Who was the most "electable" candidate for both parties, by year?

[tpfkaw]

Including only those who won 2nd place or higher in a non-beauty contest primary or caucus before the winner secured a majority of delegates, or who received at least 10% of the delegate votes at the convention.

2012: R: ...Romney.  He had a real shot, and I honestly can't see that happening with Gingrich, Santorum, or, God love him, Paul.

2008: R: The Huck.  McCain and Giuliani (not eligible by my criteria anyway) did look better on paper, but as we all know were utter train wrecks who had campaigns run by morons.  Most importantly, Huckabee is so brilliant a politician that he doesn't even seem like a politician.  He can pull off aggressive populism, compassion, and an air of reasonableness all at the same time - much like Obama, in fact, but possibly more so.  He could not be put in a box as hard-right on economics since he governed to the center-left in Arkansas.  Most importantly, he was the only significant non-Paul member of that year's field from either party to oppose TARP, which would have given him a major edge relative to McCain heading into election day.

D: ...Obama.  Why?  Well, for one, he actually won, which is a plus.  Secondly, and this may be hard to remember since it was so long ago, but once upon a time 5-6 years ago Hillary Clinton was the incredibly unpopular left-wing harpy, she of HillaryCare and "vast right wing conspiracy" and Whitewater and cattle futures and bizarre suicides, etc. etc.  Polls had her competitive with or behind Giuliani and McCain in states like Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington.  Her campaign was insisting in conference calls with reporters that they could get to 270 votes without Michigan (where they were behind by double digits in polls).  And the long, drawn-out primary was only making things worse, by the end of it she was doing about 10 points worse than Obama in general election polling (not that she ever did better than him).  Would blacks have turned out in wide numbers to support a candidate who described herself in a national interview as the only candidate for "hard-working white Americans," who spent about a two-week period referring to him only as "Barack Hussein Obama," whose husband claimed that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too," who trotted out Geraldine Ferraro to claim that "he wouldn't be in this position if he wasn't a black man," whose supporters created the "Obama was born in Kenya" and "Obama is a Muslim" rumors (as well as some which didn't catch on, like "Obama did coke in the back of a limo with a rent boy")?  I think not.

2004: D: Wesley Clark.  Yes, he was a better candidate on paper than in real life.  But so was the rest of the field, and he was the best on paper.  He would also be far better insulated from the gay marriage backlash than Kerry (from Massachusetts) or Dean (signed nation's first civil unions law, from Vermont which is next to Massachusetts).

2000: D: Algore.  I'm super-cereal about this.

R: Cop-out, but difficult to tell.  Again, Bush won, albeit rather indecisively.  McCain ran a somewhat inept campaign that emphasized style over substance much more than Bush's, and, unlike Bush's act, he actually is something of a dim bulb by presidential candidate standards.  Then again, he wouldn't have had any eleventh-hour scandals.

1996: R: Buchanan.  Yes, Buchanan.  Buchanan may well have prevented Perot from running again (or peeled off nearly all of his right-leaning supporters, anyhow).  He knows how to give a humdinger of a speech and can outdebate just about anyone.  He would've likely received the Teamster endorsement and possibly other labor unions as well.  Yes, I'd agree that even factoring in the above factors he'd probably do worse than Dole.  But I can at least see a path to victory for him, which is more than I can say for Dole or Forbes.

1992: R: Buchanan.  See above.

1988: R: H.W.  Robertson and Dole were both gaffe machines and would've had a much harder time running on the Reagan legacy.
D: Algore.  A rather uninspiring group, so much so that Algore was probably indeed the best choice.

1984: D: Hart.  You can't really do worse than Mondale, can you?  That beef isn't served on Monkey Business is besides the point.

More to come later.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nice thread. Look forward to your insights on earlier years.

[tpfkaw]

I realized I forgot one!

1992: D: Clinton.  Again, I defer to my "the devil you know" bias, since he won (albeit by a lower-than-expected margin).  Tsongas looked like a better candidate on paper but I'm really uncertain if he was as skilled a politician as Slick Willie.  Moonbeam is just a bit too far out-there.

1980: D: Hmm...  Carter was in severe trouble, but he did manage to keep it close for a long time.  I suspect that Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy would do even worse.  Perhaps if the Iran hostage rescue went differently things would be different.

R: Whew!  We have Reagan, H.W., John Anderson, Howard Baker, and John Connally to choose from.  What we can say for certain is that Reagan did win, and decisively, although the polls were close for most of the campaign.  I know it's an inaccurate cliche, but this might be one of the few elections where voters would actually prefer a candidate offering a stark contrast.  People were sick of Jimmy Carter by November 1980, but if they believed that the alternative was just more of the same, they might well have stuck by their incumbent.  More saliently, Reagan was probably among the most skilled politicians ever to have lived, and his opposition was not.  A common feature of losing Republican campaigns, especially when the candidate is from the moderate wing, is to create a succession of bizarre gimmicks, one after the other.  Think of the losing campaigns of 2012, 2008, 1996, 1992, 1976, 1960, and 1932-1948.  In each one, the GOP loser was unable to restrain himself from spending the entire election campaigning on oddball gimmicks that left voters confused at best.  I suspect that the moderates of 1980 would've had an especially hard time not coming up with gimmicks to respond to the gas crisis, Iran, the Olympic boycott, and inflation.

[bedstuy]

Pat Buchanan would have done better than Dole?  Give me a break.  He was just too racist, too anti-Semitic and too much of a gadfly to meet the minimum requirements for a President.  He would have lost a historic landslide. 

2008, I think Romney would have fared better than McCain.

Granted, he would not have won (no one could have beaten Obama that year), but he would have been competitive.

When the economy collapsed and the government starting bailing out banks for 700 million, all the other issues, like terrorism and Iraq, became nothing.

That's where McCain lost his appeal. With his military background, McCain was a guy who could win in an election dominated by national security. In an election dominated by finance, McCain was done.

But Romney has an economic background. He was a businessman. He was a governor. He would've made a solid argument that he was better equipped to handle the Great Recession than some "inexperienced" senator from Chicago.

McCain lost by 7%. Romney would have lost by around 4-5%. He would have taken NC and Indiana (as he did in 2012) and maybe Florida.

And also, Romney would not have picked Palin.

That would be the biggest advantage for a non-McCain candidate in 2008.  And I suspect it would have helped the Republicans somewhat.

However, you have to wonder whether being tied to the banking industry and private equity world would have actually hurt Romney.  Rather than being seen as an "economist," he could have been seen as akin to one of the reckless financiers at Lehman, AIG, Goldman, etc.  That could have made Romney's finance background a liability rather than an asset.  That argument certainly didn't seem to win over many people in 2012 anyway.

[bedstuy]

That would be the biggest advantage for a non-McCain candidate in 2008.  And I suspect it would have helped the Republicans somewhat.

However, you have to wonder whether being tied to the banking industry and private equity world would have actually hurt Romney.  Rather than being seen as an "economist," he could have been seen as akin to one of the reckless financiers at Lehman, AIG, Goldman, etc.  That could have made Romney's finance background a liability rather than an asset.  That argument certainly didn't seem to win over many people in 2012 anyway.

In 2012, he was facing an incumbent Barack Obama. He couldn't argue that he was more experienced or economically savvy than the president.

In 2008, Obama was not president but "inexperienced" senator, so the argument would have worked. In public eye, Romney was > Obama in economic affairs. That's huge.

Romney would've been appealing in 2008, I feel; more appealing than in 2012.

During the primaries, the economy wasn't this front-and-center issue as yet. Iraq, water-boarding,  and other stuff was still there, which helped McCain win the GOP nomination over him.

Mitt Romney certainly tried to argue he was more economically savvy than the President in 2012.  But, people don't necessarily vote based on who has more of a background in a certain issue.  People focus more on policy than on resumes.  It's not just who knows more about this issue, it's who do I agree with.  For example, I'm sure you could say that Donald Trump has more of a business background than Obama.  It doesn't mean Trump would have "won" that issue if he was the GOP nominee in 2008.

The other thing you're forgetting is that Romney was the conservative candidate in 2008.  He would have had more trouble than McCain with being branded a right-winger.  McCain benefited in 2008 from his moderate and maverick reputation.  Romney could have been seen as more of a continuation of Bush's right-wing policies.

[Mister Mets]

My guesses...

Republicans
2012- Mitt Romney
Poor Huntsman only finished in third place in New Hampshire, so he's not under consideration. Just compare Romney to Republican candidates for Senate in Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and North Dakota.

2008- John McCain
He did remarkably well considering the unpopularity of the incumbent President.

2000- John McCain
He would have gotten the typical Republicans, in addition to the people who didn't normally vote in presidential elections. They came out for him in the New Hampshire primary.

1996- Lamar Alexander
He finished second in the Rhode Island primary. He was sufficiently experienced, and younger.
Since he wasn't divorced, he might have been able to hit Clinton's private life better.

1992- Pat Buchanan
He seems like the type of candidate who would be effective in a three way race, inspiring the Republican base.

1988- George HW Bush
I don't think you could reasonably expect a stronger performance for a man seeking a third term for his party.

Democrats...

2008- Obama did well, although much of that was due to remarkable campaign discipline. Hillary Clinton would also not be able to pull off the trick of making McCain looking like a generic politician.

2004- John Kerry did spectacularly well for a man challenging an incumbent. Edwards was likely to self-destruct, although he was more demographically appealing, as a younger southern Senator. Dean didn't have a reputation as a war hero. Clark wasn't a disciplined campaigner.

2000- Gore was probably a stronger candidate than Bradley would have been. Bradley might not have lost as many liberal votes to Nader, but he would have lost more swing votes to Bush.

1992- Hard to argue against Clinton's political talents.

1988- Gore would have been able to run the type of campaign that worked so well for Clinton.

1984- We know Mondale ran a poor campaign. Jackson wouldn't be expected to do better. Hart might have. John Glenn had great accomplishments, as well as proven success in a bellweather state, so he would have been the strongest.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

2012: Obama and Romney
2008: Obama and McCain
2004: Dean and Bush

This is the only one I'm going to go into; DEAN WOULD'VE WON.  Hands down.  That was not a popular war.  That was not a strong economy.  Kerry lost because he was not seen as decisive and basically portrayed himself as Bush-lite.  Dean fired up crowds, got the youngs/liberals excited at the idea of throwing Bush out, and had a reputation as a very successful governor.  People seem to think it would've been easier to paint Dean as a liberal than Kerry, and that's precisely the reason Kerry lost.  Kerry didn't lose because he looked like a liberal, Kerry lost because he looked like a wimp.  End of story. 

2000: Gore and Bush
1996: Clinton and Dole
1992: Clinton and Bush
1988: Gore and Bush
1984: Hart and Reagan
1980: Carter and Reagan
1976: Carter and Ford
1972: Humphrey and Nixon
1968: Kennedy and Nixon
1964: Johnson and Rockefeller
1960: Kennedy and Nixon

I'm not going past that.  

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republicans
1968: Richard Nixon (though Nelson Rockefeller probably would have won, too)
1976: Gerald Ford
1980: George H.W. Bush (with John Anderson a close second)
1988: George H.W. Bush
1992: George H.W. Bush
1996: Pete Wilson (people forget that he even ran)
2000: John McCain
2008: John McCain (though in hindsight, Romney probably would have been more electable with the financial crisis)
2012: Mitt Romney

Democrats
1968: Bobby Kennedy (pretty self-explanatory)
1972: Ed Muskie (before he imploded in New Hampshire)
1976: Jerry Brown
1980: Ted Kennedy
1984: Gary Hart
1988: Paul Simon (hard to tell, but he was from Illinois, which was then a swing state, and was generally popular, although Gephardt and Gore might have done well, too.)
1992: Clinton (He did so well he gave us a realignment, after all.)
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Edwards (Karl Rove even said that Edwards was the Democrat who made the Bush campaign most nervous)
2008: Hillary Clinton (again, pretty self-explanatory; Obama looked more electable in the primaries, but polls during and after the general election campaign showed Clinton would have beaten McCain by a wider margin that Obama did.)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

For 1980's GOP contest, I agree that Reagan was probably most electable. He managed to carry both the North and the South--though there were several >40%'s in both) and I can't imagine Anderson being nearly as palatable. H.W. Bush is pretty mainstream, though I don't see him gathering the enthusiasm that Reagan had from several different swaths of the country. I like your assessment of Huckabee and it makes me want to revisit/research 2008.

[Dereich]

I think Romney was certainly the most electable in 2008. Not only did he have an economic background in a very economic election, it would have also been harder to call him Bush's third term. He never voted for Iraq and its not like he had a history of having to support Bush initiatives like McCain did. I think Romneycare could have been a big political ace for him too. Romney's plan was always pretty similar to Hillary's proposed plan and I'd think he could draw in a few more of the disaffected Hillary voters than McCain did, probably enough to prevent a desperate move like the Palin selection. I'm sure his financial background would have hurt him a bit, but at least he could actually propose a credible plan; remember how McCain's best idea was to suspend his campaign? And it would have been MUCH harder to attack him on his background; when financial industries are close to toppling right and left threatening world depression anyone with a brain would think twice before beginning the "greedy financial profiteers" nonsense on a public platform.

[nolesfan2011]

Starting with 1912 and only including candidates who either ran or got delegate votes (and excluding incumbent Presidents unless they were seriously primaried)

1912: Teddy Roosevelt (R) Woodrow Wilson (D) (TR could have won with the R machine, Wilson did win uniting racist south with the Dem machine north)
1916: Robert La Follette (R) (only one who could have provided a counter to Wilson)
1920: Warren Harding (R) (terrible but he did win big) Mitchell Palmer (D) (really terrible but popular)
1924: Carter Glass (D)
1928: Herbert Hoover (R) Cordell Hull (D) (Hoover won, Hull as a compromise)
1932: FDR (D) (He won of course)
1936: William Borah (R) (better than Alf)
1940: Thomas Dewey (Better than Wendell Willkie)
1944: Dewey (R)
1948: Harold Stassen (R) (before he became a joke he was moderate)
1952: Dwight Eisenhower(R) (he won, war hero) Estes Kefauver (D) (corruption crusader was better than egghead Adlai)
1956: Kefauver (D)
1960: LBJ (D) (JFK actually had a harder time with inexperience than LBJ would have, and he wouldn't have had to deal with anti-Catholic bias).
1964: Rockefeller (R) (not an ideologue like Goldwater)
1968: Richard Nixon (R) (he won), George McGovern (D) (wasn't known as a peacenik as much at the time but would have been accepted by anti-war left and mainstream Dems unlike HHH)
1972: Scoop Jackson (D) (only a hawk could have beaten Nixon)
1976: Ronald Reagan (R) (not tarred like Ford was by Nixon pardon) Jimmy Carter (D) (he was fresh and he won)
1980: Reagan (R) (he won) Ted Kennedy (D) (Carter was just too unpopular and Teddy had the Kennedy mystique)
1984: Gary Hart (D) (horrible choices but best of the worst)
1988: Joe Biden (D) (more horrible choices, best of the worst)
1992: Bill Clinton (D) (he won)
1996: Dick Lugar (R) (moderate and had a good record)
2000: John McCain (R) (more popular than Bush) , Bill Bradley (D) (better than Gore)
2004: John Edwards (D) (I would have said Wes Clark but he was such a bad campaigner)
2008: Mitt Romney (R) (didn't have the McCain slack of being pro Iraq war and everything) Barack Obama (D) (he won after all)
2012: Jon Huntsman (R) (the only one who could have beaten Obama, except maybe Ron Paul, Romney couldn't have and those to the right of him like Santorum had no chance).

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I am just going to do the losing party.

2012: Huntsman (only GOP candidate that could of won)
2008: McCain, I think he did the best a GOP could have done
2004: Wesley Clark
2000: Al Gore
1996: Bob Dole
1992: still Bush Sr.
1988: Gore

[VPH]

2000: (D) Al Gore. Moderate enough for the swing voters compared to Bradley.
(R) McCain. Could have taken a more convincing win due to his more moderate stances. Bush, however, was a better primary campaigner.
2004: (D) Wesley Clark. Seen as a political outsider with war experience, had great appeal to moderates and southerners and could make connections to liberals too.
2008: (D) Obama. He put together a winning coalition that stayed together for 2012 (for the most part) and was a master of media.
(R) Romney. McCain was seen as too old, and not energetic, but whatever way you spin this election, Obama wins anyway. I don't think Huckabee was much better, especially socially, where he had nearly no appeal to swing voters.
2012: (R) Hunstman. He could have taken Florida and Ohio from Obama, if not a few more states.
2016: (D) Obviously Clinton. Momentum, money, experience,
(R) Rand Paul. Eww I hate him, but he has appeal to the youth. Much more than any other Repub...

[Phony Moderate]

1960 - Kennedy and Nixon
1964 - Johnson and Scranton
1968 - Kennedy and Nixon
1972 - Humphrey and Nixon
1976 - Udall and Ford
1980 - Kennedy and Reagan
1984 - Hart and Reagan
1988 - Gephardt and Bush
1992 - Clinton and Bush
1996 - Clinton and Alexander
2000 - Gore and McCain
2004 - Clark and Bush
2008 - Richardson and Huckabee
2012 - Obama and Huntsman

[BaconBacon96]

1948: Truman and Dewey
1952: Kefauver and Eisenhower
1956: Kefauver and Eisenhower
1960: Kennedy and Nixon
1964: Johnson and Rockefeller
1968: Kennedy and Nixon
1972: Muskie and Nixon
1976: Udall and Ford
1980: Kennedy and Reagan
1984: Hart and Reagan
1988: Biden and Bush
1992: Clinton and Bush
1996: Clinton and Lugar
2000: Gore and McCain
2004: Clark and Bush
2008: Obama and Romney
2012: Obama and Huntsman

[scrabblehack]

1976 R - Howard Baker (but with Ford's baggage he nearly won)....Reagan would have had a better chance than Ford. 

[MadmanMotley]

Mine will include candidates that did NOT run, as a few would have been more electable (2012 is one of those years).
2012:
 R: Mitch Daniels. Yes, he may be rather boring, but compare him to Romney and you have a winner. He's a two-term governor who won Indiana the same time as Obama. He's got a good record from boosting Indiana, and he isn't gaffe prone. Conservatives mildly like him and moderates love him. He also has Midwestern appeal and had he chosen Marco Rubio to counteract his blandness, he would have beaten Obama in a close race.

2008:
R: The Huckster, he had appeal to conservatives, and would not need to pick a gaffe-prone super conservative VP. He also had good debate skill and southern charm. Would he win against Obama? No but he would have made it closer.
D: Obama, for obvious reasons.

2004:
D: Dean with a moderate VP pick like Bayh, he was charismatic, anti-war and a good campaigner. He would have offered more of a difference to Bush, and probably would have won.

2000:
R: Elizabeth Dole. In a general election she would have been enough of a game changer that she would have been hard to beat. She had experience and decent conservative credentials, while also being a woman running for president. Combined with a good VP choice like Ridge or Engler, she would've been our first woman president.
D: Al Gore, again for obvious reasons.

1996:
R: Toughie, I think (for different reasons) the best candidates against Clinton would've been Buchanan, Lugar and Wilson. Buchanan for reasons stated above that he could line up the base and make a good speech and win in a debate. Lugar and Wilson both had experience and both were inoffensive.

Perhaps TBC

[Oldiesfreak1854]

2012: Mitt Romney (R)
2008: John McCain (R) & Hillary Clinton (D)
2004: John Edwards (D)
2000: John McCain (R) & Al Gore (D)
1996: Pete Wilson (R)
1992: George HW Bush (R) & Bill Clinton (D)
1988: Jack Kemp (R) & Al Gore (D)
1984: Gary Hart (D)
1980: George HW Bush (R) & Ted Kennedy (D)
1976: Gerald Ford (R) & Jerry Brown (D)
1972: Ed Muskie (D)
1968: Nelson Rockefeller (R) & Bobby Kennedy (D)
1964: Nelson Rockefeller (R)
1960: Richard Nixon (R) & John F. Kennedy (D)

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I think Romney was certainly the most electable in 2008. Not only did he have an economic background in a very economic election, it would have also been harder to call him Bush's third term. He never voted for Iraq and its not like he had a history of having to support Bush initiatives like McCain did. I think Romneycare could have been a big political ace for him too. Romney's plan was always pretty similar to Hillary's proposed plan and I'd think he could draw in a few more of the disaffected Hillary voters than McCain did, probably enough to prevent a desperate move like the Palin selection. I'm sure his financial background would have hurt him a bit, but at least he could actually propose a credible plan; remember how McCain's best idea was to suspend his campaign? And it would have been MUCH harder to attack him on his background; when financial industries are close to toppling right and left threatening world depression anyone with a brain would think twice before beginning the "greedy financial profiteers" nonsense on a public platform.

I can't agree here. McCain was the strongest candidate against the Democrats in every single poll I saw in 2008.  McCain was the only candidate who ever ran ahead of a Democrat in a poll in 2008.  McCain's problem was picking Palin and not recognizing that the hard right conservatives weren't going to bolt and be responsible for the election of one as liberal as Obama.

[henster]

Hillary looked a lot more electable early in 08 just based on what was coming out about him (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers etc.) I think Obama actually underperformed what a generic D would've gotten in 2008. With Bush unpopular, the world out of control, and the economy collapsing the D ticket should've won in a landslide double digit victory but a 7% 360+ EV victory seems kind of paltry considering the circumstances. Hillary would've likely won by 10% in 2008 and close to 400 EV had she been the nominee.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

When will people realize that Jon Huntsman is a terrible politician? He had the "goods" to challenge Obama in 2012, but he would've been so miserable at selling those goods that it wouldn't have mattered.

[MATTROSE94]

Republicans (1932-Present)
1932: John J. Blaine (Blaine still would have lost to Roosevelt, but would have been a fresh face when compared to Hoover)
1936: William Borah (Borah would have done slightly better in the western states than Landon)
1940: Wendell Wilkie (Had Thomas Dewey won the 1938 New York Gubernatorial race, he would have been the strongest candidate for the Republicans in 1940 though)
1944: Thomas Dewey
1948: Thomas Dewey
1952: Dwight Eisenhower
1956: Dwight Eisenhower
1960: Richard Nixon
1964: Nelson Rockefeller (Despite that fact that he would have done very poorly in the South, Nelson Rockefeller could have held onto some of the traditionally Republican states in the Northeast and Great Plains)
1968: Nelson Rockefeller
1976: Gerald Ford
1980: Ronald Reagan (John Anderson would have done good as the Republican nominee as well)
1984: Ronald Reagan
1988: George H.W. Bush
1992: George H.W. Bush
1996: Richard Lugar
2000: John McCain
2004: George W. Bush
2008: Mike Huckabee (Huckabee could have possibly held onto Indiana, North Carolina and Florida. In addition, he was a much more likable candidate than John McCain and could not be tied that easily to the Bush Administration as much as McCain was)
2012: Jon Huntsman (I think that Jon Huntsman could have actually beaten Obama, albiet by a slim margin. On the other hand, Rick Santorum could have easily mounted a third-party bid if Huntsman was the nominee as well)
2016: I guess either Jeb Bush or Rand Paul. Pre-Bridgegate Chris Christie could have been a formidable candidate as well.

Democrats (1932-Present)
1932: Franklin Roosevelt
1936: Franklin Roosevelt
1940: Franklin Roosevelt
1944: Franklin Roosevelt
1948: Harry Truman
1952: Estes Kefauver
1956: Estes Kefauver
1960: John F. Kennedy (While Lyndon Johnson could have carried Oklahoma, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky against Nixon, he would have likely lost states such as New York, Missouri, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan due to the fact that his record on racial issues prior to the mid-1950s was mixed at best. Hell, Nixon might have actually won the black vote against the 1960 version of Johnson)
1964: Lyndon Johnson
1968: Bobby Kennedy
1972: Ed Muskie
1976: Henry “Scoop” Jackson or Frank Church
1980: Ted Kennedy   
1984: John Glenn (Glenn could have kept Reagan at about 55-56% of the popular vote and had much more concrete policy proposals than Gary Hart, who was essentially an “empty suit” in a way)
1988: Al Gore
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bill Clinton
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Edwards (Edwards might have been able to pick up North Carolina and Virginia, which would have been enough for him to win even if Bush held onto Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and Iowa)
2008: Hillary Clinton (Clinton could have carried all the Obama states with the possible exception of Indiana and Colorado and potentially picked up Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, West Virginia, Louisiana, Missouri and Montana as well)
2012: Barack Obama
2016: Probably Hillary Clinton. If Clinton decides not to run, Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner would obviously be the strongest choices for the Democrats

[Mr. Smith]

Here's my take:

1912: Wilson (D) vs Teddy without the split
1916: Hearst (D) vs Johnson (R)
1920: Johnson (R) vs Mc Adoo (D) [That said Cox was actually perfectly fine,it's just that Harding never went against him,he went against Wilson who was unpopular.]
1924: Coolidge (R) vs  Al Smith (D) [who should've then put Mc Adoo on the Veep spot]
1928: Wouldn't change anything
1932: Wouldn't change anything
1936: No change
1940: No change
1944: No change
1948: Truman (D) vs Warren (R)
1952: Eisenhower (R) vs Kefauver (D)
1956: Same as '52
1960: No change
1964: Johnson (D) vs Rockefeller (R)
1968: R.F. Kennedy (D) vs Romney (R)
1972: Nixon (R) vs  Muskie (D)
1976: Jackson (D) vs Reagan (R)
1980: T. Kennedy (D) vs Bush (R)
1984: Reagan (R) vs Hart (D)
1988: Dole (R) vs  Biden (D)
1992: Buchanan (R) vs Brown (D)

1996: Clinton (D) vs Wilson (R) [Pete Wilson was considered moderate and he could tout being from the same state as Reagan,and had an immigration stance that'd excite the base]

2000: Mc Cain (R) vs Gore (D) [Once again,Mc Cain also the moderate,but approachable thing going for him to counter out Gore and the know-how sort of persona exuded]

2004: Bush (Dubya) (R) vs Edwards (D) [Bush was somehow popular, he was still hailed for his efforts. But Edwards could've taken on some of the South and Ohio with his appeal to the poor,he was still rising then]

2008: Clinton (D) vs Mc Cain (R) [Obama had the luck of a good campaign and the selection of Palin by Mc Cain,otherwise he appears like a flip-flop and a bit celebrity like vs Clinton's experience and moderate stances. You can bet she would've won Missouri,Arkansas, Georgia, and Montana with only Indiana lost. And as for any other GOP,they all appear too conservative and Bush-like]

2012: No change [People actually believe the crazy things about the deficit,so any remotely liberal replacement would be shot-down despite Obama not being in a good place. And all of Romney's opponents were simply wingnuts who'd alienate everywhere except the middle states and the Deep South]

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

2012: Obama and Paul
2008: Obama and Paul
2004: Not sure here
2000: Gore and Bush probably

[SWE]

2012: Romney, I guess
2008: Obama and McCain
2004: Dean
2000: Bradley and McCain