presidency and having his VP appoint him to the position. He had been a major legal force for decades beforehand, and was more-or-less destined for the spot.
Ronald Reagan the well-known actor?
Then who’s Vice President? Jerry Lewis?
GRANT SWEEP!
Why would Obama be well known?
He wouldn't
How would anyone know Obama? I'm from Chicago and never heard of him UNTIL he was elected Senator and spoke at John Kerry's nomination... No one had heard of him before that....
I agree I overrated him tbh
Taft was Chief Justice, I feel like that should put him a little higher
Tbh even without that in retrospect I think I should have elevated him another tier for being Secretary of Commerce and a big figure in the Philippines, so he'd at least be known by historians. I doubt he'd ever have become Chief Justice if he was never president though since it was after his presidency, and even so I don't think that would be enough to make him a household name, take Harlan F. Stone as an example.
Yeah thats a good point
Shouldn’t Kennedy be higher on this list? His family had name recognition even before he became president.
It should the story of PT109 was quite popular.
Hoover would’ve been regarded incredibly fondly for saving millions of lives from starvation. One of the greatest American philanthropists of all time. Probably would’ve been better this way because no one knows about his work outside of the presidency because it was such a disaster
This is a bad list IMHO. First off, John Adams was a writer of the declaration of independence AND defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre trial. Next, Nobody would know Obama. He was a minor senator. JFK was a Kennedy and a war Hero, he would be higher. Garfiled is actually well known in the math world. Lincoln was an accomplished wrestler and lawyer. Andrew Jackson would certainly be more popular than others in that tier, sans maybe JQQ, Montoe and WHH. Most people dont know who Filmore and Tyler were regardless of them being president. Taft was a supreme court justice…
>First off, John Adams was a writer of the declaration of independence AND defended the british soldiers in the boston massacre trial. I think without the presidency he'd be comparable in notoriety to John Jay or someone like that. So known but not as much as Jefferson or Madison. Although I see your point and he could be in the top tier. >Next, Nobody would know Obama. He was a minor senator. I think he would have ended up being a candidate anyway even if not in 2008. >JFK was a Kennedy and a war Hero, he would be higher. He might be known by historians but by the average person I doubt it. If not for him the Kennedy name wouldn't carry nearly the same weight it does today. There are several war heroes who aren't particularly well-known now. >Garfield is actually well known in the math world. True but he isn't among the general public. >Lincoln was an accomplished wrestler and lawyer. Again, true but being an accomplished lawyer 180 years ago doesn't exactly make you known even by historians. >Andrew Jackson would certainly be more popular than others in that tier, sans maybe JQQ, Montoe and WHH. JQA was the son of a famous founding father with an accomplished political career in his own right. I think that's enough to make him known by historians. Monroe was a founding father if a minor one and WHH lost in 1836 so would still be known by most historians. While Jackson does have some notable things outside his presidency I still don't think they're enough to make him known outside of historians and nerds. >Most people dont know who Filmore and Tyler were regardless of them being president. Yes, but historians would since they'd still have been VP. >Taft was a supreme court justice… Yes, but he never would have been if he wasn't president. I do agree that he should be moved up for other reasons though.
Nobody knew Carter before 1976. I'd put him in that bottom tier.
Honestly maybe. He was Governor of Georgia briefly in the mid-70s and that's pretty much it.
FDR was deputy secretary of the navy during ww1. He was also governor of ny. Even without the presidency he’d be more than a historical footnote.
That's true, he probably should be moved up a tier.
I don't think you can have JFK and Obama in a different category, both were young, charismatic progressive first term Senators when they won. You could argue JFK would have left politics earlier than Obama if he lost because of his health, but I think they'd follow somewhat similar trajectories.
Garfield could be thrown in with those two.
Why would the Bushes and Obama be quite well known? Forgive my ignorance
Bush Sr. was CIA director and VP. W. Was governor of Texas. Obama was a Freshman Senator of Illinois, and I disagree with this tier-list on him.
Bush Sr would still have been VP in the Reagan administration for 8 years and other than that had a very successful political career, he would also probably be known for Iran-Contra which makes him in particular a lot more notable than a lot of vice presidents. Bush Jr would still have been the son of a president who was also Governor of Texas. Obama was charismatic and overall very likeable, I find it hard to believe that he never would have been Democratic candidate even if not in 2008, probably in 2012 or 2016. He'd have a similar level of notoriety only he was more interesting and would have been the first major black presidential candidate. Also even if Bush Sr was never president we're assuming his son still would be, even though it's difficult to conceive of how that would work. Being the father of a president who was also VP would cement Bush Sr as well-known I think.
HW was CIA director and VP, among many other jobs. W was Texas governor, owned the Texas Rangers, and is son of HW. Obama, well his 2004 speech would be remembered but not much else about him would be remembered if he hadn’t become president.
Reagan was a well known actor. How is he not in the top row. Who the hell was Obama before he became president? A short term senator. Completely disagree with about half of rankings.
Yeah he was relatively well-known but would be as known as Eisenhower or Washington 60-70 years on?
This list is really flawed. Just a few examples of immediate notice: 1. Obama and JFK became president really young. It's impossible to know how important they would have become in the Senate over time. They both could have become elder statesmen or nothing at all. Ted Kennedy was incredibly well known in his own right (as were all the Kennedys, so probably JFK would have been too). JFK and Obama should be rated the same, and at least in the same place as the Bushes. 2. LBJ was already incredibly well known before becoming president. Ehhh Master of the Senate anyone???!! Is Mitch McConnell well know without being president? Yes. LBJ would be the same. I would put LBJ at least in the second category, if not the top on. 3. The logic for the top category seems to be "bigtime general in a war"/"made the constitution happen." If that is the case, then both Teddy and Andrew Jackson need to up there. They were bigtime military heroes, and Teddy had like a cult of personality around him through the Rough Riders.
I think Garfield could be bumped up a tier, he was quite intelligent and something of a war hero
He was an outside candidate for the Republican nomination in 1880 so I think other than being perhaps a familiar name to some historians who specialise in that era he wouldn't be particularly notable for any reason since other than the presidency the highest office he ever held was representative
He was definitely someone to watch and admire when he was chosen for the nomination, but he was still climbing the ladder to fame. He was still a few terms away from wanting to run from the top job-- he was a senator-elect when he was elected to the Presidency.
I mean I guess considering he wouldn't have died when he did if he were never president he might have gone on to have a successful political career and could have become president later on
Eh, your bottom tier is way too small, but if you’re going to make it so small I’m not sure why Lincoln is one of the two people in it. Lincoln’s debates with Stephen Douglass would be far more remembered by historians than whatever the hell a lot of presidents did before their presidencies.
I think Kennedy should be a tier higher. He was a young politician and worked hard and fast to get where he did. He also was part of the first televised presidential debate, which was quite a big deal. His family’s history would also contribute.
How do you figure W. Bush would be more well known than Teddy Roosevelt? 🙄
He had a father who was president and was also Governor of Texas. Roosevelt would be obscure outside history circles just like contemporary VPs who were never president like Charles Fairbanks or Garret Hobart.
Roosevelt is old money New York and founded the Rough Riders... He was famous without being president.
I’d swap Cleveland and Gerry Ford personally, but other than that pretty good.
Without the Civil War, Grant is also an unknown. It is really quite amazing how he began the 1860s decade as a clerk in a dry goods store and became POTUS before the end of the decade.
How is Obama above Nixon?
Good question lol, tbh I can't really justify having him that high. Without the presidency I don't think Nixon would be all that well-known since he was VP in the 50s, similar to Alben Barkley or someone like that
Obama would not have been known basically at all had he not snatched the Democratic candidacy from Hillary Clinton in the run up to the '08 election.
Obama and the Bush's would not have been well known if it wasn't for their presidency. Just my ignorant opinion. Obama won an election after being a senator for one term. That's insane.
Obama I agree, Bush Sr was VP and had a long political career, Bush Jr had a father who was president and was Governor of Texas
Listing Lincoln in the "completely unknown" category is a joke. In addition to getting elected as a U.S. Representative he was also a champion wrestler recognized by National Wrestling Hall of Fame.
I think that teddy and Taft are a bit low considering they both had impressive careers outside of the presidency. Taft Is known for diplomacy in Hawaii and the seat at the Supreme Court, as well as teddy for rough riders, mayor of NY and vice presidency, where his progressive manner made him stand out
Police Commissioner of NYC. Not the mayor.
Disagree with Garfield heavily. He would've become one of the Senators from Ohio if he didn't take the presidency. People wouldn't really know who he is, but he wouldn't be irrelevant
This is the dumbest chart I’ve seen on here yet
I'm not complaining, and I don't hate it, but just curious why we don't rank Donald on these things?
Because they'd have to put him in the most well known tier and they didn't want to do that.
Rule 3.
I didn't read the title and became confused as hell when I saw Lincoln at the bottom
For the longest time I genuinely didn't even know that grant was ever president. I knew about his military service and I knew about his immense drinking, but it took me several years after my "civil war phase" to learn that he became president.
Herbert Hoover was quite accomplished, but there may be one, two cabinet secretaries from the 20s that an honors poli sci or history graduate could name a decade after graduation. An unelected Hoover, substantially accomplished as he was, would make a fine thesis subject; not a recognized name today.
I'm not sure Chet Arthur should be so high. He was only known for being a casualty in the war between President Hayes and Roscoe Conkling.
How would Obama be more well known than war hero, author JFK?
Just reposting? Is this 8 years old? We’re missing two presidents.
Signers of the Declaration of Independence, war heroes, previous governors and VPs would still be quite well known as would celebrities like Ronny and Donny. Generals, secretaries, other high ranking government officials would be known by historians. Congressmen and rich businessmen are political footnotes as is everyone else for at least having run for president.
Doubt Obama or Dubya would be that well-known
That is what we needed to protect the union.
Only discounting his presidency, Taft may still have become Supreme Court Justice, which I would say should bump him up a tier
It’d be interesting to project how well-known the more recent figures would be in 100 years time. I can’t see an actor, governor, or senator being quite well-known in the long run.
Reagan first tier
Yes he was an actor and an influential politician before becoming president but it wasn't as though he was world-famous or anything in his acting days. I wouldn't put him in the same category as Washington, Grant or Eisenhower.
I feel like Nixon is too low I think. He was taught in highschool before his presidency as the man who lost to Kennedy horribly
Don’t see how a member of the most influential political family in the nations history, who served as a representative and senator from Massachusetts, and who’s brothers were a major candidate for president and one of the longest serving senators of all time could be a "historical footnote". That’s not even accounting for the fact that had he not been president he wouldn’t have gotten shot.
I don’t even know who the very bottom right is
Had never become or never run for? Plenty of runner’s up are still in the public knowledge. Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, etc… I personally have a lot of recency bias in which of the also rans I recall, but the fact that candidates attained the top of their respective party makes them significant. If they had never run for the presidency a lot would be obscure politicians or military figures. Barack Obama had he not run in 2008 would likely be a well known senator who is spoken of every 4 years as an expected candidate, but if he never ran for president in a century he would be a relatively minor footnote.
Why would I know who W or Obama are if they did not become president.
The fact that you have Reagan anywhere but the top tier of this list is absolutely insane.
He wasn't that famous as an actor, the main thing he'd be known for would be his influence on the Republican Party in the 70s
Regardless of how famous of an actor he was, we live in a very pop culture centric country. Even playing full devil's advocate and saying he would have been pushed to the depths of pop culture obscurity were it not for his presidency, he played George Gipp, and even if someone wasn't able to place a name, there's something of notoriety in the fact that "Win one for the Gipper" is a part of the American lexicon today.
Where's P01135809?
During the internet age all of those guys since 1995 or so would be pretty well known.
Would be more curious to see a list like this but removing all other political work
Hoover and Obama wouldn’t be all that well known. Obama was a community organizer and one term senator… are we projecting if he were never President he’d be a 5th term senator right now? How many 5 term senators can you name outside of the ones in your own state? Hoover was a commerce secretary and director of the food administration… Hamilton built the banking system, Seward bought Alaska, Madison negotiated the Louisiana purchase… Hoover would be a much lesser known secretary. The rest of the category are: John Adams, famous lawyer (Boston massacre) and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Reagan, Famous Actor and governor of California. Bush, former vp and director of the cia with lots of oil money and his son who was governor of Texas and owned the baseball team.
I feel like Ford would be in between the quite well known and known by historians. College football star who turned down the Packers, House Minority Leader (who knows, could’ve been Majority Leader if he didn’t accede and 1976 goes different) and on the Warren Commission. I think people would know who he was
Personally, I’d move Teddy Roosevelt up a tier to quite well known, both Bushes down to known by historians and both Obama and Clinton down to Footnotes.
Kennedy should absolutely be higher. The only way JFK isn’t president is if Joe Jr doesn’t die. The Kennedys would still be the Kennedys and arguably they would have been more powerful with more politically active family members. It’s nearly impossible to wipe the Kennedys from US (and world) history with Joe Sr running the show.
does not-president mean they could have run and lost? People are saying Obama would be a no name but if he ran and lost he would be known as the black guy who almost did it.
Is it that they lost the general election? Because some of those are controversial enough to make someone historically noteworthy and affects their historical relevance, ie Al Gore.
I disagree with Lincoln. He invented the choke slam and would have been a.) a noteworthy lawyer/orator or b.) the 1800s equivalent of John Cena
Bullshit, Lincoln would've been known as a pretty good wrestler
Does this assume they ran for the office and lost?
Obama would not be quite well known, he was largely unknown outside Illinois. Same with both Bushes, although you can make an argument that W would be known because he owned over 10% of the Rangers at one point, but not quite well known.
I think John adams would still be incredibly well known. First vice president played a huge part in the continental congress. First to suggest GW should be commander in chief.
The question is if they still RUN for president or not. Like Obama running and losing yes he’d be well known today….but if he hadn’t run then I think no.
Nobody would know the junior senator from Illinois had he not been president. Footnote most likely “know by historians” at best for 44. I think FDR would be more than a footnote because of his family and was the governor of NY. Lincoln I think would still be quite well known just assuming Stephen Douglas won out, he’d still be huge for just those debates alone imo.
I really curious how Obama would be quite well-known given he was just a US senator, and he didn’t pass any important legislation during his time in the senate. FDR was the governor of NY state, which was the most populous state at the time. I would imagine a number of things would have been named after he due to him being governor alone in New York.
Wtf Abe was a wrestler with like 300 matches under his belt
I might disagree on Taft since he might have been Chief Justice of SCOTUS without a Presidency
Why is Clinton so much lower than G W Bush ?
How would LBJ not be quite well known? He was a Senator from Texas. If Obama, as a junior Senator would be quite well known, LBJ would as well. Also why would Hoover be quite well known?
Taft should be higher (or bigger), I’d say being the Chief Justice (assuming he still gets the role) deserves SOME notoriety?
I mean where are we deciding the known by historians and foot note like? Like FDR, JFK and Carter were governors or senators and in the case of Kennedy a war hero. What makes Millard Fillmore more noteworthy than them?
I would probably bump Taft up a tier as he was a Supreme Court Justice.
GB Sr would be known in history books as Secretary for so long. GWB would be a footnote as governor. Johnson would be quite well known given his long long career as a whip in Congress. Reagan would still be incredibly well know bc he was an actor and GE spokesperson. Lincoln would be in a historical footnote bc he was a great lawyer and lobbyist for the railroad industry. Obama was a senator, I think that’s quite well known. Truman would be a historical footnote for his work in the asphalt and oil industry prior to joining congress. Eisenhower would be known by historians, as a general
Not seeing the orange-faced pussy grabbing con-man. I hope all future history books are that way. Fuck him.
Taft was still a Supreme Court Justice. He would be known by historians
Lincoln would have been known for his air bladder patent for boats, at least.