Best candidate losing party could nominate since 1948

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[OSR stands with Israel]

2000 -- change the VP nominee from Lieberman (D-CT) to Levin (D-MI).  Levin makes the difference between New Hampshire or Ohio going R and D, and George W. Bush becomes an obscure Presidential loser instead of the worst President since Buchanan.   

Worst president since Buchanan is not at all true. Have you forgotten about Andrew Johnson, Harding, Hoover.

[OSR stands with Israel]

And since the gop  will lose this year let me add

2016: John Kasich

[OSR stands with Israel]

In hindsight, I would have said John Edwards in 2004.

why he got crushed in the debate by cheney .