Who was the most "electable" candidate for both parties, by year? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 05:58:53 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Who was the most "electable" candidate for both parties, by year? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Who was the most "electable" candidate for both parties, by year?  (Read 6988 times)
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,440
United States


« on: June 08, 2013, 03:25:49 PM »

My guesses...

Republicans
2012- Mitt Romney
Poor Huntsman only finished in third place in New Hampshire, so he's not under consideration. Just compare Romney to Republican candidates for Senate in Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and North Dakota.

2008- John McCain
He did remarkably well considering the unpopularity of the incumbent President.

2000- John McCain
He would have gotten the typical Republicans, in addition to the people who didn't normally vote in presidential elections. They came out for him in the New Hampshire primary.

1996- Lamar Alexander
He finished second in the Rhode Island primary. He was sufficiently experienced, and younger.
Since he wasn't divorced, he might have been able to hit Clinton's private life better.

1992- Pat Buchanan
He seems like the type of candidate who would be effective in a three way race, inspiring the Republican base.

1988- George HW Bush
I don't think you could reasonably expect a stronger performance for a man seeking a third term for his party.

Democrats...

2008- Obama did well, although much of that was due to remarkable campaign discipline. Hillary Clinton would also not be able to pull off the trick of making McCain looking like a generic politician.

2004- John Kerry did spectacularly well for a man challenging an incumbent. Edwards was likely to self-destruct, although he was more demographically appealing, as a younger southern Senator. Dean didn't have a reputation as a war hero. Clark wasn't a disciplined campaigner.

2000- Gore was probably a stronger candidate than Bradley would have been. Bradley might not have lost as many liberal votes to Nader, but he would have lost more swing votes to Bush.

1992- Hard to argue against Clinton's political talents.

1988- Gore would have been able to run the type of campaign that worked so well for Clinton.

1984- We know Mondale ran a poor campaign. Jackson wouldn't be expected to do better. Hart might have. John Glenn had great accomplishments, as well as proven success in a bellweather state, so he would have been the strongest.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.