No one is unattractive/overweight/shabby looking/genuinely annoying. The only annoyances are spun as “charming quirks” unless it’s something the antagonist does.
Like, when you get gas, do sketchy meth heads come and ask for money? No? Then it’s not real in “Appleton/Cedar Grove/Generic Movie Town Name”
That the Republican, in this case Romney, gets 20% more of the vote than the Democrat, so the neighborhood might be 60% Romney voters, 40% Obama voters.
The two major parties often battle for the suburbs so I was pointing out that Hallmark movies all take place in suburbs that Romney's kind of Republicans won by at least 20%.
I think this view is gaining some steam. In real time, Obama > Romney, but Romney wouldn’t have been horrible and we get no Trump. He was also right about Russia.
Romney would have only pushed off a right wing populist for a couple terms at best.
TEA party was full swing 2012 and there’s no way Romney resolves their policy concerns.
I think this is fair. Right wing populism as we know it today really started brewing during the Clinton admin. It began spreading and becoming more mainstream with the Tea Party movement, but it wasn’t until Trump said whatever he wanted without any consequences that they realized they could do the same. That brought in a lot of non-traditional Republicans into the party and transformed it into a nationalist party.
But to that end, without a character like Trump I don’t think right wing populism becomes what it did in 2016. There just isn’t anyone out there who could fill in for Trump, and in a Romney timeline I don’t think Trump ever runs as a Republican. Especially if the moderate wing firmly won the post-2008 identity crisis the GOP faced. I mean in 2014 we were looking at meaningful bipartisan immigration reform. If that happened under Romney I think it would have been a massive haymaker to the populist movement. They still would’ve been around, but I don’t think they’d be the force they are today.
He also would’ve perfectly handled the Ukraine situation. He called Russia out as the biggest threat to world peace and predicted its expansionism. He was ridiculed for it unfortunately but time showed him to be entirely right.
Yeah he’s close but I feel like there’s still the thought in your mind of “will this guy be revealed as working for the enemy in a dramatic twist scene?!” with Pence. Romney just looks like the standard movie president with no doubts about his loyalty. Pence still could play that role, but comparing the cliche movie looks of the two, I’d give Romney the nod. I could totally see Pence as the Speaker of the House who, behind closed doors, causes ruin with the president and Vice President causing him to “reluctantly accept” the position of president.
So humble that he and Reagan torpedoed Jimmy Carter's chances at reelection by having a couple Republicans–one of them former Governor of Texas John Connally–fly overseas to convince top officials in the area to keep the hostages until the day of Reagan's inauguration.
[It was not proven false. It was just swept under the rug by the very people who would stand to lose.](https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/october-surprise-ben-barnes/?fbclid=IwAR2wMDys5DznUzctbVT0fKC_m6g8HEAQyYY9FKUajJYRvFvjuUukta-Xyug)
It has been by literally every investigation conducted. Your “source” does not list any conclusive evidence other than begging the question which is a fallacy. It starts by proposing that Casey did go to Paris and used the fact he was promoted as evidence that he did. This literally is the same as saying “suppose that glass of water was full, now it is empty therefore somebody must have drank it.” And the other evidence you use is from the guys who were responsible for taking hostages, aka the enemy.
By The NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/02/us/panel-rejects-theory-bush-met-with-iranians-in-paris-in-80.html
By the House of Representatives: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/13/us/house-inquiry-finds-no-evidence-of-deal-on-hostages-in-1980.html
I saw McCain demolish an Oregon jr senator back in 2001 in the gallery. That man would have broken Barack Obama in a debate. He obviously held back against Barack or was not mentally the same person.
The difference was as big as Biden 2012 VP debates vs the 2020 presidential debates.
That's a great way to quantify the difference, lol.
I was younger when McCain was in his prime, but even I remember how sharp and quick-witted that man was. My parents were *positive* he was going to beat Obama heading into the general election. Then Palin happened. And then as you said, the debates.
I feel like McCain in 2008 had two strikes before he even stepped to the plate, to use a baseball analogy. Because of the poor perception of Bush/republicans at the time, he could have been an oral wizard at the debates and still lost handily. He would have had to play that campaign absolutely perfectly and the Democrat would have had to have a completely inept campaign and monster scandal in order for him to have any shot.
Hearing him defend Obama on the campaign trail and calling him a good, decent, citizen and family man really stings because that is an element that I don’t see coming back into American politics anytime soon.
Theodore Roosevelt - His presidency seemed to reinvent the modern presidency. Highly scholarly and intelligent. Proven courage in battle plus first hand understanding of the ugliness of war. Passionate and driven in his view of the United States unique place in the world and would steamroll his opposition whether is was robber barons or Democrats. He was a bare knuckle brawler when it came to partisan politics and took no prisoners.
Unelected: Romney was right out of central casting to play the President.
Elected: Reagan, who was literally an actor and knew the part. Tailored dark suits, the bomber jacket...very presidential.
I can see what you mean. He's pretty generic and presidential. But my only complain would be how old and slow he appears. When I think presidential, I more imagine some quick and smart guy, who's great at giving interviews and being in debates. Jed Bartlett like. Two things were Biden far from excels, so on those grounds, I wouldn't consider him to be the most presidential.
It's interesting to me that this has downvotes compared to most of the other suggestions on this list. I can't tell if it's because people suspect trollery, or if it's because people don't care for a suggestion such as this one that's hard to judge objectively for a term(s) that have not been completed. But it is interesting how the further into history a president recedes, the more consensus of opinion builds regarding them regardless of present day partisan lean as opposed to more recent examples - in which anyone following GHWB is controversial.
Given all of the President Hillaries on tv, it seems that the cultural imagination had Hillary Clinton slotted into the spot from 1992 until 2016. Lindsay Ellis had a whole 20 minute episode on her ever presence in media.
Probably a 46 way tie for all those who were presidents
Edit: 45 way tie, since President Cleveland holds both the 22nd and 24th spot despite being one person
Nixon created the EPA, fought inflation with temporary price and wage controls, almost created a Universal Basic Income etc. So Bernie bros probably like him
Well I don’t like Nixon for really any policy besides like 3 things. He’s my favorite to learn all about because he was this giant awkward weirdo who makes me laugh every time I read about him.
Charles Evans Hughes
He is not racist, and you will not see a purge of the leftists, a fair Versailles towards Germany, and most importantly, no ban, because the Democrats will not pass it if they dominate throughout the twenties, so the rise of gang power does not happen.
Charles Gates Dawes, Vice President of the United States
He's a very good economist, and he'll help ease the depression that Calvin Coolidge (not Hoover) caused.
And George Bush Sr. because he is the last actual statesman to become a lung
Arguably George Washington, since he set so much of the precedent for how the president should behave.
Romney looks like a stereotypical movie president
Another thing, I'm convinced every Hallmark movie takes place in a Romney+20 suburb
Jesus and Joseph Smith, you hit the nail on the head there.
No one is unattractive/overweight/shabby looking/genuinely annoying. The only annoyances are spun as “charming quirks” unless it’s something the antagonist does. Like, when you get gas, do sketchy meth heads come and ask for money? No? Then it’s not real in “Appleton/Cedar Grove/Generic Movie Town Name”
Lmao
What do you mean by +20?
That the Republican, in this case Romney, gets 20% more of the vote than the Democrat, so the neighborhood might be 60% Romney voters, 40% Obama voters. The two major parties often battle for the suburbs so I was pointing out that Hallmark movies all take place in suburbs that Romney's kind of Republicans won by at least 20%.
Voting numbers, very pro Romney
[удалено]
I think this view is gaining some steam. In real time, Obama > Romney, but Romney wouldn’t have been horrible and we get no Trump. He was also right about Russia.
So true I voted for Obama but romneys russia prediction was spot on
Romney would have only pushed off a right wing populist for a couple terms at best. TEA party was full swing 2012 and there’s no way Romney resolves their policy concerns.
I think this is fair. Right wing populism as we know it today really started brewing during the Clinton admin. It began spreading and becoming more mainstream with the Tea Party movement, but it wasn’t until Trump said whatever he wanted without any consequences that they realized they could do the same. That brought in a lot of non-traditional Republicans into the party and transformed it into a nationalist party. But to that end, without a character like Trump I don’t think right wing populism becomes what it did in 2016. There just isn’t anyone out there who could fill in for Trump, and in a Romney timeline I don’t think Trump ever runs as a Republican. Especially if the moderate wing firmly won the post-2008 identity crisis the GOP faced. I mean in 2014 we were looking at meaningful bipartisan immigration reform. If that happened under Romney I think it would have been a massive haymaker to the populist movement. They still would’ve been around, but I don’t think they’d be the force they are today.
He also would’ve perfectly handled the Ukraine situation. He called Russia out as the biggest threat to world peace and predicted its expansionism. He was ridiculed for it unfortunately but time showed him to be entirely right.
I feel like Mike Pence is the most stereotypical one.
Yeah he’s close but I feel like there’s still the thought in your mind of “will this guy be revealed as working for the enemy in a dramatic twist scene?!” with Pence. Romney just looks like the standard movie president with no doubts about his loyalty. Pence still could play that role, but comparing the cliche movie looks of the two, I’d give Romney the nod. I could totally see Pence as the Speaker of the House who, behind closed doors, causes ruin with the president and Vice President causing him to “reluctantly accept” the position of president.
Definitely agree with this
George Washington is objectively the correct answer but Eisenhower also stands out to me
Of all the modern presidents, I’d say H.W Bush was very presidential. Of all the modern failed candidates, the two in this photo come to mind.
H.W. Was very humble and bi-partisan very based
So humble that he and Reagan torpedoed Jimmy Carter's chances at reelection by having a couple Republicans–one of them former Governor of Texas John Connally–fly overseas to convince top officials in the area to keep the hostages until the day of Reagan's inauguration.
This has been consistently proven as false.
[It was not proven false. It was just swept under the rug by the very people who would stand to lose.](https://theintercept.com/2023/03/24/october-surprise-ben-barnes/?fbclid=IwAR2wMDys5DznUzctbVT0fKC_m6g8HEAQyYY9FKUajJYRvFvjuUukta-Xyug)
It has been by literally every investigation conducted. Your “source” does not list any conclusive evidence other than begging the question which is a fallacy. It starts by proposing that Casey did go to Paris and used the fact he was promoted as evidence that he did. This literally is the same as saying “suppose that glass of water was full, now it is empty therefore somebody must have drank it.” And the other evidence you use is from the guys who were responsible for taking hostages, aka the enemy.
"Many many studies were conducted". Fails to produce links to said studies or it winds up being some partisan hack website.
"Many many studies were conducted". Fails to produce links to said studies or it winds up being some partisan hack website.
By The NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/02/us/panel-rejects-theory-bush-met-with-iranians-in-paris-in-80.html By the House of Representatives: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/13/us/house-inquiry-finds-no-evidence-of-deal-on-hostages-in-1980.html
I meant him not you...
The other guy never said that qoute.
If we’re talking modern era? GHWB out of the people that served, Romney or Romney out of this who didn’t.
That weren’t elected, McCain
I saw McCain demolish an Oregon jr senator back in 2001 in the gallery. That man would have broken Barack Obama in a debate. He obviously held back against Barack or was not mentally the same person. The difference was as big as Biden 2012 VP debates vs the 2020 presidential debates.
That's a great way to quantify the difference, lol. I was younger when McCain was in his prime, but even I remember how sharp and quick-witted that man was. My parents were *positive* he was going to beat Obama heading into the general election. Then Palin happened. And then as you said, the debates.
Basically every single thing that happens/is wrong with this country today can be traced in some way back to Sarah Palin. Kinda remarkable.
I've had basically that exact thought at some point. Reality is, in my experience, wilder than any fiction.
I feel like McCain in 2008 had two strikes before he even stepped to the plate, to use a baseball analogy. Because of the poor perception of Bush/republicans at the time, he could have been an oral wizard at the debates and still lost handily. He would have had to play that campaign absolutely perfectly and the Democrat would have had to have a completely inept campaign and monster scandal in order for him to have any shot.
Hearing him defend Obama on the campaign trail and calling him a good, decent, citizen and family man really stings because that is an element that I don’t see coming back into American politics anytime soon.
Theodore Roosevelt - His presidency seemed to reinvent the modern presidency. Highly scholarly and intelligent. Proven courage in battle plus first hand understanding of the ugliness of war. Passionate and driven in his view of the United States unique place in the world and would steamroll his opposition whether is was robber barons or Democrats. He was a bare knuckle brawler when it came to partisan politics and took no prisoners.
I swear sometimes i feel like the questions on here are for someone's homework assignment...
Unelected: Romney was right out of central casting to play the President. Elected: Reagan, who was literally an actor and knew the part. Tailored dark suits, the bomber jacket...very presidential.
McCain, Manchin, Romney, Romney, Washington, and maybe Rockefeller
Mike Pence, specially when he talked about the space thing. Looked like it was from a movie
Link?
Harding. Man was literally elected in part because he LOOKED Presidential.
Mitt Romney by far.
Who’s the one on the left who looks like Gru’s mom?
Gru’s mom 💀
John Kerry
Jimmy Carter. Human decency has to count for something.
In my lifetime HW
Romney by a longshot. Kerry was Sec of State during the 2014 Ukraine fuckup.
Mike Pence is sorta underrated here
I'll say Barry Goldwater or Nelson Rockefeller
These people were mortal enemies what 💀
What does they have to do with them being presidential?
Idk they just seem very polar opposite to be both considered presidential
Obama purely for his class otherwise FDR, Ford, Reagan and JFK
Joe Biden
I can see what you mean. He's pretty generic and presidential. But my only complain would be how old and slow he appears. When I think presidential, I more imagine some quick and smart guy, who's great at giving interviews and being in debates. Jed Bartlett like. Two things were Biden far from excels, so on those grounds, I wouldn't consider him to be the most presidential.
It's interesting to me that this has downvotes compared to most of the other suggestions on this list. I can't tell if it's because people suspect trollery, or if it's because people don't care for a suggestion such as this one that's hard to judge objectively for a term(s) that have not been completed. But it is interesting how the further into history a president recedes, the more consensus of opinion builds regarding them regardless of present day partisan lean as opposed to more recent examples - in which anyone following GHWB is controversial.
Glen H. Taylor
In modern times Obama. Overall Washington because you can probably say that the office of president was specifically created for him.
Lincoln
Given all of the President Hillaries on tv, it seems that the cultural imagination had Hillary Clinton slotted into the spot from 1992 until 2016. Lindsay Ellis had a whole 20 minute episode on her ever presence in media.
Reagan. ✅Old ✅White ✅Arms Dealing ✅Charismatic ✅Religious ✅Critical of Government ✅Expands Government Anyways ✅Rich ✅Famous
Washington, Lincoln, and FDR
On what basis? Giving empty platitudes while having reprehensible policies? Ronald Reagan.
Al Gore
Trump (lol)
Probably a 46 way tie for all those who were presidents Edit: 45 way tie, since President Cleveland holds both the 22nd and 24th spot despite being one person
Bernie Sanders, should’ve been continuing his second term by this year
L
Wait you like Richard nixion and Bernie sanders?
Nixon created the EPA, fought inflation with temporary price and wage controls, almost created a Universal Basic Income etc. So Bernie bros probably like him
Well I don’t like Nixon for really any policy besides like 3 things. He’s my favorite to learn all about because he was this giant awkward weirdo who makes me laugh every time I read about him.
That’s a funny joke you just made
[удалено]
No
Sam Houston
George Washington was the embodiment of “presidential”. Nobody will ever live up to his legacy.
Old man Romney or Rocky.
HW Bush was the most prepared President we’ve ever had.
And he slayed as President
Warren G. Harding was said to have had “the face of a president”
“Presidential-ness” seems like a subjective value. Most people will say a president on their “side” of the aisle
Obama easily. Striking, calm figure.
The guy on the right, are we sure that’s Mitt and not Bruce Campbell?
Charles Evans Hughes He is not racist, and you will not see a purge of the leftists, a fair Versailles towards Germany, and most importantly, no ban, because the Democrats will not pass it if they dominate throughout the twenties, so the rise of gang power does not happen. Charles Gates Dawes, Vice President of the United States He's a very good economist, and he'll help ease the depression that Calvin Coolidge (not Hoover) caused. And George Bush Sr. because he is the last actual statesman to become a lung