Rate the Losers: A Game to Teach Students Important Lessons of History
Mr. Cook is an independent historian. He lives in Ohio.
Whether it is Dave Letterman, the History Channel, professional historians, pollsters or sports writers, we seem to have a fascination with itemizing the ten best of this, the five worst of that.
While list making is by no means an historical enterprise in and of itself, some list making can provide an educational opportunity for further research or productive counterfactual reasoning.
The ever popular listing of the best and worst American Presidents, however, has from a student's viewpoint, a significant disadvantage: the favorite, popular and obvious choices have already been made. How can a student argue with Washington, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eisenhower?
On the other hand, an exercise that evaluates losing presidential election candidates confronts the historical question of why did they lose and the counterfactual question of what would it have meant if they had won.
The game or exercise I suggest below can be used as a classroom exercise, a research paper topic or a stand-alone take-home exercise.
Let's Play "Rate the Losers"
What if America's presidential elections had not come out the way they did? Would those who ran and lost have made "good" presidents? Have the voters and this system always been the best of judges? How would a losing candidate made a better, worse or different president? Or would it have mattered at all?
Below, by election year, I have listed all of the major presidential election losers. Some, obviously, lost only to be elected president in a subsequent election or were a sitting president who lost. They are marked with an asterisk. However, they may be evaluated for the year in which they lost.
Numerous minor candidates have not been included, but see my notes at the end of the table for a more advanced version of this game.
After you study the list, rank the best five and the worst five. What, had they won, would have been different about their term and how, if at all, would that have changed the course of American history?
*Incumbent or ex-president
This chart calls attention to only the most notable or significant candidates and does not include any of their running mates, if they had them.
For example Harry Browne who ran for President in 1996 on the Liberta
rian Party (0.50% of the popular vote) is not listed. Norman Thomas ran on the Socialist Party ticket in every election from 1928 to 1944 but only once, in 1932, received over 2% of the popular vote is also not listed, but in a more advanced version of the exercise could be.
Moreover, one could rank the lesser candidates as well as all losing candidates with their vice-presidents (for those who ran on a dual ticket).
For example, had Henry Clay defeated James K. Polk in 1844 and had Clay died in office, what sort of President would Clay's running mate, Theodore Frelinghuysen (Whig, N.J.) have made?
Or let us say Wallace wins in 1968, dies in office the following year and is succeeded by his third party running mate, Curtis LeMay? How, if at all, would that have influenced the end of the Vietnam War?
I have retained Horace Greeley (1872) even though had he won he would not have served because he dies prior to the inaugural, although his vice-presidential running mate, Governor Benjamin Gratz of Missouri would most likely have been chosen by the Democratic Party to succeed him. Even so, it suggests some questions about the issues of 1872.
Players for advanced versions are invited to construct their own charts. However, players must abide by the rules of historical accuracy and their defenses or explanations must be in the form of reasonable historical arguments.
For "extra credit," students may be asked to write or in an oral presentation defend or debunk the following well-known quote:
"Great men are not chosen president, firstly because great men are rare in politics; secondly, because the method of choice does not bring them to the top; thirdly, because they are not, in quiet times, absolutely necessary." -- James Bryce, The American Commonwealth (1888)
Acknowledgements: I am indebted to the editorial advice of Mr. Michael Calvin,
who played a draft version of this exercise with verve and enthusiasm.
comments powered by Disqus
Buster - 8/10/2003
When did America choose the wrong guy ? Well, let's say before 1980.
1. 1976-Ford was an ok president, Carter was awful. We clearly chose the wrong guy.
2. 1968-HHH was no world beater but he was better than Nixon.
3. 1924-John W. Davis had better credentials then Cal on foreign policy.
4. 1920-Cox would have been much better than Harding on just about anything.
5. 1852-Scott was bad. Pierce was much worse.
WHEN WE MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE
1952, 1956-Adlai is overrated. Big time. He had no commitment to civil rights.
1944, 1948-Dewey would have been a solid president but FDR and HST were much better.
1940-Wilkie would have been a solid president in 1940 but FDR would have been better.
1928-Smith is overrated. Remember he is a hopeless Libery Leaguer by the 30s. I don't think he would have been a step up from Hoover.
1916-Hughes would have been a fine president and maybe better than Wilson in that 2nd term.
1880-Hancock was a fine soldier but who knows how he would do compared to Garfied or Arthur. His tenure as governor in Reconstruction is not promising.
1876-Tiden was solid. So was Hayes. A toss up.
1872-Greely was awful. Worse than Grant.
1868-Seymor would have abandoned Reconstruction so is not a step up from Grant.
1864-McClellan would have been a solid president in 1880 after his tenure in NJ. 1864 was not his time.
1856-Fremont was hopeless as he showed in the War. Fillmore was competent but as a Know Nothing would have had debts to pay to his own party.
Clay would have a great president but lost to better men in 1844 and 1832.
Dave Smith - 5/11/2003
In 1988 GHW Bush was not the loser, but the winner, he did of course lose in 1992 against Clinton, but he won in 1988.
Josh Anderson - 1/7/2003
I don't know how old this is, since I just stumbled across it to answer a bet, but why is George H.W. listed as a loser in 1988? I know I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure he won that election (sarcasm intended). Do you just not like him? I was no great fan of former President Bush (nor am I a huge fan of the current Bush), but I would say that there have been worse Presidents. I'm sure Mike Dukakis appreciates the omission though.
- Poll: Majority Of Americans Say Obama Is Mixed Race, Not Black
- New technology helps paleontologists see Ice-Age bee in intricate detail
- History textbooks in crosshairs of Australia's curriculum wars
- Archaeologists' findings may prove Rome a century older than thought
- 150 years of medical journals to go online
- She Came All the Way from Melbourne to Attend the OAH
- The 7 Most Popular HNN Videos from the 2014 OAH
- U.Va. Historian Alan Taylor Wins 2014 Pulitzer for Book on Slaves and War -- His second Pulitzer!
- UW Professor Stephanie Camp, 46, feminist historian, dies
- Italian forces in WW2 were not soft and Mussolini wasn't a clown, British historian claims