Out of all of the US VPs who never became US Prez, which VPs do you think would have made the best Presidents?

Feb 2019
933
Serbia
I don't know much in-depth information most of US history as it has always been a sort of a side interest for me but I would say that Burr might've been decent, he was a decent politician and lawyer before his Vice-Presidency and was an intelligent man.

I don't know much about american presidents and even less about vice presidents, but almost anyone would be better than Richard Nixon and Andrew Jackson, no?
I wouldn't say so. Jackson is controversial and his life is full of interesting events, I think a discussion on him warrants a thread on its own. Nixon was mixed in my opinion. He is mostly famous for Watergate and was corrupt, he also had some dark parts such as the War on Drugs. He also had some good points, he got America out of Vietnam though it took him some time IIRC and passed some good laws such as the Endangered Species Act among other ''progressive'' ones. It was also under him that the relations with China normalised. I'm mostly commenting from memory as I have not read much on US political history in a few years. Except for the War of 1812 and some parts of the Revolutionary War.
 
Jun 2017
2,974
Connecticut
I don't know much in-depth information most of US history as it has always been a sort of a side interest for me but I would say that Burr might've been decent, he was a decent politician and lawyer before his Vice-Presidency and was an intelligent man.



I wouldn't say so. Jackson is controversial and his life is full of interesting events, I think a discussion on him warrants a thread on its own. Nixon was mixed in my opinion. He is mostly famous for Watergate and was corrupt, he also had some dark parts such as the War on Drugs. He also had some good points, he got America out of Vietnam though it took him some time IIRC and passed some good laws such as the Endangered Species Act among other ''progressive'' ones. It was also under him that the relations with China normalised. I'm mostly commenting from memory as I have not read much on US political history in a few years. Except for the War of 1812 and some parts of the Revolutionary War.
I don't think Jackson should be controversial he is essentially the US Hitler. Him having ever been on the 20 is an international embarrassment. Nixon I agree with you entirely. His record was pretty good and he got caught for a crime that likely weren't exceptional compared to what others had done in the past without documentation. Thing is though back in the 1970s the establishments of both parties are progressive by modern standards, things like protecting endangered species and the air just were never political back in the day(wasn't around but the record speak for itself) and in most places on earth those sort of things still aren't. A modern Democrat could look at the resume of someone and Dwight Eisenhower and think it's better than any of their current leaders by progressive standards cause it was, distinctions between parties were drawn different places then.

The stain that should hurt Nixon worst is consciously doing the Southern strategy but that strategy paid off entirely took decades before the South was solidly Republican. By 1991 that switch had not yet been completed and while it's not a myth it was certainly intentional, the idea that in 1968 the parties swapped the South is very exaggerated, it took decades to undo the hard Democratic affiliation of the region. African Americans had been on the fence at the time for decades, them abandoning the Republican party almost entirely was the conclusion of a gradual shift that had started with FDR.

Burr was a borderline terrorist though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I don't know much about american presidents and even less about vice presidents, but almost anyone would be better than Richard Nixon and Andrew Jackson, no?
Jackson was never VP.

There's a post 1991 example that would win for me.
ManBearPig? ;)

Might be the most crucial by far. Pre 1991 I'd go Mondale or Humphrey probably. Henry Wallace would have been great too.
Wasn't Henry Wallace too pro-Soviet? As for Mondale and Humphrey, yeah, both of them were pretty decent. I especially like Humphrey since he appears to have been especially concerned about the plight of ordinary Americans. That, and he led the push to include a segregation plank at the 1948 Democratic National Convention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I don't think Jackson should be controversial he is essentially the US Hitler. Him having ever been on the 20 is an international embarrassment. Nixon I agree with you entirely. His record was pretty good and he got caught for a crime that likely weren't exceptional compared to what others had done in the past without documentation. Thing is though back in the 1970s the establishments of both parties are progressive by modern standards, things like protecting endangered species and the air just were never political back in the day(wasn't around but the record speak for itself) and in most places on earth those sort of things still aren't. A modern Democrat could look at the resume of someone and Dwight Eisenhower and think it's better than any of their current leaders by progressive standards cause it was, distinctions between parties were drawn different places then.

The stain that should hurt Nixon worst is consciously doing the Southern strategy but that strategy paid off entirely took decades before the South was solidly Republican. By 1991 that switch had not yet been completed and while it's not a myth it was certainly intentional, the idea that in 1968 the parties swapped the South is very exaggerated, it took decades to undo the hard Democratic affiliation of the region. African Americans had been on the fence at the time for decades, them abandoning the Republican party almost entirely was the conclusion of a gradual shift that had started with FDR.

Burr was a borderline terrorist though.
Nixon's record wasn't exactly spotless, though. He bombed Cambodia and thus paved the way for the Khmer Rouge to seize power there, he supported Pakistan when it was committing genocide in Bangladesh in 1970-1971, he supported the coup against Allende in Chile, and @Viperlord said that Nixon was as conservative on domestic policy as political realities allowed him to be in the early 1970s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hoosierhiver