Which losing Pres. nominee would have had the best second chance 4 years later?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 06:05:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Which losing Pres. nominee would have had the best second chance 4 years later?		 « previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which losing Pres. nominee would have had the best second chance 4 years later?
#1
2012: Mitt Romney --> 2016		  
#2
2008: John McCain --> 2012		  
#3
2004: John Kerry --> 2008		  
#4
2000: Al Gore --> 2004		  
#5
1996: Bob Dole --> 2000		  
#6
1992: George H.W Bush --> 1996		  
#7
1988: Mike Dukakis --> 1992		  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results
Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Which losing Pres. nominee would have had the best second chance 4 years later?  (Read 667 times)
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 27, 2014, 02:06:21 PM »
Which is these losing Presidential nominees do you think would have fared the best four years after their initial loss?

Assume VPs are a net loss/gain of zero.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,146
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2014, 02:09:23 PM »
Kerry, just because the presidency was an open seat and conditions were favorable to Democrats over all.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2014, 02:15:14 PM »
Definitely Al Gore, given that he was actually elected President in 2000.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2014, 02:19:07 PM »
Quote from: Senator TNF on April 27, 2014, 02:15:14 PM
Definitely Al Gore, given that he was actually elected President in 2000.

^ The obvious answer.

I guess Kerry would have won in 2008 if he'd somehow been nominated but Gore in 2004 is the far more interesting option.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2014, 02:42:47 PM »
I voted for Gore, but I think Kerry would have had a decent shot in 2008 should he have secured the nomination. I think Gore would have come closer to "clearing the field" for the primary 4 years later than Kerry would have.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2014, 02:42:54 PM »
I was leaning Kerry, but yeah Gore would've had the best chance.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,313
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2014, 03:00:43 PM »
John Kerry and Michael Dukakis
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,859
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2014, 03:10:33 PM »
Kerry had no chance of being nominated in 2008. Gore would have added NH and CO in 2004.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,407
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2014, 05:02:41 PM »
Quote from: Senator TNF on April 27, 2014, 02:15:14 PM
Definitely Al Gore, given that he was actually elected President in 2000.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,569
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2014, 06:43:25 PM »
Al Gore is the obvious answer.

Speaking of which, why did Gore decide not to run again in 2004?  Does anyone recall?  
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,708


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2014, 08:47:06 PM »
Al Gore in 2004. Only because I don't see a path to the nomination for Kerry in 2008 though. If Kerry could be handwaved in as the Democratic nominee in 2008 he would have a much better chance of winning then Gore against President Bush.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,061
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2014, 09:34:42 PM »
Quote from: Frodo on April 27, 2014, 06:43:25 PM
Al Gore is the obvious answer.

Speaking of which, why did Gore decide not to run again in 2004?  Does anyone recall?  
He decided to quit politics, called it an unhealthy addiction or something.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2014, 10:07:00 PM »
Quote from: Frodo on April 27, 2014, 06:43:25 PM
Al Gore is the obvious answer.

Speaking of which, why did Gore decide not to run again in 2004?  Does anyone recall?  

As late as 2003 it looked like '04 was going to be a Bush landslide, as I recall. That probably kept him out more than anything else.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 14 queries.