Best candidate losing party could nominate since 1948 (user search)

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 at least all of the deep south (Al, MS, SC, GA, maybe AR and LA ,) going with either an unplugged slate and choosing whoever or Wallace/someone else from the south running as an Indy. No way the deep south would put up with two pro civil rights candidates in that area.

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 knew 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.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 27, 2024, 12:29:30 AM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more