Best candidate losing party could nominate since 1948

[Sumner 1868]

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.

[Sumner 1868]

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.

[Sumner 1868]

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.

[Sumner 1868]

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.