Instances where a better candidate lost the primary?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Romney only ran as "proud plutocrat" on an "austerity program" in 2012 because it was post tea party and post 2010. Remember the question from the debate in 2012, where Obama was like "yea he is different from Bush, Bush never sought to voucherize Medicare etc..."

In 2008, he would have ran more towards the center economically and more populist on trade and Obama would have had a harder time doing what he did in 2012.

Remember Romney was able to win in MA with that same business record, after Ted Kennedy went hardcore negative in 1994 to defeat him using many of the same attacks Obama used. What nuked him nationally was not his business record alone, it was the post tea party primary campaign, running hard to the right to get nominated including running away from his healthcare plan and the Ryan pick that solidified the package.

As for the Mormon issue, they still would have been far more afraid of Obama than Romney, even in 2008.

The only populist Republican running for president in 2008 was Mike Huckabee. Romney was running as a garden variety conservative and if he flip flopped again in the general election then Obama and the media would have had a field day with him.

And his election as governor is irrelevant. Massachusetts has elected more Republicans as governors the last 30 years than Georgia or Kansas.

Mike Huckabee ran to the left of Romney on immigration and on energy issues

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney only ran as "proud plutocrat" on an "austerity program" in 2012 because it was post tea party and post 2010. Remember the question from the debate in 2012, where Obama was like "yea he is different from Bush, Bush never sought to voucherize Medicare etc..."

In 2008, he would have ran more towards the center economically and more populist on trade and Obama would have had a harder time doing what he did in 2012.

Remember Romney was able to win in MA with that same business record, after Ted Kennedy went hardcore negative in 1994 to defeat him using many of the same attacks Obama used. What nuked him nationally was not his business record alone, it was the post tea party primary campaign, running hard to the right to get nominated including running away from his healthcare plan and the Ryan pick that solidified the package.

As for the Mormon issue, they still would have been far more afraid of Obama than Romney, even in 2008.

The only populist Republican running for president in 2008 was Mike Huckabee. Romney was running as a garden variety conservative and if he flip flopped again in the general election then Obama and the media would have had a field day with him.

He wouldn't have had to flip flopped. Just switch to emphasizing his health care plan and issues like currency manipulation on trade. Remember McCain ran against him from the right in the Michigan primary, claiming that his "technology investments" were an "auto-bailout". Yes Romney campaigned as a "Reaganite three legged stool guy", but McCain was far more fiscally conservative than Romney. Ethanol subsidies is another example, where Romney supported them and McCain opposed them.

I can easily see Romney rolling out an infrastructure package or something of that nature as part of a general election campaign in 2008 (especially once the economy weakened), pairing that with his healthcare plan, fighting currency manipulation, increasing domestic energy production and investing in "Energy and Transportation technology". And he either already embraced those ideas in the primary (hence the McCain attacks on the last one) or would be able to seamlessly incorporate like infrastructure. It would be hard to paint any of that as "flip flopping", or even out of touch with traditional Republican policies (if not necessarily conservative ones).

Huckabee was far too socially conservative to take advantage of his economic populism and he would have gotten destroyed outside the bible belt.

 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And his election as governor is irrelevant. Massachusetts has elected more Republicans as governors the last 30 years than Georgia or Kansas.

Still a very Democratic state, with a lot of organized labor as well. The difference was Romney ran as a reformer and "turn around artist" coming off the Olympics and did not run as a deficit hawk austerity guy like he did in 2002. If the very Democratic voters of MA were willing to overlook the past business record, I think the more more historically Republican voters in the suburbs of Indianapolis, Charlotte, St. Louis and Colombus would as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also, I did not say he was a "Populist Republican, or would run a "populist campaign". I said he would run "more populist on trade than McCain" and would "run to the center economically". That is different that running as "a populist" across the board. I also even said that Romney might lose Montana "on the weight of sheer populism".

The objective for Romney would be to crush the Democrats in the traditional Republican bastions in the suburbs, that Palin freaked out and McCain didn't inspire any economic confidence in. Nothing Px has said has refuted Romney's ability to do that, and once you remove McCain's weak performances in those suburban areas, you have already flipped two states for sure and made a third really close. The whole point of the discussion was that Romney would have done better than McCain, and when you look at all of the factors and even the 2012 results, it is reasonable to conclude that would be the case.

The push towards the center economically, would be about softening his image with moderate voters and minimizing the damage (possibly even reclaiming some lost ground) with more working class and manufacturing voters. Yes, it is reasonable to conclude that Romney would have come up short in this area and thus lost the election (nobody here said otherwise), but there is enough tangible factors to say that it would also not have been the electoral bloodbath some assume based on first glance impressions.

[TDAS04]

John Kerry was clearly not the strongest candidate Democrats could have put up against Bush in 2004, but John Edwards would have been worse. Yet, Kerry was foolish to to pick to pick him. If only Kerry had picked Gephardt or Graham, or better yet, Democrats should have put Gephardt or Graham on the top of the ticket. Not that those two guys are closer to me ideologically than Kerry is, but they would have been electorally strong candidates.

[Jim Crow]

John Kerry was clearly not the strongest candidate Democrats could have put up against Bush in 2004, but John Edwards would have been worse. Yet, Kerry was foolish to to pick to pick him. If only Kerry had picked Gephardt or Graham, or better yet, Democrats should have put Gephardt or Graham on the top of the ticket. Not that those two guys are closer to me ideologically than Kerry is, but they would have been electorally strong candidates.

Everyone liked Dick Gephardt, but I don't think he was charismatic enough to win the election.  As a running mate he would've handed Missouri to Kerry making Bush's re-election run even harder.

[Mr. Smith]

Romney only ran as "proud plutocrat" on an "austerity program" in 2012 because it was post tea party and post 2010. Remember the question from the debate in 2012, where Obama was like "yea he is different from Bush, Bush never sought to voucherize Medicare etc..."

In 2008, he would have ran more towards the center economically and more populist on trade and Obama would have had a harder time doing what he did in 2012.

Remember Romney was able to win in MA with that same business record, after Ted Kennedy went hardcore negative in 1994 to defeat him using many of the same attacks Obama used. What nuked him nationally was not his business record alone, it was the post tea party primary campaign, running hard to the right to get nominated including running away from his healthcare plan and the Ryan pick that solidified the package.

As for the Mormon issue, they still would have been far more afraid of Obama than Romney, even in 2008.

The only populist Republican running for president in 2008 was Mike Huckabee. Romney was running as a garden variety conservative and if he flip flopped again in the general election then Obama and the media would have had a field day with him.

And his election as governor is irrelevant. Massachusetts has elected more Republicans as governors the last 30 years than Georgia or Kansas.

Mike Huckabee ran to the left of Romney on immigration and on energy issues

Populism =/= Nativism.

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

Bernie Sanders, twice.

this never happens!! especially not recently!!



haha how'd that get there

Sanders had the most money, the most enthusiasm, and a tailor-made primary calendar in 2020.
The fact that he still lost in a landslide to somebody who had nothing of these is emblematic of how awful a candidate he was. 

Bernie had enthusiasm exclusively amongst terminally online 18-24 year olds, aka the most flaky voting demographics imaginable.

It's also no coincidence that a lot of Bernie 2016/2020 fans have turned into anti-voting leftists who say the two parties are the same and that voting is meaningless.

[Sumner 1868]

Estes Kefauver couldn't have won but definitely would have outpolled Stevenson both times.

[Kleine Scheiße]

1992: Larry Agran

I base this on absolutely nothing