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

[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