Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2015, 04:50:20 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Best candidate losing party could nominate since 1948
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Best candidate losing party could nominate since 1948  (Read 476 times)
Computer09
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« on: May 23, 2015, 09:49:46 pm »
Ignore

It can be anyboy from that time period, they didnt have to declare

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair
1952: Stevenson                , OTL result
1956: LBJ
                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses
1960: Mark Hatfield          , Does better in debate wins popular vote and wins in a nailbiter
1964: Nelson Rockerfeller
        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly
1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done
1972: Edward Muskie
              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide
1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter
1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively
1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides
1988: Mario Cuomo
                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter
1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey
1996: Colin Powell
                , Makes it really really close but still loses
2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins
2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year
2012: Chris Christe
         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter
Logged

JOHN KASICH 2016

Economic Score: 0.5
Social: -0.1
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1953
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2015, 11:59:39 pm »
Ignore

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair

I tend to agree.

1952: Stevenson                , OTL result

Maybe.

1956: LBJ[/color]                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses

No. LBJ had no appeal in New England until his civil rights legislation and the Great Society.

1964: Nelson Rockerfeller[/color]        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly

Agree with New England, but not the West. In fact, Rockefeller was the worst choice for the West besides Goldwater.

1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done

Probably.

1972: Edward Muskie[/color]              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide

Agreed.

1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter

No. Ford was probably the best they had, actually.

1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively

I tend to agree.

1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides

I don't think it would be a landslide defeat. The Democrats biggest problem in 1984 is not trying.

1988: Mario Cuomo[/color]                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter

No idea. In retrospect, Bush would use the same tactics against Cuomo, but he'd be more likely to respond aggressively. How effective he does so I can't say.

1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey

Kemp was one of the worst candidates they could have run that year. He likely loses OTL Bush states.

1996: Colin Powell[/color]                , Makes it really really close but still loses

He may even win.

2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins

Democrats weren't really in a good position in 2000 because of Clinton, not Gore. He will take Missouri, though.

2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

Horrible choice in the midst of the Iraq debate. Expect low turnout an a larger Bush victory than OTL.

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year

I tend to agree.

2012: Chris Christe[/color]         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter

No. Besides his personal obnoxiousness, his record is as easy to attack as Romney's was.
Logged

Quote from:  Becoming Female
Suddenly, there was a loud boom. We looked out the window and saw a whole bunch of Death Eaters running into the castle! Umbridge screamed and dropped her teacup on the floor! Lucius burst into the office, along with Fenrir, Bellatrix and Ron.

"How COULD you!" Umbridge shrieked. "I thought we had a deal! We did a pinky swear, remember?"

"I had my fingers crossed behind my back," Lucius explained smugly.

"Damn the loopholes," yelled Umbridge!
L.D. Smith, Bay Area Conservadem
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3271
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2015, 12:00:09 am »
Ignore

1948: Robert Taft
1952: Estes Kefauver
1956: Estes Kefauver
1960: Barry Goldwater
1964: Nelson Rockefeller
1968: Still Humphrey
1972: Hubert Humphrey
1976: Ronald Reagan
1980: Ted Kennedy
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Lloyd Bentsen
1992: Bob Dole
1996: John McCain
2000: Still Al Gore
2004: Wesley Clark
2008: Still John McCain
2012: Still Romney
Logged

Political Matrix:
Economic: -6.97
Social: 2.09
Computer09
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2015, 12:33:31 am »
Ignore

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair

I tend to agree.

1952: Stevenson                , OTL result

Maybe.

1956: LBJ[/color]                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses

No. LBJ had no appeal in New England until his civil rights legislation and the Great Society.

1964: Nelson Rockerfeller[/color]        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly

Agree with New England, but not the West. In fact, Rockefeller was the worst choice for the West besides Goldwater.

1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done

Probably.

1972: Edward Muskie[/color]              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide

Agreed.

1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter

No. Ford was probably the best they had, actually.

1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively

I tend to agree.

1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides

I don't think it would be a landslide defeat. The Democrats biggest problem in 1984 is not trying.

1988: Mario Cuomo[/color]                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter

No idea. In retrospect, Bush would use the same tactics against Cuomo, but he'd be more likely to respond aggressively. How effective he does so I can't say.

1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey

Kemp was one of the worst candidates they could have run that year. He likely loses OTL Bush states.

1996: Colin Powell[/color]                , Makes it really really close but still loses

He may even win.

2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins

Democrats weren't really in a good position in 2000 because of Clinton, not Gore. He will take Missouri, though.

2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

Horrible choice in the midst of the Iraq debate. Expect low turnout an a larger Bush victory than OTL.

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year

I tend to agree.

2012: Chris Christe[/color]         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter

No. Besides his personal obnoxiousness, his record is as easy to attack as Romney's was.

How was Ford a better candidate then Reagan was, he was the Guy who pardoned Nixon and against Carter who wasnt popular in the Rock Mountains he would lose it no matter what, and in the West(Conservative at the time) Reagan was pretty popular so he sweeps that as well and his Conservatism would make inroads in the south and give him the win


And How was Clinton the problem in 2000 he was super popular, and had the longest period of Peace and Prosperity in our history, on track to pay of debt by 2010.
Logged

JOHN KASICH 2016

Economic Score: 0.5
Social: -0.1
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1953
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2015, 12:54:32 am »
Ignore

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair

I tend to agree.

1952: Stevenson                , OTL result

Maybe.

1956: LBJ[/color]                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses

No. LBJ had no appeal in New England until his civil rights legislation and the Great Society.

1964: Nelson Rockerfeller[/color]        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly

Agree with New England, but not the West. In fact, Rockefeller was the worst choice for the West besides Goldwater.

1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done

Probably.

1972: Edward Muskie[/color]              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide

Agreed.

1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter

No. Ford was probably the best they had, actually.

1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively

I tend to agree.

1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides

I don't think it would be a landslide defeat. The Democrats biggest problem in 1984 is not trying.

1988: Mario Cuomo[/color]                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter

No idea. In retrospect, Bush would use the same tactics against Cuomo, but he'd be more likely to respond aggressively. How effective he does so I can't say.

1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey

Kemp was one of the worst candidates they could have run that year. He likely loses OTL Bush states.

1996: Colin Powell[/color]                , Makes it really really close but still loses

He may even win.

2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins

Democrats weren't really in a good position in 2000 because of Clinton, not Gore. He will take Missouri, though.

2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

Horrible choice in the midst of the Iraq debate. Expect low turnout an a larger Bush victory than OTL.

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year

I tend to agree.

2012: Chris Christe[/color]         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter

No. Besides his personal obnoxiousness, his record is as easy to attack as Romney's was.

How was Ford a better candidate then Reagan was, he was the Guy who pardoned Nixon and against Carter who wasnt popular in the Rock Mountains he would lose it no matter what, and in the West(Conservative at the time) Reagan was pretty popular so he sweeps that as well and his Conservatism would make inroads in the south and give him the win


And How was Clinton the problem in 2000 he was super popular, and had the longest period of Peace and Prosperity in our history, on track to pay of debt by 2010.

Because Reagan throws the whole Midwest to Carter, only gains marginally down South, and will lose WA and OR as well. Ford pardoning Nixon was a dealbreaker, but Reagan's views were not popular with the electorate until the Carter years.

Despite his decent approval ratings, Clinton's favorability ratings as an individual were very low in 2000, which spilled over to the Democratic Party as a whole. Also, the whole Lewinsky incident convinced most Americans there was a moral crisis in the nation, as polling from the time repeatedly showed. Also, in 1996 52% of Americans had a negative view of the economy, yet Clinton won another term anyway.
Logged

Quote from:  Becoming Female
Suddenly, there was a loud boom. We looked out the window and saw a whole bunch of Death Eaters running into the castle! Umbridge screamed and dropped her teacup on the floor! Lucius burst into the office, along with Fenrir, Bellatrix and Ron.

"How COULD you!" Umbridge shrieked. "I thought we had a deal! We did a pinky swear, remember?"

"I had my fingers crossed behind my back," Lucius explained smugly.

"Damn the loopholes," yelled Umbridge!
DS0816
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1404
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 04:37:27 am »
Ignore

It can be anyboy from that time period, they didnt have to declare

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair
1952: Stevenson                , OTL result
1956: LBJ
                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses
1960: Mark Hatfield          , Does better in debate wins popular vote and wins in a nailbiter
1964: Nelson Rockerfeller
        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly
1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done
1972: Edward Muskie
              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide
1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter
1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively
1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides
1988: Mario Cuomo
                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter
1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey
1996: Colin Powell
                , Makes it really really close but still loses
2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins
2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year
2012: Chris Christe
         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter

I'm not commenting on all these election years.

But, for the hell of it, I'll cite a few:

1948: Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin)
1964: Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona)
1968: George Wallace (D-Alabama)
1972: Shirley Chisholm (D-New York)
1976: Nelson Rockefeller (R-New York)
1980: Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
1984: Jimmy Carter (D-Georgia)
1988: Jesse Jackson (D-Illinois)
1992: Pat Buchanan (R-Virginia)
1996: George H. W. Bush (R-Texas)
2004: Howard Dean (D-Vermont)
2008: Dick Cheney (R-Wyoming)
2012: Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania)
Logged
BaconBacon96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2313
Hungary


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2015, 05:42:13 am »
Ignore

2012: Huntsman
2008: McCain
2004: Clark or Dean
2000: Gore
1996: Powell
1992: Bush
1988: Cuomo
1984: Hart
1980: Kennedy
1976: Ford
1972: Muskie
1968: Kennedy
1964: Rockefeller
1960: Rockefeller
1956: Kefauver
1952: Kefauver
1948: Dewey
Logged

On Chris Christie-
He can eat his opponets and achieve a unified field.
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9020
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2015, 05:47:00 am »
Ignore

1948: Dwight Eisenhower
1952: Harry Truman, funnily enough
1956: Al Gore Sr.
1960: Nelson Rockefeller
1964: Nelson Rockefeller
1968: Lyndon Johnson
1972: Hubert Humphrey
1976: Howard Baker
1980: Hugh Carey
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Mario Cuomo
1992: Colin Powell
1996: Colin Powell
2000: Dick Gephardt
2004: Wesley Clark
2008: Mike Huckabee (alas)
2012: Chris Christie
Logged
OC
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11224
United States


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2015, 08:19:52 am »
Ignore

1968 Robert Kennedy doesnt get killed
1976 Gov Reagan
1980 Teddy Kennedy
1984 Jimmy Carter
1996 Phil Gramm or Pat Buchannan
2000 Dick Gephardt
2004 Wes Clark
2008 Mike Huckabee
2012 Herman Cain or Santorum
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 08:22:56 am by OC »Logged
Cryptic
Shadowlord88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 776


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2015, 08:59:51 am »
Ignore

1948: Dwight Eisenhower - Republicans would've returned to the White House four years earlier.
1952: Adlai Stevenson - I don't see any other Democrat doing better against Ike in '52.
1956: Lyndon Johnson - would've performed better than Stevenson that year, but still loses to the popular Ike.
1960: Nelson Rockefeller - probably would've narrowly beaten Kennedy, pulling more undecideds and independents than Nixon did historically.
1964: Nelson Rockefeller - would've performed better in the Northeast, but still loses. No Republican was going to beat Johnson in '64.
1968: Robert F. Kennedy - the myth of Camelot would've been a big help for the Democrats and he pulls out a win.
1972: Hubert Humphrey - would've performed better than McGovern, but still likely loses given Nixon's popularity at the time.
1976: Ronald Reagan - he isn't tied to the Nixon administration and he's a much better campaigner than his opponent.
1980: Ted Kennedy - rallies the base and performs better in the Northeast, but still loses due to the economy.
1984: Gary Hart - would've done better, but still loses given Regan's popularity.
1988: Mario Cuomo - performs better and could potentially win, if his campaign can handle the inevitable Atwater mudslinging.
1992: George H.W. Bush - the sitting President was the best they could've realistically run that year. Between the excellent campaigning of Clinton and the strong candidacy of Perot, Republican victory in '92 was unlikely.
1996: Colin Powell - popular general and the prospect of the first black President would've been the GOP's best shot against popular incumbent Clinton.
2000: Al Gore - the sitting Vice President is still the best choice, despite losing historically. It's easy to imagine any number of different decisions handing him victory.
2004: Wesley Clark - a former general with real military experience would've been the best angle to attack Bush.
2008: John McCain - honestly was the best pick for the GOP in '08. I don't see Romney or Huckabee doing any better once the recession started.
2012: John Huntsman - doesn't pander to the Tea Party and pulls more moderates and undecideds as a result.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2015, 09:03:37 am by Cryptic »Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9983
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2015, 10:47:45 am »
Ignore

1948: Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin)
1964: Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona)
1968: George Wallace (D-Alabama)
1972: Shirley Chisholm (D-New York)
1976: Nelson Rockefeller (R-New York)
1980: Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
1984: Jimmy Carter (D-Georgia)
1988: Jesse Jackson (D-Illinois)
1992: Pat Buchanan (R-Virginia)
1996: George H. W. Bush (R-Texas)
2004: Howard Dean (D-Vermont)
2008: Dick Cheney (R-Wyoming)
2012: Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania)

Are you trying to pick the worst ones for each election or something?
Logged

Computer09
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2015, 12:28:14 pm »
Ignore

1948: Dwight Eisenhower
1952: Harry Truman, funnily enough
1956: Al Gore Sr.
1960: Nelson Rockefeller
1964: Nelson Rockefeller
1968: Lyndon Johnson
1972: Hubert Humphrey
1976: Howard Baker
1980: Hugh Carey
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Mario Cuomo
1992: Colin Powell
1996: Colin Powell
2000: Dick Gephardt
2004: Wesley Clark
2008: Mike Huckabee (alas)
2012: Chris Christie


LBJ in 1968 lol was nearly as unpopular as Carter in 1980 and W Bush in 2008
Logged

JOHN KASICH 2016

Economic Score: 0.5
Social: -0.1
Polls_PuffPass
ssuperflash
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2141


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -5.22

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2015, 12:33:18 pm »
Ignore

Uh, if the Democrats nominated George Wallace in 1968, they may as well have kissed the black vote good bye for a generation. They would win the South, but the map would have looked like this:



That actually might be a bit generous to Wallace. Texas might have actually gone for Nixon, along with Tennessee.

I don't think you realize how unpopular he was then.
Logged
tb78
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4782
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2015, 03:15:14 pm »
Ignore

1948- Eisenhower. He wouldn't have been such an idiot and actually campaigned for the office he would have won in a good margin.

1952- Kefauver. Stevenson was both bland as could be and very pastoral. His refusal to properly use TV advertising cost him tremendously both years especialy in '52.

1956-Kefauver. Same as '52 but Stevenson ran a horrible campaign that year. 1956 as a whole had the worst TV ads out of any election.

1960-Nixon. He was the heir apparent that year and had the necessary amount of experience.  His only real mistakes were the debates and the injury that sidelined him. Minus those and he probably would have won.

1964- Rockefeller. The GOP was dead in the water that year but compared to who else was in contention Nelson was the only real electable choice. He would have done well in the NE and liberal leaning states but the south wouldn't have went so solid. See someone either take the unplugged delegates or a third party runs.

1968- HHH. None of the other Dems that year could have applied to the center as much as HHH did. RFK while epic and awesome was too liberal for the south and McCarthy was the youth/trendy pick but regular joes weren't fond of him. The south would have ran from RFK because of his racial appeal and McCarthy wasn't nothing but an objection pick to LBJ that the hippies loved. HHH was the closest to solid but had so much against him that year it would have been near impossible for almost every other candidate to make it but he somehow almost did.

1972- HHH again. No one would have beaten Tricky Dick that year but HHH would have made it respectable. Muskie fell apart, Wallace got shot, McGovern wasn't a viable national candidate in hindsight. He just played the primary game like he developed it with the commission and got the nom when he didn't really deserve it.

1976-Ford. Reagan may have been the better speaker and campaigner but in hindsight his ideas and plans wouldn't have appealed to moderates or indys. Ford appealed to both of those better and was a much solid nationwide candidate. Yes Reagan would have done better in the south but he still wouldn't have beaten Carter in his home region. See either Reagan closely winning or epically loosing if he got the nom. Reagan was still an extremist at this point and the times weren't bad enough for an extremist to win. 4 years later it was.

1980-Kennedy. The Dems biggest problem in 1980 besides Carter's problems were their inability to come together fully after the primary. Kennedy was awkward and to a point sore when he had to shake Carter's hand during their moment together. Like David Brinkley said "this is slightly awkward," well there was nothing slight about it, Kennedy hated bowing to Carter and a majority of the convention audience did too.  If Kennedy wouldn't have had that interview with Roger Mudd and full on went after the nom he would have gotten it.  He would gave a great acceptance speech and boosted the poll #'s from Anderson back to him.  But could he have won? Possibly. He would have had to unite the Dems but at the same time keep separate from Carter. That would be the main key due to how bad the conditions were. He would have either won in a nail-bitter, lost in a close one or lost respectably. He wouldn't have been landslided lie Carter was that's for sure.

1984-Gary Hart. No one would have beat Ronnie in '84, things were getting stable and solid again, to want the nomination for the Dems was like having a Death Wish. Mondale made it worse in two ways: 1. Being Carter's VP he repsented Carter's years and no one wanted that again, 2. By being too honest and outspoken about raising tax rates, that killed him like with McCain's "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" gaffe in 08.  Mondale was DOA by 12:00 AM on Election day and everyone new it. Hart could have done a ton better. He still wouldn't have won but he would have done respectable enough to re-energize the Dems. He was both younger and more center based than Mondale was plus he didn't have no baggage. I can see him winning a few more liberal states but Ronnie would still get a comfortable win.

1988- Bentsen or Clinton

Dukakis was the worst possible choice the Dems could have made in '88. Not only was he bland as hell but he wasn't inspiring at all plus he appealed to the liberals too much instead of the center. He gave up an easy win by being so un-remarkable.  His best choice was choosing Bentsen as VP but in hindsight he should have been the nominee. He had higher approval ratings and won people over after powning Quayle. Clinton could have also won the nom if he went for it but could he have won? That would have been in interesting. While times were good Bushie was very beatable.

1992-Bush. The Reps to quote Vince McMahon "Had no chance in hell," to win that year up against Billy Boy and Perot. Only other person that had a chance to win the nom was Buchanan but he had no shot besides the extremists. If he had gotten the nom Perot would have possibly finished second. There was no need to unseat Bush.

1996-Powell. He wouldn't have won unless economic and overall conditions flat out deteriorated. Clinton had it in the bag by the end of 95. Powell would have done a much better job than Dole (because let's face it none of the candidates for the Reps in the primary were awesome,) but unless he had help with conditions Billy would have won.

2000- Gore.  Really to be honest to select anyone else over a VP of a successful President who wanted the nom would be a terrible sign of party unity. Gephart would have been the next best choice if Al didn't want it but he did so he was the right pick. His campaign and strategy is what needed to be changed. No way in hell a successful VP behind a popular President should have lost in the right conditions.

2004-  Wesley Clark or Edwards

John Kerry was a modern Mike Dukakis but with a better campaign. He wasn't as motivating either and flip flopped way to much to appeal to people. He wasn't the epic standard bearer the Dems needed to unseat Dubya but to be fair none of the dems were in 04. Clark represents the best choice the Dems would have to appeal more to the center plus being a bad-a General is the closest the Dems have ever come to having an Ike of their own. The Dems would have ate that up especially in the Iraq war era. Edwards would be a good pick if they had a desire for another Clinton/Kennedy esque candidate. However his senatorial record would have been his downfall. I could see Clark beating Bush if he hammered him hard enough over the War and domestic issues.

2008- McCain

He was the best choice that year but with the domestic conditions that were settled by Septemeber none of the Reps would have won. If he ran a better campaign (ie No Palin/better staff,) he would have done much more respectable on Election day.

2012- Christie or Huckabee.

Romney was a cliched modern Republican candidate that year, he couldn't overcome that and his vanity with the 47% comment. Along with being not consistent that was it for him. Christie would have been a great Republican moderate. He had no scandals then and was a major hit in NJ, people loved him. He could have been a Jimmy Carter esque candidate but not so totally unknown or terrible. Huckabee could have been a solid pick too if he ran again but he was more right than what the Reps wanted so he would have had to compromise on some things.

Christie I could see winning Huckabee I can see doing a little better than Romney.
Logged
Computer09
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 525


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2015, 04:04:28 pm »
Ignore

1948- Eisenhower. He wouldn't have been such an idiot and actually campaigned for the office he would have won in a good margin.

1952- Kefauver. Stevenson was both bland as could be and very pastoral. His refusal to properly use TV advertising cost him tremendously both years especialy in '52.

1956-Kefauver. Same as '52 but Stevenson ran a horrible campaign that year. 1956 as a whole had the worst TV ads out of any election.

1960-Nixon. He was the heir apparent that year and had the necessary amount of experience.  His only real mistakes were the debates and the injury that sidelined him. Minus those and he probably would have won.

1964- Rockefeller. The GOP was dead in the water that year but compared to who else was in contention Nelson was the only real electable choice. He would have done well in the NE and liberal leaning states but the south wouldn't have went so solid. See someone either take the unplugged delegates or a third party runs.

1968- HHH. None of the other Dems that year could have applied to the center as much as HHH did. RFK while epic and awesome was too liberal for the south and McCarthy was the youth/trendy pick but regular joes weren't fond of him. The south would have ran from RFK because of his racial appeal and McCarthy wasn't nothing but an objection pick to LBJ that the hippies loved. HHH was the closest to solid but had so much against him that year it would have been near impossible for almost every other candidate to make it but he somehow almost did.

1972- HHH again. No one would have beaten Tricky Dick that year but HHH would have made it respectable. Muskie fell apart, Wallace got shot, McGovern wasn't a viable national candidate in hindsight. He just played the primary game like he developed it with the commission and got the nom when he didn't really deserve it.

1976-Ford. Reagan may have been the better speaker and campaigner but in hindsight his ideas and plans wouldn't have appealed to moderates or indys. Ford appealed to both of those better and was a much solid nationwide candidate. Yes Reagan would have done better in the south but he still wouldn't have beaten Carter in his home region. See either Reagan closely winning or epically loosing if he got the nom. Reagan was still an extremist at this point and the times weren't bad enough for an extremist to win. 4 years later it was.

1980-Kennedy. The Dems biggest problem in 1980 besides Carter's problems were their inability to come together fully after the primary. Kennedy was awkward and to a point sore when he had to shake Carter's hand during their moment together. Like David Brinkley said "this is slightly awkward," well there was nothing slight about it, Kennedy hated bowing to Carter and a majority of the convention audience did too.  If Kennedy wouldn't have had that interview with Roger Mudd and full on went after the nom he would have gotten it.  He would gave a great acceptance speech and boosted the poll #'s from Anderson back to him.  But could he have won? Possibly. He would have had to unite the Dems but at the same time keep separate from Carter. That would be the main key due to how bad the conditions were. He would have either won in a nail-bitter, lost in a close one or lost respectably. He wouldn't have been landslided lie Carter was that's for sure.

1984-Gary Hart. No one would have beat Ronnie in '84, things were getting stable and solid again, to want the nomination for the Dems was like having a Death Wish. Mondale made it worse in two ways: 1. Being Carter's VP he repsented Carter's years and no one wanted that again, 2. By being too honest and outspoken about raising tax rates, that killed him like with McCain's "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" gaffe in 08.  Mondale was DOA by 12:00 AM on Election day and everyone new it. Hart could have done a ton better. He still wouldn't have won but he would have done respectable enough to re-energize the Dems. He was both younger and more center based than Mondale was plus he didn't have no baggage. I can see him winning a few more liberal states but Ronnie would still get a comfortable win.

1988- Bentsen or Clinton

Dukakis was the worst possible choice the Dems could have made in '88. Not only was he bland as hell but he wasn't inspiring at all plus he appealed to the liberals too much instead of the center. He gave up an easy win by being so un-remarkable.  His best choice was choosing Bentsen as VP but in hindsight he should have been the nominee. He had higher approval ratings and won people over after powning Quayle. Clinton could have also won the nom if he went for it but could he have won? That would have been in interesting. While times were good Bushie was very beatable.

1992-Bush. The Reps to quote Vince McMahon "Had no chance in hell," to win that year up against Billy Boy and Perot. Only other person that had a chance to win the nom was Buchanan but he had no shot besides the extremists. If he had gotten the nom Perot would have possibly finished second. There was no need to unseat Bush.

1996-Powell. He wouldn't have won unless economic and overall conditions flat out deteriorated. Clinton had it in the bag by the end of 95. Powell would have done a much better job than Dole (because let's face it none of the candidates for the Reps in the primary were awesome,) but unless he had help with conditions Billy would have won.

2000- Gore.  Really to be honest to select anyone else over a VP of a successful President who wanted the nom would be a terrible sign of party unity. Gephart would have been the next best choice if Al didn't want it but he did so he was the right pick. His campaign and strategy is what needed to be changed. No way in hell a successful VP behind a popular President should have lost in the right conditions.

2004-  Wesley Clark or Edwards

John Kerry was a modern Mike Dukakis but with a better campaign. He wasn't as motivating either and flip flopped way to much to appeal to people. He wasn't the epic standard bearer the Dems needed to unseat Dubya but to be fair none of the dems were in 04. Clark represents the best choice the Dems would have to appeal more to the center plus being a bad-a General is the closest the Dems have ever come to having an Ike of their own. The Dems would have ate that up especially in the Iraq war era. Edwards would be a good pick if they had a desire for another Clinton/Kennedy esque candidate. However his senatorial record would have been his downfall. I could see Clark beating Bush if he hammered him hard enough over the War and domestic issues.

2008- McCain

He was the best choice that year but with the domestic conditions that were settled by Septemeber none of the Reps would have won. If he ran a better campaign (ie No Palin/better staff,) he would have done much more respectable on Election day.

2012- Christie or Huckabee.

Romney was a cliched modern Republican candidate that year, he couldn't overcome that and his vanity with the 47% comment. Along with being not consistent that was it for him. Christie would have been a great Republican moderate. He had no scandals then and was a major hit in NJ, people loved him. He could have been a Jimmy Carter esque candidate but not so totally unknown or terrible. Huckabee could have been a solid pick too if he ran again but he was more right than what the Reps wanted so he would have had to compromise on some things.

Christie I could see winning Huckabee I can see doing a little better than Romney.


1980 Kennedy vs Reagan would likely end up with this reuslt



Reagan 428   53%
Kennedy 110  45%
Anderson 0     2%
Kennedy would do better in New England, Worse in the South,

Kennedy best time to run was 1976

Logged

JOHN KASICH 2016

Economic Score: 0.5
Social: -0.1
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1953
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2015, 04:21:07 pm »
Ignore

This "anybody but Kerry" idea is a mistake. Kerry was from the start the best candidate that Democrats ran that polled against Bush in hypothetical pairings (and the only candidate to lead Bush in CA, WI, PA and IL during 2003). He came only one state from the White House, was favored by voters on every domestic issue, and lost the popular vote by only a point and a half.
Logged

Quote from:  Becoming Female
Suddenly, there was a loud boom. We looked out the window and saw a whole bunch of Death Eaters running into the castle! Umbridge screamed and dropped her teacup on the floor! Lucius burst into the office, along with Fenrir, Bellatrix and Ron.

"How COULD you!" Umbridge shrieked. "I thought we had a deal! We did a pinky swear, remember?"

"I had my fingers crossed behind my back," Lucius explained smugly.

"Damn the loopholes," yelled Umbridge!
Polls_PuffPass
ssuperflash
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2141


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -5.22

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2015, 04:24:00 pm »
Ignore

This "anybody but Kerry" idea is a mistake. Kerry was from the start the best candidate that Democrats ran that polled against Bush in hypothetical pairings (and the only candidate to lead Bush in CA, WI, PA and IL during 2003). He came only one state from the White House, was favored by voters on every domestic issue, and lost the popular vote by only a point and a half.
2 points and a half
Logged
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1953
United States


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2015, 04:29:10 pm »
Ignore

This "anybody but Kerry" idea is a mistake. Kerry was from the start the best candidate that Democrats ran that polled against Bush in hypothetical pairings (and the only candidate to lead Bush in CA, WI, PA and IL during 2003). He came only one state from the White House, was favored by voters on every domestic issue, and lost the popular vote by only a point and a half.
2 points and a half

Correct, I was going by false memory. But I maintain my overall point.
Logged

Quote from:  Becoming Female
Suddenly, there was a loud boom. We looked out the window and saw a whole bunch of Death Eaters running into the castle! Umbridge screamed and dropped her teacup on the floor! Lucius burst into the office, along with Fenrir, Bellatrix and Ron.

"How COULD you!" Umbridge shrieked. "I thought we had a deal! We did a pinky swear, remember?"

"I had my fingers crossed behind my back," Lucius explained smugly.

"Damn the loopholes," yelled Umbridge!
vivaportugalhabs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 383
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -0.52

P P P
View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2015, 10:52:05 pm »
Ignore

1948: Earl Warren-Might have squeaked a win off against Truman with a stronger performance during the campaign than Dewey put up.
1952: Estes Kefauver-Still would have lost, but by less
1956: Estes Kefauver-Same as above
1960: Nelson Rockefeller-Could have eked out a win through a few states (NJ,DE,IL)
1964: Nelson Rockefeller-Anybody could do better than Goldwater
1968: Robert F. Kennedy (Not sure if this counts or not, but yeah...)-Not only would he benefit from the name, but RFK was a great orator and a good politician. Could have beat Nixon in IL, OH, etc
1972: Harold Hughes-'72 was going to be tough for Dems either way. Hughes kinda straddled liberalism and moderation in a way that probably would have helped him. Had the candidate been Scoop Jackson or Hubert Humphrey, we might have seen a left wing insurgency.
1976: Ronald Reagan-Reagan and Carter would have made for a heck of a battle. It would be close.
1980: Ted Kennedy-I think Kennedy could have possibly beat Reagan if everything went right, but for sure he would have held him to a closer margin. Ted would win NY, MA, PA, ME, WI, MI, and some more states if he did well.
1984: Gary Hart-Beating Reagan would have been an uphill battle, and I'm honestly not sure how well Hart would have done but it would have been better than Mondale. He was definitely more charismatic.
1988: Mario Cuomo-I think Dukakis' wishy washy stances really hurt him. Cuomo was a brilliant guy with a lot of appeal. I could see a path to victory for Cuomo.
1992: George HW Bush-I don't see any other viable option here. The incumbent wasn't a particularly bad candidate; he just got screwed by Perot.
1996: Colin Powell-Powell was the uber-candidate. Great crossover appeal, awesome record, popular, etc. I could see Powell beating Clinton.
2000: Al Gore-I don't think Democrats had much of a candidate in 2000 to turn to aside from the VP. Bradley sure as heck couldn't have done better.
2004: Wes Clark-Clark's solid military background and blue collar Southern roots would beat out Kerry's flip flopping and his 'blue-blooded New Englander' perception. I think Clark could have given Bush a run for his money, and if he played his cards right in terms of VP pick and campaigning, he could have defeated Bush.
2008: John McCain-I think Obama has 2008 in the bag no matter who the candidate is. McCain was experienced and probably as close as the GOP was going to get to fielding a good candidate that year. Yeesh, imagine Romney amidst the economic collapse...
2012: Jon Huntsman-Huntsman would NEVER have made it through the primary, but he would be a tough opponent for Obama. His experience and moderate track record would serve him well with the public, and I could see him beating Obama in some of the key swing states like Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa.
Logged

Governor Flo
Flo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.30, S: -5.40

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Today at 12:02:06 am »
Ignore

1948: Dwight Eisenhower
1952: Estes Kefauver
1956: Estes Kefauver
1960: Richard Nixon
1964: Nelson Rockefeller
1968: Robert F. Kennedy (probably would've been remembered as one of the greats if he had not been assassinated)
1972: Edmund Muskie
1976: Ronald Reagan
1980: Frank Church
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Andrew Cuomo
1992: George H.W. Bush
1996: Colin Powell
2000: Al Gore
2004: Howard Dean
2008: John McCain
2012: John Thune
Logged

I would like to see the pharmaceutical over charge American people
Senator Blair
Blair2015
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 856
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Today at 07:38:42 am »
Ignore

Just want to argue two points

Robert Kennedy wouldn't of been seen as 'too radical' or basically too black for the whole south. Sure you'd get southerners who'd oppose him but Kennedy is going to do better than HHH-look at the Indiana Primary in 1968-Kennedy won counties that not only had a high KKK presence but that Wallace was able to win in high numbers in 1964. Basically the Kennedy magic, his relatively tough law and order stance (look at his menace of violence speech)

Likewise Wes Clarke was an awful candidate, literally a man on a white horse. Generals in politics very rarely work (Ike was the exception not the rule) He didn't have a view on the Iraq War, he didn't have any political experience and he wasn't a good campaigner 
Logged
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1168
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Today at 03:54:10 pm »
Ignore

It can be anyboy from that time period, they didnt have to declare

1948: Robert Taft    , Probably lose by a hair
1952: Stevenson                , OTL result
1956: LBJ
                                ,  LBJ does better in New England, and South but loses
1960: Mark Hatfield          , Does better in debate wins popular vote and wins in a nailbiter
1964: Nelson Rockerfeller
        ,  Does better in North East, West, still loses decisivly
1968: Hubert Humprhey   , He did better then any democrat should have done
1972: Edward Muskie
              , Does better everywhere but doesnt lose in landslide
1976: Ronald Reagan, Dees better in South, worse in NE but wins in a nailbiter
1980: Ted Kennedy              , does better in NE but loses decisively
1984: Gary Hart                                 , Does better in Midwest but still loses in landslides
1988: Mario Cuomo
                 , Does better in NE and California but loses in nailbiter
1992: Jack Kemp            , Loses like George HW Bush but wins Ohio,Georgia, New Jersey
1996: Colin Powell
                , Makes it really really close but still loses
2000: Dick Gephardt    ,  Takes our Bush in Missouri and Florida and wins
2004: Joe Liberman                     , Takes bush out in Ohio, and wins the election

2008: John McCain   , Gop should not have won more then 150 electoral votes this year
2012: Chris Christe
         , Beats Obama by a nailbiter

No way Gerpardt win FL in 2000. Gore made it close with his strong Israel support from the 1980s and Leiberman on the ticket. Also am doubtful that a guy who never ran statewide in MO carriers the state.
Logged
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1168
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Today at 03:56:29 pm »
Ignore

No way Kennedy carries NH, ME and VT in 1980,. Those states where among the most GOP states still in 1980
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines