Favorite losing major party presidential nominee, last 100 years

[TDAS04]

Hillary Clinton. 

[President Johnson]

Al Gore, closely followed by Wendell Willkie

[darklordoftech]

Mondale, with Davis being my least favorite

[😥]

Tie between Humphrey, Gore and McCain

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Michael Dukakis

[Mr. Smith]

Humphrey

[West_Midlander]

I like many of them but McCain.

[SWE]

McGovern

[HillGoose]

John McCain for sure

[RosettaStoned]

 Bob Dole.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

I'd say Mondale not particularly because I liked him (although Carter is one of my favorites), but because of some of the things Reagan did. While he wasn't a horrible president and there are some policies that are respectable, he got us into a mess that messed up the working class, encouraged automation and cheap labor, and abandoned the balanced budget. I'm not sure if I would've liked him as a president as he was charismatic and my normally Dem state went to him, but his main philosophy paved the way towards NAFTA, Iraq, the war on drugs which destroyed families, mass incarceration for minor offenses, mass amnesty, and the TPP.

[Xing]

Humphrey or Mondale.

[dw93]

Mondale, Humphrey, Gore

[Kuumo]

Hubert Horatio Humphrey

[H. Ross Peron]

Hubert Humphrey by far.

[Rat]

Willkie.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

It wasn't the most important election to win of these, but Hillary will always have my heart.

[Big Abraham]

McGovern, not close.

[S019]

Hillary Clinton

[dead0man]

Goldwater just over McGovern

[Schiff for Senate]

How does John Kerry get zero votes? And Al Smith, for that matter?
Interestingly, both are Catholics. Not saying there's anti-Catholicism here, just an interesting fact that of the four people who got zero votes so far, two were some of the very few Catholic nominees for president.

Adlai Stevenson is kind of surprising; I expected him to get one vote or so.

John Davis makes absolute sense though; he was uncharismatic and didn't hold any interesting views, just standard, 'moderate' Democratic (conservative) views. He was actually selected as a compromise candidate.

Anyway, the last 100 years is tough.

 So, I'll do it for the nominees of the 2000s, which is much more relevant and easy to evaluate/explain. I vote for a McCain-Gore-Romney tie out of all the losing nominees in the 2000s century because muh POW and muh moderate and pragmatic and muh Obamacare for McCain, Gore for being an environmentalist who was reasonably pragmatic and moderate (or at least, sensible) on most issues and Romney for being anti-Trump. (Though if we're judging them only on how they were during their campaign and before it, Romney wouldn't tie for first since he became anti-Trump after 2012.) Kerry and Clinton tie for a distant fourth place - got nothing against them, but Romney and McCain are FF's and patriots for being anti-Trump Republicans (it's easy to be an anti-Trump Democrat; being an anti-Trump Republican is what counts) and for McCain also muh Vietnam, while Gore was a good man who fought for greater action against climate change. In contrast, Kerry and Clinton were both mainstream Democrats who weren't, if you get my drift, special the way Romney, McCain and Gore were.

[darklordoftech]

How does John Kerry get zero votes? And Al Smith, for that matter?
Interestingly, both are Catholics. Not saying there's anti-Catholicism here, just an interesting fact that of the four people who got zero votes so far, two were some of the very few Catholic nominees for president.

People who like Kerry probably like Gore even more, and Smith’s rightward turn probably leaves him with few fans.

[Schiff for Senate]

How does John Kerry get zero votes? And Al Smith, for that matter?
Interestingly, both are Catholics. Not saying there's anti-Catholicism here, just an interesting fact that of the four people who got zero votes so far, two were some of the very few Catholic nominees for president.

People who like Kerry probably like Gore even more, and Smith’s rightward turn probably leaves him with few fans.

Oh yes, I forgot Smith became anti-New Deal.

But I'm befuddled as to Kerry. To me he's a mainstream, liberal Democrat, but given that he ran in 2004, I figured he'd have some loyal fans (maybe MA Democrats or something like that). The Gore thing makes no sense; Gore seemed sort of centre-left, whereas Kerry was a more mainstream liberal. Gore was probably ideologically more like Clinton than Kerry.

[Pericles]

Hubert Humphrey.