Who Would I Vote For In EVERY U.S Presidential Election?

Go to www.expressvpn.com/misterz and find out how you can get 3 months of ExpressVPN free!
Everyone is talking about election season and the 2024 United States presidential election, the big rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, but instead of asking who am I voting for in 2024, I've been asked who would I vote for in every U.S presidential election ever across history. From George Washington to the upcoming 2024 election, I'll reveal who I would vote for in every U.S Presidential Election. Watch to find out my reasoning behind these choices and see how my voting preferences have changed throughout the years!
🕓New videos every week.
🪶Support Us On Patreon: / membership
🎖️Become A Channel Member:
/ @monsieurdean
👕 Merchandise: us-of-z-shop.creator-spring.com/
📘 Our Facebook: / 100086678611994
✴️ Fan Reddit: / mrz_official
#election #2024elections #uspolitics

[@MonsieurDean]

Go to www.expressvpn.com/misterz and find out how you can get 3 months of ExpressVPN free!

[@RegentOfGreece]

If I may share, I think I would have voted for Teddy Roosevelt in all three of his runs for President, alongside Alf Landon in 1936. Both due to their Anti Racist policies as well as both being at the Moderate Center and or Center Left. I'll admit, I admire Roosevelt as possible one of the greatest leaders and men in all of history, but I do think Landon would have been a just as good a President as well. And Teddy Roosevelt was awesome, of course.

[@monsieurcharcutier4490]

@@RegentOfGreece if it was me Andrew Jackson would have served three terms lol

[@crusader2112]

@@monsieurcharcutier4490 Based 👍

[@siqmadiq2171]

Who would you vote for in 2024 and why?

[@tomasmccauley569]

Would you vote for Bernie Sanders if he were most socially conservative?

[@timetogitgud2310]

I cant believe you would vote for George Washington, clearly George Washington was the better option

[@SmN20]

I disagree, George Washington is a much better alternative.

[@Nathan-georgestraitfan]

See, you both are highly delusional. Clearly, George Washington is the best choice

[@griffongaming4474]

I would've voted for Thomas Paine and then gave a middle finger to the British Loyalist that would turn around and use the military to crush the Whiskey Rebellion

[@Stormgamer-xb7gv]

I woudve Voted for King George of the United Kingdom. He also wanted to rule thr USA

[@Lil_marcus]

I would have voted for napoleon Bonaparte clearly a much better option

[@MrAsianPie]

Bro has been voting since 1788 💀

[@itsame9647]

love your based channel 👍

[@rb98769]

Nah, he only got to vote after 1821.

[@peterroberts4415]

He's almost as old as Biden

[@mingfanzhang4600]

❤😊

[@mingfanzhang8927]

❤😊

[@JackWardell]

You should do a timeline “what if all my picks actually happened”

[@MonsieurDean]

That'd be massive.

[@chaoticwj1772]

Id watch it ​@MonsieurDean

[@Byzantine1]

I'd watch it too @monsieurdean

[@USAKing1776NASCAR]

@@MonsieurDean I’d also watch it.

[@rowangamertv4348]

@@MonsieurDean I would watch it too!!!!

[@joaomoraes9323]

Refusing to vote for Grant because of "we have the hindsight of being corrupt" and then being all "Yeah, I'd vote for Nixon" is a crazy take to post in the same video

[@savsmaster4183]

Nixon actually got held accountable for it and didn’t have congress completely on his his side like Grant did, and Grant’s corruption economically harmed the U.S. greatly.

[@kfiraltberger552]

No, he said very clearly why he wouldn't vote for Grant, and then also said "Now, we do know in hindsight Grant was corrupt" but that only confirmed his existing fears about the man

[@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625]

Point out where Nixon was corrupt.

[@whitehawk4099]

No more than refusing to vote for Madison because he got them into the war and voting for FDR who got them into the war.

[@DeRose05]

Homie needs to read the book on Grant by Ron Chernow. One of his worst takes.

[@stanislausklim7794]

Just a correction about the New York electors of 1788: it wasn't that they forgot. What actually happened is that in NY, it was the legislature that picked the electors. However, the feds controlled one house, and the anti-feds controlled the other and they couldn't break the deadlock before the deadline to send electoral votes.

[@joshuawells835]

Oh, I just thought that New York abstained courteously.

[@cosmiccosmonaut820]

Id win every election

[@itsame9647]

nice

[@LexlutherVII]

we don't deserve you! 😅💗

[@Skeloperch]

Nah I'd win.

[@loismarmolejos3105]

Bro thinks I’d let that happen 💀

[@ihavenoideaman]

Nah, I’d win

[@kfiraltberger552]

This is a very new type of video from monsieur Z- much less scripted, feels more grounded like a podcast but with himself

[@AhJeezEnt]

My guy copped out in the 80’s smh

[@randomname9291]

This is probably the most right winged mainstream channel I’ve ever seen. I mean come on, Barry Goldwater??????? Herbert Hoover in 1932??????? Donald trump in both 2016 and 2020???????? None of these make even the slightest of sense, with trump maybe being the least atrocious.

[@lifeform106]

It also is strange he picked Adlai Stevenson again in 1956. He lost by a landslide in 1952 so I wonder why anyone thought for him again was a good idea and the economy and war in Korea was over. And he picked James Buchanan in 1856?! He should have abstain and not vote for neither like in 2000 election. And he picks Richard Nixon over Dwight Eisenhower when Nixon was full of more scandals?! Picking Herbert Hoover after his mess of the Great Depression of 4 years?! Many odd picks on this list. I am surprised he prefers nuclear weapon bombing Barry Goldwater

[@PHANTOM-zs6rd]

thats for sure, so baseless and flawed logic.

[@Captain-Sum.Ting-Wong]

"How would I vote in every presidential election?" *Skips basically every modern election*

[@MonsieurDean]

I hate all the candidates. If you gave me no choice but to pick, I’d just take the republicans.

[@jasonxsperry598]

Heavily disappointed for your inability to acknowledge presidential candidates in two entire generations, the main purpose of your video. Abhorrent hindsight.

[@PHANTOM-zs6rd]

i feel like he is trying to act like he knows what he is talking about, but in reality, he is just saying what he wants to believe.

[@abrahamlincoln937]

While I don’t agree with Mr. Z on everything, I still enjoy his content such as this video. Good work!

[@MonsieurDean]

Thanks, brother!

[@abrahamlincoln937]

No problem!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Over 40 minutes of Z?! YES PLEASE 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@FireBlockerPro]

Over 40 minutes of Z?! YES PLEA-Z 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@aquila4228]

I would be very interested to see a scenario where the federalists are able to win repeatedly in early elections. How different would the country be?

[@Karoly47]

dictatorship

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

There would be no point of America. It would be at least as shit as europe.

[@lestergordon3698]

It would change a lot of things. They would have pushed way more government control policies which would have angered the southern states who prefer more states rights over federal. This could possibly lead to a breaking of the union and possibly civil war. The war of 1812 most likely wouldn't have happened. These are just some of the things that in my opinion most likely would have happened.

[@grottyband8052]

The only way it would be possible is if the three-fifths compromise never passed during the Convention

[@connorhaley3190]

Impossible to say

[@monsieurcharcutier4490]

Ross Perot in 1992 could have changed the world

[@JohnPrepuce]

Even the fact that he ran at all already changed the world. Some would say he got Clinton elected, although I'm not so sure one way or the other.

[@monsieurcharcutier4490]

@@JohnPrepuce we can't know for sure but I tend to agree with George HW being the incumbent the 14 to 17% or whatever it was that he got probably did give it to Clinton. I'd like to see an alternate history where Ross Perot won in 1992 and again in 96. It could be a whole timeline leading up to present day

[@Stevanavich725]

I voted for him, but it still bugs me to this day that he quit his campaign for a few months in the summer of 92. Kind of fishy.

[@cosmo9925]

@@Stevanavich725He definitely got threatened by the establishment

[@fresholiveoil6490]

Donald Trump would have become president 16 years early, the Dems and Reps would combine again, somebody might have gotten Chuck Norris to run, Jesse Ventura would probably also have become president... What else need we say? Plus no Bush, no war on terror, etc.

[@scrappy9133]

I was going to say you would've voted for huey long before watching the video. Then I was like… wait a minute. He got JFKaied before the election.

[@MonsieurDean]

Oh, I would’ve voted Huey if I could.

[@ImperiumMagistrate]

@@MonsieurDean Huey Long was a socialist crank

[@crusader2112]

@@ImperiumMagistrate Huey Long said he was Anti-Communist, but he believed that a helping hand needed to be lent to the common man and this would draw support away from socialists and communists. He may have been corrupt, but so were his critics. He built up his Louisiana from a poor backwater. He built bridges, hospitals, roads, schools, etc. I’m normally a fan of localism and decentralization but sometimes you got a take the bull by the horns and get your hands dirty. So, I’d vote for Long.

[@derrikpippert320]

This exactly. Everytime I think about how corrupt he was I also got to think that he still got stuff done and helped the common man.

[@MrOoYT]

I feel as if Long was more honest than many - judging by the things he did and the controversial (in a way) things he promised, I believe he was being more genuine than many today.

[@joshuawells835]

For 1860, I looked up my options since I live in Texas: it's either Breckenridge or Bell. Neither Lincoln (whom I would vote for in a heartbeat) nor Douglass were on the ballot in the 1860 election, though Douglass did get 18 write-ins.

[@MonsieurDean]

Interesting!

[@anthonyminimum]

In 1800, I would pick Jefferson over Adams because Adams wasn’t all that friendly towards the first amendment and arrested people for speaking against the government

[@williamwatton7747]

Exactly what I was thinking, Adams was a great leader but repetitively conflicted the Constitution.

[@-BenGaming-]

Henry Clay the guy who somehow found a way to return during every US history unit

[@marceltelang7825]

yay im not the only one who noticed this

[@robertodiaz7454]

@@marceltelang7825its been noticed for centuries 😭

[@TUEE2]

Not voting for Ulysses Grant because of corruption but then turning around and voting for Nixon is horrendous.

[@codywieczorek]

I’m a liberal through and through, I enjoy your channel and I commend you for making this video Mr. Z. Bold to say how you voted in 2020, most KZbinrs wouldn’t disclose that, regardless of their candidate.

[@MonsieurDean]

Thanks, pal.

[@fliper4568]

It’s honestly so much better when they do. I really hate when a history channel covering elections stop when they get to the 2000s

[@codywieczorek]

@@fliper4568 Mr Beat did that, I love him but I was disappointed. Showing who you vote for doesn’t undermine credibility, it probably makes it better.

[@davidmays8974]

He's not being brave, saying who you'd vote for is normal. Especially because this is a politics channel.

[@codywieczorek]

@@davidmays8974 he isn’t the first person to make this kind of video. Others didn’t show their recent votes like he did out of fear for whatever. He did. Reveling your politics to hundreds of thousands of people can be scary, especially in this current political climate.

[@prasanths3034]

"He was pro-slavery, but..." Wait, what!?

[@FazeParticles]

lol.

[@Swissy87]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a video like this.. I like it.

[@youtubecommenter25]

In 2000, you should have voted for Pat Buchanan on the Reform ticket.

[@red-fy8si]

Considering the polls at that time it'd be a waste of a vote

[@MonsieurDean]

@@red-fy8si I could've still gone Buchanan.

[@longiusaescius2537]

Real

[@jameswilkerson4412]

You don’t think, despite his having authored A Republic, not an Empire, he wouldn’t have started a War on Terror were 9/11 to have happened the same way?

[@longiusaescius2537]

@@jameswilkerson4412 why would he start foreign wars for Israel strategic interests?

[@pandastical9205]

I wish he explained why Fremont was off the table. I’m not even saying he’s wrong but at the same time I wish he went more into it.

[@jaredthehawk3870]

Basically all the stuff he did as a military leader in California.

[@JonathanGoedeke]

I get the impression that he doesn't like to vote for radicals, and supports peace whenever possible. Electing Fremont would have started the Civil War early

[@catwastaken5018]

@@chrisbeer5685Radical Republicans were not far left.

[@tumblerinamoe]

​@@catwastaken5018they were literally marxists

[@longiusaescius2537]

@catwastaken5018 Reconstruction was AA for the 1860s

[@javindhillon6294]

Z: well we don't have to worry about Clay anymore Clay: and I took that personally

[@perturabo7825]

I would’ve supported Jefferson over Adams solely out of fear of Adams not accepting the offer to buy Louisiana. Quite a few federalists opposed the purchase due to them thinking all the states made out of it would become Dem-Rep.

[@user-ni3md9pe2w]

I would have never wanted John Adams to be President.

[@user-ni3md9pe2w]

Yeah Thomas Jefferson should have became the 2nd US President

[@lifeform106]

I would say the hot take of this video is that he would vote for James Buchanan in 1856 but not vote for Jimmy Carter or Ronald Regan. I think in 1856 you should have voted for neither haha XD

[@OhioDF]

Remember Mr Beat did it first, but he did it in like 5 hours

[@FairyHM3254]

Me and Z have very different opinions on a lot of things, but I will say that he is a very good historian and the videos are fun to watch.

[@MonsieurDean]

Thanks pal!

[@FairyHM3254]

@@MonsieurDean anytime bro

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your content z! Keep up the good work! Suggestion: What if Austria won the italian wars of independence

[@greyerskullz]

It's time... RULES: 1) I am voting with *0 HINDSIGHT*... I feel it's unfair to do this *knowing* what one candidate would accomplish and what one candidate *said* he would accomplish. So for example: whilst I *would* vote for Nixon in 1972, I wouldn't vote for Nixon if I actively knew what his campaign was doing behind the scenes. 2) I *MUST* vote... No going around and saying "meh we not votin today" 3) I am voting *COMPLETELY* on what the candidate ran on. So for example: even though Martin van Buren was a below average President, I will be voting for him because he was anti-slavery. 4) I am only judging candidates who won more than 5% of the popular vote in that given year's election or won electoral votes. So no voting for some random ass third -- nay *FOURTH* party candidate! For ease I will be highlighting which candidate I am picking, and placing the candidate which won IRL on top and with the candidate that lost on the bottom... and all the useless third parties which NEVER WIN... Let us begin... 1788: *George Washington* v. Nobody "ermmm akshully it was 1789" SHUT THE HELL UP 1792: *George Washington* v. Nobody We all love George W. 1796 *John Adams* v. Thomas Jefferson I am in lockstep with much of the Federalist's plans for government. The federal government *needed* to be strengthened to simply keep the country alive back in those days, and alongside this I am all for industrialization, promoting commerce, and aligning with Great Britain. 1800 John Adams v. *Thomas Jefferson* Despite my earlier things said about the Federalists... John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Act was completely unwarranted and goes against the values and spirit of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Whilst I disagree with Jefferson and his weird, "Living in an Amish Paradise," Adams completely ruined the ethos of what America was built on (me casually ignoring Jefferson had slaves:). I also find it quite sad that multiple founding fathers (including George Washington) endorsed the Aliens and Sedition Act :(... 1804 Thomas Jefferson v. *Charles Pickney* I love muh federalists... also he seems just like a total guy you could vibe with... y'know? 1808 James Madison v. *Charles Pickeny* Muh federalists... 1812 *James Madison* v. DEW IT Clinton With the background of the War of 1812, I feel we need to rally around the President. Britain fragrantly interfering with our commerce is completely unacceptable and must be stopped. Freedom of the seas and all that. 1816 *James Monroe* v. Rufus King Y'know with my whole grandstanding about Federalists earlier, I feel like the Democratic-Republicans are more getting to my style as the decades wear on. Especially after the War of 1812, Democratic-Republicans allowed the establishment of a national bank to help the nation and moving towards a protectionist economy. Plus, I just love James Monroe! 1820 *James Monroe* v. Nobody Era of good feelings is really dope and alongside this the Democratic-Republicans were finally starting to get productive, with them supporting federally funded infrastructure projects! very based... in sound logic and reasoning. Alongside this, I love uniparty rule! I love one party states!!! Amen!!! 1824 *John Quincy Adams* v. Andrew Jackson v. William Crawford v. Henry Clay NOOOOO MY ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS. My top choices would either be John Quincy Adams or Henry Clay. But I feel like I'd vote for John Quincy Adams in all honesty. I love my political elitism! 1828: Andrew Jackson v. *John Quincy Adams* I prefer Adams and his policies over Andrew Jackson. Also Andrew Jackson's hate for the national banks always dampens my mood on him. Though I will admit, Jackson and his populist political programs (guaranteed white suffrage) is very good, but this was already slowly happening in all the states so I feel this isn't a major point for him. 1832: Andrew Jackson v. *Henry Clay* v. John Floyd v. William Wirt Same arguments against Jackson again showed above, since Henry Clay and JQA were basically near alignment in policy and ideology. Also for those asking who are the other two people? Well John Floyd is a South Carolina butthurt that Jackson actually discharged his duties as President and William Wirt is apart of the anti-Masonic Party, which I have almost 0 knowledge about (apparently they coalesced with whigs later). *NOTE: Going to start labelling parties from now on.* 1836: Martin Van Buren (D) v. William Henry Harrison (W) v. Hugh L. White (W) v. *Daniel Webster* (W) v. Willie P. Magnum (W) Love the first election the Whigs participate in... they ALL START FIGHTING EACH OTHER (edit: I just made my decision on Webster, and apparently this was a deliberate Whig strategy on getting a contingent election??? This is all from wikipedia, but if this is true these mf'ers are actually stupid)!!! Anyway, I am opposed to van Buren due to his policies in regard to infrastructure built by the federal government and his strict constructionism in the constitution. So the big question is... who do I support out of the 4? I do not support Willie P. Magnum and Hugh L. White as they are southerner's/state's rights and oppose federal infrastructure, plus much of their political careers were built on siding with South Carolina in nullification. This leaves Harrison and Webster, who both have the same political views, but I would side with Monsieur Z. in this case and side with Webster. Webster actually has political experience and we aren't entirely sure on what Harrison believes. 1840: *William Henry Harrison* (W) v. Martin Van Buren (D) Van Buren mishandled the economy + is stinky so no. 1844: *James K. Polk* (D) v. Henry Clay (W) This is probably the toughest call. If I was alive during that time I would be a whig in all honesty, but manifest destiny... Sea to shining sea.... I cannot live in an America without California or Oregon (ok maybe not California) -- so I must go with Polk. The Whigs were anti-annexation of Texas as well so.... 1848: Zachary Taylor (W) v. Lewis Cass (D) v. *Martin Van Buren* (Free Soil) I was ticked when I learned Henry Clay didn't get the nomination compared to Zachary Taylor but... LIFE LAUGH LOVE!!! Anyway, I would choose Martin Van Buren and the Free Soil Party solely for their position on slavery. Other than that, I would choose Zachary Taylor for actual policy (though it was highly speculative at the time if Zachary Taylor actually believed in the things he was saying). 1852: Franklin Pierce (D) v. *Winfield Scott* (W) I'm a whig... so Winfield Scott. Plus I just love Winfield Scott as a character 1856: James Buchannan (D) v. *John C. Fremont* (R) v. Millard Fillmore (Know-Nothings) Fremont and the Republican party seemed like the best party in this election to deal with slavery. Plus with them basically continuing the economic policies of the Whigs, I feel they would also be best to serve the country. I am kind of attracted to the Know-Nothings on some policy issues, but they are just racists let's be honest here. And honestly, Republicans just share a lot of positions with the Know-Nothings but are just better. 1860: *Abraham Lincoln* (R) v. The South (TM) Abe all the way baby! Though personal shoutout to Stephen Douglass that man is kind of dope. 1864: *Abraham Lincoln* (R) v. George McClellan (D) Lincoln be better m8... 1868: *Ulysses S. Grant* (R) v. Horatio Seymour (D) Grant of course. When I was doing ""research"" (looking at friggin wikipedia articles) it was very startling how close it was. Considering Seymour's campaign was openly anti-black and racist, and the democrats legit caused the civil war... 5 percentage points??? Wow 1872: *Ulysses S. Grant* (R) v. Horace Greely (Liberal Republican) Despite allegations of corruption, I believe I would still vote for Grant (even with historical hindsight he was unassociated with them -- but too be fair he should have known). Horace Greely's position is way too weird, and him being stategically endorsed by the Democrats... yeah just be safe and stick to grant. 1876: *Rutherford B. Hayes* (R) v. Samuel J. Tilden (D) Me supporting reconstruction would obviously align with Hayes. Plus, I just like the guy!!! Civil War hero (on the right side) and he did really good as governor of Ohio. 1880: *James A. Garfield* (R) v. Winfield Scott Hancock I LOVE THE GOP I LOVE THE GOP I LOVE THE GOP I LOVE THE GOP 1884: *Grover Cleveland* (D) v. James G. Blaine (R) Ok I love the GOP but... Blaine is (probably) corrupt. I would be hesitant to vote for him, so I would rather cast for Cleveland. 1888: *Benjamin Harrison* (R) v. Grover Cleveland With no issues of corruption tainting the campaign, I would revert to supporting the GOP. Man I love tarrifs!!! 1892: Grover Cleveland (D) v. *Benjamin Harrison* (R) v. James B. Weaver (Populist) Despite McKinley's 1890 Tariff (which I hope everyone would agree was waaaaaaaaaaay to execesive with it being below just 50%), I would still side with the GOP. Also Weaver is chill.' 1896: William McKinley (R) v. *William Jennings Bryan* (D) Despite what Mr. Z was saying in the video... this IS a tough pick. McKinley is responsible for raising tariffs to just below 50% (which is an insane number -- and had big time economic distress upon the country) and him being a man of the trusts. Y'know I was thinking about this for like 10 minutes and was going about how hard of a choice this is... but it isn't. ALL THE WAY WITH WJB!!! WJB is anti-trust, anti-big business, anti-elitism, AND anti-ANTI-AMERICAN!!! He's a populist (and a midwesterner) and whilst I disagree with him heavily on tariffs and silver... WE NEED TO SHAKE THINGS UP!!! CAN I GET AN AMEN!?! 1900: William McKinley (R) v. *William Jennings Bryan* (D) ALL THE WAY WITH WJB!!!! *Comment is getting too long, continuing in replies*

[@kknives36]

I would have always voted Federalist or Whig myself. With the exception that I agree I would probably vote Polk. Manifest Destiny and all that like you said.

[@greyerskullz]

*Comment is getting too long, continues here:* 1904: *Theodore Roosevelt* (R) v. Alton B. Parker I feel Theodore Roosevelt is the perfect mix of my monetary policy and my governmental policy. Not only does he believe that businesses should be protected, tariffs should be high, and our jobs shan't he shipped overseas, he also believes that the American people deserve a Square Deal that we ought to have, and, finally, breaking up dem daemn trusts! Theodore has my vote! 1908: *William Howard Taft* (R) v. William Jennings Bryan (D) NOOOOO BRYAN RAN AGAIN!!! Now it's tough.... Whilst Taft represents the more conservative and business elite of the Republican Party... he was still very much anti-trust and wanted to continue his predecessor's policies. He was good friends with Roosevelt after all! And with Roosevelt's endorsement, I think that would assuage all my fears about him. And though I love WJB... free silver and populism is not all that needed anymore. We don't need some righteous crusader in government anymore. Taft is a good pick, and besides... it's not like their is going to be some HUGE split between the business wing and progressive side of the Republican party... right? 1912: Woodrow Wilson (D) v. *Theodore Roosevelt* (Progressive) v. William Howard Taft (R) v. Eugene Debs (Socialist) Looking back on all my votes, whilst I would be a firm Republican during this time period (IGNORING WJB....), agreeing with them on almost all monetary and governmental policy, their is an allure in Roosevelt's New Nationalism plan. Alongside this, this man completely dominated all the state primaries and was only defeated in the business citadel of Massachusetts. My only concerns about Roosevelt are two things: 1) his calls for a constitutional amendment for Congress/the President to reneg on SCOTUS decisions or even trump their decisions. This I feel is a gigantic slap in the face to the power of SCOTUS, already in my opinion the weakest branch of government. And it's not like the President and Congress DON'T have a huge amount of checks on the Supreme Court... like I DON'T KNOW..... APPOINTING THEM!? Finally, my biggest concern over Roosevelt is his personality. He's very.... ermmm... demagogish. A lot of this is, rightfully pointed out by pundits at the time, is his ego. And he's breaking the two term tradition of Washington (though to be fair he didn't have two full terms but I digress)! Taft would be a close second pick, but I would have to ultimately with Roosevelt. Though a quick mention has to be made, the Democrats (especially with WJB's stand for populism) are slowly turning the entire party around, and making it more... appealing..? to vote for. Just saying. *Will continue at a later date... If I remember...*

[@greyerskullz]

@@kknives36 I agree with your sentiment, but in the election of 1800 I cannot drag my feet to vote for Adams as he basically trounced on the spirit of our nation with the Alien and Sedition Act. Whilst it was rarely (if ever) enforced, nothing like that should ever be on the books.

[@JonathanGoedeke]

Where is the rest of this? It's so interesting

[@greyerskullz]

@@JonathanGoedeke hehehaw 1904: *Theodore Roosevelt* (R) v. Alton B. Parker Roosevelt is the perfect blend of populism and common sense I have been looking for in the Republican Party since William Jennings Bryan started making a hand for the nomination. The GOP has the right economic model in mind (though somewhat wrong as they basically praise monopolies) but completely betrayed the American public by refusing to embrace the demands of the people. Roosevelt represents common sense economic policy whilst also a Fair Deal for all Americans. Also... Parker who? Parker who asked! Am I not wrong? Roosevelt has proven himself to be my type of Republican and he has earned by vote! 1908: *William Howard Taft* (R) v. William Jennings Bryan (D) Taft is seen as more aligned with the conservative/financial wing of the party. This would obviously raise concerns for my third way independent socialist capitalist monarchist utopian populistic vision I have for the country. However, I feel the endorsement of Roosevelt would assuage my fears. I know I've been super hawkish on Bryan but... his vision simply isn't for the country anymore. Well, I'd contend I never even really agreed to it. Bryan was sort of a knee jerk reaction to the insane amount of greed and inequality perpetuated by the New York business class. However, with that now starting to finally be wiped away by the REPUBLCIAN Party I'd feel they'd earn my vote. Plus, I always agreed with them more on economic policy then whatever the Democrats cooked. 1912: Woodrow Wilson (D) v. Theodore Roosevelt (P) v. *William Howard Taft* (R) v. Eugene V. Debbs (S) Ok.... This is going to be tough. I believe it is clear to everyone who I will not be voting for, that is Wilson (also Debbs). Also, IK this is a tangent, but people REALLY need to stop bashing Wilson for literally just taking a deep breath. ANYWAY, my choice is split between two candidates: Taft and Roosevelt. The thing is, all of Roosevelt's policy proposals are completely reasonable. From the direct election of senators, to making the income tax legal, an 8 hour work day, or even the thoughts of social security. This is a culture shock yes... but this is all completely fair! The only thing is the dig towards government backed healthcare. But Roosevelt's New Nationalism policy is, in my mind, completely reasonable. Now many will attack Taft for being some fat cat pawn of Wall Street. But this is completely untrue! Their is a reason why Roosevelt picked him to be his Vice Presidential nominee. Taft was just a diet version of Roosevelt... in a metaphorical sense of course. And as Monsieur Z points out in his video, Taft did surpass Roosevelt on certain things like busting up more trusts compared to Roosevelt. In fact, people on Wall Street met with Taft directly to grovel at his feet saying... "No... please! Let us ruin the lives of millions of Americans!!!" Also... it was HIM who called on Congress to push the income tax through. But this is where my choice became clear. Roosevelt has a lot of great policies, but Taft is the more sensible head in this argument. Yes, Roosevelt has that cool sheen to him but that isn't enough (I know this is rich coming from me justifying my choice from William Jennings Bryan). But finally, this is my biggest indictment against Roosevelt: he is a demagogue. He panders to the crowd and simply wants power for himself. He ruined his close political ally just because of some petty squabbles. He tried to break the three term tradition of Washington. And finally, he even openly floats the idea of recalling justices on the Supreme Court. This man has the largest ego on Earth, and I frankly don't want to place the Presidency in his hands when you look at these things. In my heart... I know he's right.... but in my guts I know he's nuts. 1916: Woodrow Wilson (D) v. *Charles Evan Hughes* (R) This election is messy... Me personally, despite it being against the current I'd be hawkish and pushing for intervention in Europe. Y'know... it's America's destiny.... to spread *freahdom* around the world. So I'd be apart of the "Preparedness" movement headed by Hughes but... honestly.... this election would be confusing as hell. Hughes is like "ermmm... we should be prepared for war!!!" but then attack Wilson's intervention in Mexico? And then he'd go around and be like "hermm durr I love big business!" Hughes is definitely a New Englander candidate but, based on party loyalties and in reaction to the Democrats cutting tariffs I will be staying on the party line. 1920: *Warren G. Harding* (R) v. James Cox (D) Again... another messy election. Wilson's bait and switch would annoy me greatly. Whilst I am pro-interventionist, the fact he started out as an isolationist and all of the sudden spear heading a major international organization would annoy me to no ends. Alongside that, the simple fact of the matter is I do NOT like Democrat policies, plain and simple, Therefore... I will support a return to normalcy... a RETURN to Republican rule! 1924: *Calvin Coolidge* (R) v. John W. Davis (D) v. La Follette (P) My reasons for voting Republican remain the same: I simply align with them more compared to the other parties. Whilst I do agree that the Republican Party is getting a bit too conservative for my liking, their is no reason for voting for a firebrand like La Follette. In my mind he is too extreme for my view. And who the hell is going to vote for a Democrat anyway? Also I love silent cal! 1928: *Herbert Hoover* (R) v. Al Smith (D) Whilst Al Smith would lead me in with his Catholicism (many I sure do love tribalism!)... the simple fact of the matter is Republicans better. Also I love Herbert Hoover! 1932: *Franklin Delano Roosevelt* (D) v. Herbert Hoover (R) I would like to go on a bit of a tangent here directed towards Monsieur Z. It doesn't matter really how much you justify it.... bro crashed the economy! But anyway, my reasons for voting Democratic are simple.... GOP CRASHED THE ECONOMY!!! Like need I say more? I will make a side note: the GOP is getting a bit too conservative over the years. They offer nothing but the same old schlop from last year's elections, whilst the Democrats promise a rainbow of hope. Again, this is just a sidenote. I'm simply pointing out the coming departure....

[@walkuro7384]

What books or articles did you read on each President? I'm trying to find sources to do my own research on each presidency but everything just kinda grazes over it or leaves out details

[@MistaChris]

0:23 1788 and 1792 1:24 1796 1:57 1800 3:22 1804 3:54 1808 5:19 1812 6:14 1816 7:09 1820 7:19 1824 9:00 ad over 10:43 1828 11:11 1832 12:46 1836 15:08 1840 15:22 1844 17:16 1848 18:58 1852 20:11 1856 20:47 1860 21:56 1864 22:38 1868 23:28 1872 23:57 1876 25:11 1880 25:34 1884 27:11 1888 27:23 1892 27:42 1896 and 1900 28:53 1904 29:04 1908 30:26 1912 31:10 1916 32:18 1920 33:14 1924 33:02 1928 34:55 1932 35:37 1936 35:51 1940 36:12 1944 36:22 1948 37:24 1952 38:47 1956 38:56 1960 39:29 1964 39:45 1968 40:00 1972 40:16 1976 40:27 1980 41:11 1984 41:19 1988 41:30 1992 41:59 1996 42:08 2000 42:15 2004 42:24 2008 42:33 2012 42:51 2016 43:12 2020

[@RyoGuy17]

George Bush in 2000 was different than what George Bush became as President so I could’ve maybe gotten behind him originally.

[@KC-Mitch]

I agree with you on the need for a strong, federal government. But I disagree on the “America first” mentality. Since WWI, we’re so interconnected with the rest of the world, that we can’t think like that. That doesn’t mean we ignore our domestic problems, but constantly putting ourselves first is the reason why the US refuses to cooperate with the globe on global issues like trade, scientific research, diplomacy, climate change, etc. I believe the world is getting more interconnected, and the more we use our physical isolation as a justification for our political isolation, the more we’ll find that we will be left out of the playing field.

[@jaycrownshaw3902]

Not to mention that in the modern day, if money goes to America us civilians rarely see that money. America first just means politicians wallets first

[@justinbringhurst7556]

Did you forget Aaron Burr? Your accusation of Grant as a corrupt radical surprised me. Agree that he was a fish out of water, but I think he was a good president. Did Ron Chernow completely omitted major episodes in his bio of Grant? And wow! You take the audience all through American history with so many bad options years then just punt with (“neither”) from Gerold Ford onward waving off real rational after all the insights in preceding history. All that learning snd at least pretense of being a history sage and then you jump back into having a vote for Trump …the least qualified candidate history has ever seen, ready to torch democracy if it served his vanity. He makes Nativism you dismissed early look like child’s play.

[@kingnaga619]

I’m confused, why couldn’t he vote till 1821?

[@ReuvenGoldstein1]

Not a property/land owner.

[@ibro8855]

You did Old Ike dirty.

[@lbgamer6166]

Eisenhower is epik

[@SlavicChautauquan]

"Eisenhower is a Republican New-Dealer".... As the man just barely voted for FDR for three elections in a row. I'm sitting there thinking, "How is this supposed to be consistent?" And I feel like Brinksmanship should only be understood with the context of appeasement from the 30s and 40s. The man saw what happened with appeasement, it was the largest war which humanity had ever faced. Do I believe it needed to be taken to the extent it did? Perhaps not, but Eisenhower also noticed the issues of the MIC, and I can respect the times.

[@ibro8855]

I like Ike.

[@neuf1720]

How? Ike was a centralizing authoritarian leftist New Dealer.

[@PunishedKrab]

Ike wearing Nikes

[@monsieurcharcutier4490]

Have you ever considered a history/current events/politics type podcast? Long form is where it's at.

[@MonsieurDean]

I'll look into this!

[@ZZactionwow]

Voting is pointless

[@averageleson]

You should do a video on a hypothetical "Z for President 2024" run would be interesting to hear your takes on who you'd want as a running mate and what you'd have to say on some of the current issues in this election

[@Kr38RMediA]

What’s your problem with “hands off governance?” The legislative branch is designed to have primacy

[@lukeporras1288]

Now you’re sounding like one of those crazy agrarian Jeffersonians who like States’ rights, decentralization, and legislative prerogative. You know, like the vast majority of Americans when they voted for Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Edit: For someone so infatuated with the Federalist Party, you’d think Mr. Z would have some inclination for real federalism, i.e. the things I mentioned above. But he’s too interested in centralization and executive power because he thinks that’s the “conservative” position.

[@FazeParticles]

lot of people pretend to be democratic or libertarian but many would support a Hamiltonian executive system if their guy was in office.

[@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625]

@@lukeporras1288 you can't conserve anything without power.

[@lukeporras1288]

@@thewhitehousevietsubarchiv2625 Yes, you’re right, and the Jeffersonian position was that you need power to check power, ambition to check ambition, interest to check interest. You cannot conserve the traditional American order by giving most power to one man in the executive office, or by giving it all to one government. The ratifiers of the Constitution expected that the States would be powerful enough to check the federal government and to keep it in line when it stepped beyond its constitutional limits. The States cannot do that unless they have power and sovereignty of their own. That’s what States’ rights are about. The Richmond Junto envisioned a judicial system where each State judiciary was on equal footing with the federal judiciary, and each had an equal right to interpret the Constitution. Such a system would require the common law to be extracted not merely from the majority opinion of the federal Supreme Court, but from the concurrent majority of all the State courts. That decentralized system would be more nuanced and slower than our current one, but you can have almost complete certainty it would have conserved the constitution far better than the top-down approach we have now.

[@TheHomesun]

Why wouldn’t you be able to vote until 1821?

[@labrynianrebel]

The idea that "the people" should decide who the President is was largely popularized by Andrew Jackson. "The people" were suppose to be represented in the House of Representatives. The Senate and the Electoral College that chooses the President were the state governments being represented.

[@MonsieurDean]

Property ownership is required to vote.

[@crusader2112]

@@labrynianrebel That’s one of the few things I criticize Jackson for. Should’ve kept property ownership requirements. But we should have expanded it to those who served in the military though. Service Guarantees Citizenship. 🫡

[@firefly9838]

@@MonsieurDean should still be required😒

[@wheezy498]

@@crusader2112thats literally enlist or don’t vote for poor people.

[@miltonmaverick]

This is a great one, nice work

[@MonsieurDean]

Thanks, pal!

[@MonsieurDean]

Good seeing you here btw!

[@user-zs2vt5yw3d]

I am glad to see your channel grow oldboy.

[@Anakin1999]

Monsieur Z might be the only person to vote for trump based on policy not vibes…

[@iluvatar7119]

And he is not wrong. Below all that bravado, Trump is actually a very traditional Republican in the mold of late 19th/early 20th century Republican presidents.

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@iluvatar7119 I would say more like 1920s Republicans. The late 1800s-early 1900s ones were very active foreign policy (Think William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt.)

[@iluvatar7119]

@@gunsgalore7571 You are right in this respect, I was thinking more of the presidents from Hayes through Harrison. Though, I think that Trump is generally favorable of something like the Big Stick policy.

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@iluvatar7119 I agree with you, Trump is definitely a Big Stick kind of guy. Modern conservatism, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is in kind of a weird state. We're just coming off about forty-five years of being the big active foreign policy party (a phenomenon known as "neoconservatism") and seeing a resurgence in isolationist thinking (sometimes dubbed "conservative populism"). But forty-five years of being the war hawks have left significant stamps on how we think about things, and so we still don't mess around with people who mess with us, even if we're no longer as concerned about second and third-world allies like Ukraine, Israel, etc. At least, that's how I analyze the situation. This is coming from a guy who would probably be considered a neocon by most people in the current GOP.

[@lbgamer6166]

@@gunsgalore7571I don’t like isolationism

[@Mantis42]

one or two interesting and good choices then a bunch of dogshit picks.

[@bjorn6084]

I like the deep space samurai music in the background

[@ericfarmer3360]

Note on the 1864 election: McClellan was actually a War Democrat, even though he was nominated by the predominantly Peace Democrat faction. Perhaps that helps to explain the Lincoln landslide when even Lincoln believed he might lose.

[@jasongonzalez1690]

Love you Z, but I am beyond disappointed that in 2016 you could vote for Trump when we all know our true leader was awaiting us. JEB!

[@gopnikataru]

Please clap

[@johng8837]

JEB!

[@RealNosyGamer]

It’s his opinion

[@orangefire273]

If Jeb won, we would be on Mars by now!

[@jasongonzalez1690]

Our God emperor awaits his crowning

[@alesiswhite9010]

What if my mom let me stay up as late as I want

[@user-ew6mh3ep5p]

Wow, based on your previous content a lot of these come as a surprise

[@alfrancisbuada2591]

Yeah I know what every election season in the US is like. Friday Night!

[@Deridus]

Very few elections would see me vote for anything but "Giant Freakin' Meteor"

[@calebfouts7118]

23:01 I thought that Grant himself was not corrupt but the many of the members of his administration were.

[@user-zq5gh8zl3c]

You should do a what if Romania joined the central powers in ww1!

[@TheMiraculousGuy]

Monsieur Z’s Presidential List 1. George Washington 1789-1797 2. John Adams 1797-1805 3. Charles Pinckney 1805-1813 4. DeWitt Clinton 1813-1817 5. Rufus King 1817-1821 6. James Monroe 1821-1825 7. Henry Clay 1825-1829 8. Andrew Jackson 1829-1833 9. Henry Clay 1833-1837 10. Daniel Webster 1837-1841 11. William Henry Harrison 1841-1841 12. John Tyler 1841-1845 13. James K. Polk 1845-1849 14. Zachary Taylor 1849-1850 15. Millard Fillmore 1850-1853 16. Winfield Scott 1853-1857 17. James Buchanan 1857-1861 18. Abraham Lincoln 1861-1865 19. Andrew Johnson 1865-1869 20. Horatio Seymour 1869-1873 21. Benjamin Gratz Brown 1873-1877 22. Rutherford B. Hayes 1877-1881 23. James A. Garfield 1881-1881 24. Chester A. Arthur 1881-1885 25. Grover Cleveland 1885-1889 26. Benjamin Harrison 1889-1897 27. William McKinley 1897-1901 28. Theodore Roosevelt 1901-1909 29. William Howard Taft 1909-1913 30. Theodore Roosevelt 1913-1917 31. Woodrow Wilson 1917-1921 32. Warren G. Harding 1921-1923 33. Calvin Coolidge 1923-1929 34. Herbert Hoover 1929-1937 35. Franklin D. Roosevelt 1937-1945 36. Harry S. Truman 1945-1949 37. Thomas E. Dewey 1949-1953 38. Adlai Stevenson II 1953- 1961 39. Richard Nixon 1961-1965 40. Barry Goldwater 1965-1969 41. Richard Nixon 1969-1972 42. Gerald Ford 1974-1977 Either candidates in either elections from 1977-1988 (?) Ross Perot (1993-2001) Either candidates in either elections from 2001-2009 (?) Mitt Romney (?) (2013-2017) (?) Donald Trump (2017-Present) -Washington, Adams, Monroe, Jackson, W. H. Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, B. Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, F. D. Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Ford and Trump still become president -Time of deaths are the same -Horace Greeley dies before the election, he is replaced with his running mate, Benjamin Gratz Brown -Henry Clay, Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon become the only three presidents to serve two non-consecutive terms

[@hakai9397]

Great video

[@MonsieurDean]

Thanks!

[@pakistanimapperr]

You should do “What if King Pyrrhus of Epirus conquered Rome?”

[@Trackman71]

Being an New Yorker and Italian myself too I was surprised how quickly you pick Teddy Roosevelt.

[@RichKingstone09]

For those who don't want to watch the whole thing: 1788-1789 & 1792: George Washington 1796 & 1800: John Adams 1804 & 1808: Charles Cotesworth Pinckney 1812: DeWitt Clinton 1816: Rufus King 1820: James Monroe 1824 & 1832: Henry Clay 1828: Andrew Jackson 1836: Daniel Webster 1840: William Henry Harrison 1844: James K. Polk 1848: Zachary Taylor 1852: Winfield Scott 1856: James Buchanan 1860 & 1864: Abraham Lincoln 1868: Horatio Seymour 1872: Horace Greely 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 1880: James A. Garfield 1884: Grover Cleveland 1888 & 1892: Benjamin Harrison 1896 & 1900: William McKinley 1904 & 1912: Theodore Roosevelt 1908: William Howard Taft 1916: Woodrow Wilson 1920: Warren G. Harding 1924: Calvin Coolidge 1928 & 1932: Herbert Hoover 1936, 1940 & 1944: Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1948: Thomas E. Dewey 1952 & 1956: Adlai Stevenson II 1960, 1968 & 1972: Richard Nixon 1964: Barry Goldwater 1976-1988, 2000-2008: Neither 1992 & 1996: Henry Ross Perot 2016 & 2020: Donald Trump

[@kartikranga6534]

Though I'm not an American but as someone who keenly follows American Politics and is interested by the nation's history here's how I would vote if I was one (without hindsinght) 1788: Washington 1792: Washington 1796: Adams 1800: Adams 1804: Jefferson 1808: Madison 1812: DeWitt Clinton 1816: Rufus King 1820: Monroe 1824: Clay 1828: Jackson 1832: Clay 1836: Webster 1840: WH Harrision 1844: Clay 1848: Taylor 1852: Scott 1856: Fremont 1860: Lincoln 1864: Lincoln 1868: Grant 1872: Greeley 1876: Tilden 1880: Garfield 1884: Cleveland 1888: Cleveland 1892: Cleveland 1896: McKinely 1900: McKinely 1904: Teddy Roosevelt 1908: Taft 1912: Teddy Roosevelt 1916: Wilson 1920: Harding 1924: Coolidge 1928: Hoover 1932: FDR 1936: FDR 1940: Wilkie 1944: FDR 1948: Dewey 1952: Ike 1956: Ike 1960: JFK 1964: LBJ 1968: Hubert Humphrey 1972: McGovern 1976: Carter 1980: Reagan 1984: Reagan 1988: Bush 1992: Perot 1996: Clinton 2000: Gore 2004: Kerry 2008: Obama 2012: Obama 2016: Trump 2020: Biden

[@MonsieurDean]

Interesting choices.

[@kartikranga6534]

@@MonsieurDeanBtw who is your preferred candidate amongst Trump and Biden this fall, personally I'm leaning towards Trump due to Biden's interventionist foreign policy which to say the least I'm not a fan of. Biden's foreign policy in my opinion has compounded the already existing post covid cost of living crisis much worse due to the sanctions on Russia and America draining its coffers by endlessly funding Israel while its dysfunctional Congress can barely pass a budget. Also your country is facing a terrible migrant crisis due to Biden's stupid border policies and now Uncle Joe wants to bring back the Trump era policy through that border bill which ironically was obstructed by Congressional Republicans on Trump's orders.

[@MonsieurDean]

@@kartikranga6534 I would say Trump as well.

[@jeffhowland867]

What would have made you (hypothetically) vote Biden in 20 after voting for Trump in 16? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this sentiment, and as always, would like to know more.

[@Master-ns7vp]

You should make a list if your ideal presidents

[@franklinkuz]

What a surprise, Immortal Monsieur Z goes into hiding in the late 70's, early 80's. A good idea, it's a dangerous world for immortals then with The Kurgan and Connor MacLeod hunting them down.

[@Dimitriterrorman]

didnt know Jefferson was so epic!!

[@justinjerez2090]

Kinda strange you stopped choosing anyone once you hit modern times, but on brand for a trump voter i guess, since i think a lot of his base was built from disaffected conservatives and non voters. I was expecting after Ross Perot you were gonna be voting 3rd party though tbh.

[@justinjerez2090]

@@MonsieurDean Not intending to throw shade, i just think it's kinda funny that you could hold opinions on who you'd prefer 200 years ago and at various times when there were no great options and surely you don't agree with their whole party or whole platform, but in recent history you wouldn't want to commit to anyone in particular.

[@Chr0n0s38]

​@@justinjerez2090 In all fairness the politicians from 200 years ago still often differed more than modern choices. McCain vs Obama especially was just a waste of an election. Fundamentally the two were the same thing.

[@Argonhubert]

@@MonsieurDeanRon Paul was awesome!

[@gun10ck]

@@MonsieurDeanwhat part of Trump represents you?

[@dontcomply3976]

Mr Z, I think towards the end , maybe from 1952 you start to base your decision on what you know now whereas earlier it was if you were there at the time.

[@jarredsmith7375]

Good video, although I wasn't a fan of how you used hindsight for some of your picks, but no hate ofc!

[@nobodyreally7339]

1856 election Buchanan vs Jim Morrison

[@NotTheBomb]

It is amazing to see how much the map use to swing. Today, it seems like the lines are rather entrenched. Only time we have seen big movements before was in 2016…

[@familygash7500]

Why was The Federalist Party named as such, when it was pro-centralisation? I thought that federalism ment *de-centralisation.*

[@gunsgalore7571]

I think the definition has changed over the years.

[@aquila4228]

Because before federation there was no union at all. It’s like defending federation today in Europe, it would be seen very much as a centralization movement

[@crusader2112]

They wanted a strong central (federal) aristocratic government.

[@KolchaksGhost]

Prior to the Constitution, the two factions were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Feds wanted a stronger, more federalized government while the Antis preferred the less centralized confederate government laid out in the Articles of Confederation

[@divinityofblackness6330]

I gotta say, you certainly surprised me with some of your picks! Not saying I'm overly disagreeing with you on anything (except you doing my boy Eisenhower dirty like that >:/ lol, jk jk)

[@MonsieurDean]

😁😁

[@divinityofblackness6330]

@@MonsieurDean I gotta say, while I agree with your take on Lyndon Johnson (it's amazing how more people don't see what you see!)...Barry Goldwater is still a hard sell. Granted, people paint this picture that he was against civil rights...which was not true...look at his voting history. He just had a problem with a FEW parts of the civil rights bill. I hate how partisan people make things 🙄 still not sure I can get on board the Goldwater train, tho 😅

[@theodorerobertscoffieldkoz9329]

You should do a video on the cultural regions of China

[@gunsgalore7571]

Just curious, what would have made you ineligible to vote at that time?

[@MonsieurDean]

Property ownership is required to vote.

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@MonsieurDean Ah okay.

[@XxZekeKnightxX]

Interesting concept. I find it difficult to come up with a list myself, since that'd require me taking several hours of research to make an informed decision on all 50+ elections. Also I was born and raised in Ohio, and I don't own property, so I wouldn't be able to vote until 1821, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to vote as a Ohioan until 1803 or if I used my current state of Indiana, 1816. What I can speak to is I'd be partial to the regionalism of the Jeffersonians and then later more so the Jacksonians. I'd be concerned about "a Britain on our own soil", and that'd influence how I vote. I would disagree with antagonizing Britain, but I'd prefer that over becoming the very thing we broke away from. Midwesterners might also influence how I vote, but since I have an "immigrant" background, I'd probably be alienated by nativist candidates as well. I use "immigrant" in this case being "not Anglo-American", my family was largely Czech/Bohemian in origin. I don't know how Czechs were perceived in the States historically, but I would imagine they were given the German treatment, since they rode in with the German immigration wave (even coming from Bremen, Germany). As far as foreign policy, I'd think after 1914, it would be pointless to be isolationist, especially if we were supplying one side or the other. Isolationism would be dead by 1941, even if it antagonized our enemies, I'd support being active globally. I'd be concerned if we didn't, we'd embolden our enemies to act across the world themselves, the effects of which would eventually get to us sooner or later. I don't think leaving the initiative to our enemies is a good idea, but if they're pacified we can be more effective at home since wouldn't have external factors causing chaos. It's definitely a balancing act of dealing with issues at home and dealing with enemies abroad. I accept that both are important, I simply feel that our state and local leaders should be empowered to help at home while the Commander in Chief focused on external threats. ...These are just my opinions. I wish we could go back to a time where we didn't have an ideological struggle fracturing the nation, and instead we just had different groups that love our country and adhere to its founding principles, but have different ideas on how to achieve the same goals/interests we all should share as a nation.

[@isabellaereshki]

A lot of people liked that Goldwater guy I heard a lot of people growing up saying they wish Goldwater won

[@utopia4056]

"In our timeline" is crazy bro

[@calebpepper391]

Can you state where you got your information from on impressment during the war of 1812? I searched for that information and yet nothing. Except everything to the contrary about 15,000 American citizens being impressed into British military service. That's why I ask.

[@michaelbrady5878]

Donald Trump, a conservative? 😂

[@marceltelang7825]

Well, he is definitely not a liberal

[@BanjoTarado]

What else would he be?

[@PunishedKrab]

@@BanjoTaradoA strange man with interesting intentions

[@cherryappleproductions5822]

I’m sure this will be a nice and civil comment section

[@MonsieurDean]

It mostly is.

[@cherryappleproductions5822]

@@MonsieurDean Let’s hope it continues that way. Why wouldn’t you be allowed to vote in New York for some time?

[@mst2082]

@@cherryappleproductions5822 property requirements

[@barongbc6994]

I love how federalists are totally the contrary to "federales" here in Uruguay and Argentina. Here they loved Jefferson and wanted a system similar to the USA but from south america (specially Uruguay and Argentina, sometimes Paraguay)

[@randomguy6152]

What if Crassus conquered Persia with his original heir Publius, and lead his sphere in the east alongside his sons Publius "Parthicus" and Crassus

[@Frazier16]

Can you take the 12 vaules test? It would be interesting

[@crusader2112]

And RightValues too.

[@MasterWooten]

40:55 Whaaa??? How can you vote Goldwater in 64 and NOT Reagan, the guy who came to prominence on the Goldwater campaign in 1980?? Reagan' win in 1980 was Goldwater's 1964 win only it took 16 years to count all the votes!😆

[@sully553]

Imagine voting for FDR three times.

[@brandonneumann5294]

Sometimes you just gotta ride the wave

[@HarryWHill-GA]

Only two presidents have headed one of the other branches of government. James Know Polk was Speaker of the House. William Howard Taft was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[@MarksofDistinction]

Thanks for having the balls to come out and support trump so many KZbinrs are afraid to voice their real choice because of backlash thank you

[@tide7321]

@@CloakedZeus6547tf

[@Argonhubert]

@@CloakedZeus6547wut?

[@DivaaGaming]

I'm glad he said it but I highly disagree with him

[@BadringerGronger]

Very entertaining to watch, don’t 100% agree with your politics (I’m from the left) but still a very interesting video idea, and you’re not annoying with your about political beliefs like with most people nowadays.

[@user-sbs2012]

Bro I got a ad with Donald Trump before this video and then the video starts with Donald Trump💀💀

[@davidwalker891]

Question. Do you think Dewey would have fired McArthur or backed down?

[@theacroway2056]

I’ll start with 1924. 1924 Coolidge 1928 Hoover 1932 Roosevelt 1936 Roosevelt 1940 Roosevelt 1944 Roosevelt 1948 Dewey 1952 Eisenhower 1956 Eisenhower 1960 Kennedy 1964 Johnson 1968 Humphrey 1972 Nixon 1976 Carter 1980 Reagan 1984 Mondale 1988 Bush 1992 Perot 1996 Perot 2000 Bush 2004 Kerry 2008 Obama 2012 Romney 2016 Gary Johnson 2020 Neither 2024 Neither

[@theacroway2056]

1964 is now Goldwater.

[@BanjoTarado]

Me: 1924 Coolidge 1928 Hoover 1932, 36, 40 and 44: Roosevelt 1948: Dewey 1952: Eisenhower 1956: Eisenhower 1960: Nixon 1964: Johnson 1968 and 72: Nixon 1976: None 1980 and 84: Reagan 1988: Bush 1992: Clinton 1996: Perot 2000 and 04: Bush 2008: McCain 2012: Obama 2016: Trump 2020 and 24: None

[@itriedtochangemynamebutitd5019]

The worst thing about Reagan is that he is a major cause of America's debt crisis. Our debt exploded under his presidency and it has not stopped exploded. From post WW2 to Reagan era we had a gdp that floated most around 40% to gdp, while today are debt to gdp is around 129%.

[@joshlongmusic]

Reaganomics came after a decade of stagflation.

[@itriedtochangemynamebutitd5019]

@@joshlongmusic Ah the classic noeliberal "economy do gooder because line go up" argument. As if high inflation, recessions every 5 years, rotting of the middle class, trillions of dollars in debt, is all worth it so the gdp can grow by 2-4% every year.

[@night6724]

The spending was due to New Deal Great Society policies. Reagan also had to deal with a democratic congress for much of his presidency. Reagan economy was roughly 5-6% growth. And under Reagan the middle class increased by 89% and lower class 130%. But sure it is "rotting" which in reality most in the middle class are now becoming upper class as the "lower class" are also getting wealthier. America does not nor ever had a sanitary middle class. Middle class in america is a transitory phase. Also Trump also contributed a lot to the debt

[@itriedtochangemynamebutitd5019]

@@night6724 Reagan set the precedent for massive government spending. Our country never had a debt crisis aside for the founding of the nation for hundreds of years. Not even after the Civil War. Every president had some opposition of another party of some kind. Ever since his presidency and after him the federal government has hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars in deficits per year which has harmed the county severely. Slower economic growth would have been much more sustainable and better solutions to solve it then Reagans policies.

[@night6724]

@@itriedtochangemynamebutitd5019 No that was FDR who began massive govenrment spending during peace. But reagan never had the House. Moreover the GOP was still the New Deal Lite Party. They were still the party of welfare spending. Nixon spent far more as a percentage of the gdp than Reagan.

[@j158]

Real talk here - I wish they could have made Polk immortal and he was still president

[@MonsieurDean]

He would have only wanted to serve 1 term.

[@julian9898]

why wouldn't you have been able to vote until 1821?

[@neuf1720]

Probably due to debt free land ownership or something.

[@Lukdnuke_Narson]

Neat

[@aaronparks856]

Would’ve voted for Clinton twice

[@christhehylian6825]

Had me scratching my head at Andrew Jackson, had me bewildered at Richard Nixon, and lost me at Donald Trump. 😅

[@JB-bb1bh]

Damn bro just said: Fuck it, im doing cocaine untill trump😅

[@MonsieurDean]

Maybe Romney

[@crusader2112]

When it comes to Federalism vs Anti-Federalism I’m conflicted. I like the regionalism of the Anti-Federalists but I’m sympathetic to the elite theory of government/society of the Federalists. This is a great video. Hope for more like it. 👍 Maybe you could make a tier-list for Presidents and then Governors in U.S. History. P.S. A great book on Andrew Jackson is “In Defense of Andrew Jackson by Bradley Birzer”. When it comes to Wilson, he may said he was neutral, but America was anything but. We sent massive amounts of money to Britain and France. That’s not neutrality.

[@horacioelconserjeopina3956]

Exactly. I like the federalists emphasize on conservatism, aristocracy, anti dogmatic democracy and elitist. But I also love decentralization, rural values, agrarianism, militias and yeoman class. It's hard really. With the rise of tech, ai and centralization of a progressive totalitarian state, I think we should bring back Jeffersonian yeoman values. Decentralize the states and create local communities

[@crusader2112]

@@horacioelconserjeopina3956 Well said. 👍