Which election loser learned the most from their loss and which the least?

[President Johnson]

Which losing side in a presidential election learned the most of their defeat for the next election? And which didn't? Over the past few cycles, I read that both Democrats and Republicans "didn't learn their lesson" from the previous loss.

I think 1992 is an example of which Democrats learned the most from their 1988 loss. At least Bill Clinton's strategy playbook took a lot of notes from the 1988 autopsy. Not sure which side (and when) learned the least. What comes to mind is Republicans blatently ignoring the findings of the post-2012 election autopsy, but irnocally they won in 2016 regardless. Maybe 2024 is a contender whoever loses, but especially for Republicans by nominating a proven loser again (who not only lost in 2020, but also was an albatross around his party's neck in 2018 and 2022).

[OSR stands with Israel]

For democrats:

Most : 1988
Least : 1968


For republicans:

Most : 1996
Least : 2020

[randomusername]

Democrats:

Most: 1988 (although I don't care for Clinton's 3rd way, it was probably the best path for relevancy)

Least: 1952

Republicans:

Most: My initial reaction was 1964 but given how Wallace makes things complicated I'm not sure. 1976 also could be a candidate.

Least: 2012, Trump did end up winning but they didn't learn anything from the 2012 autopsy

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I mean, the 2012 GOP autopsy turned out to incorrect, no? 2016 showed that the GOP could win without making inroads with minorities by expanding their vote share among non-college educated whites, and the 2020 results with Hispanics in TX & FL showed they can increase their share with said group without moderating on immigration.

[Mr. Smith]

Most: Nixon after 1960.

Least: Pains me to say it, but WJB. No business running in 1908. At all.

[mjba257]

For Dems:
Most: 1988 - some may hate Clinton's Third Way, but it was the Dems only way forward after 3 consecutive landslide losses. Nominating a charismatic moderate from the South was the perfect contrast to an uncharismatic stiff who could no longer rely on Reagan's coattails

Least: 2000 - the only reason 2000 was as close to begin with was because Gore lacked Clinton's charm - he was an uncharismatic, boring stiff who was never going to beat GWB in a personality contest. So what do Dems do in '04, nominate another boring stiff who exemplified East Coast elitism. Plus, thanks in part to Kerry's Iraq War vote, that kind of took the issue off the table despite it starting to become a liability for Bush.

For GOP:
Most: 1996 - Bush Sr. and Dole, much like Kerry & Gore, were both stiffs. The GOP realized they needed someone who matched Clinton's charm and likability, which GWB had, even if he was a bit a dumb. Plus, they knew they needed to someone who could distance themselves from the unpopular antics of the GOP congress, hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

Least: 2020 - even though we don't know the 2024 results yet, the fact is 2020 showed that Trump was a giant albatross around the GOP and the party needed to move on from him. Yet what happens, he gets nominated again.

[Dr. Cynic]

Most: Nixon after 1960.

Least: Pains me to say it, but WJB. No business running in 1908. At all.

To be fair, the Democrats didn't exactly have a great bench they could've gone with. Minnesota Governor John Albert Johnson, maybe, but he had health problems as it was (he died the next year at 48 due to complications from another gut surgery) and wouldn't have been able to do the heavy barnstorming that Bryan could. They really didn't have many options.

[Sir Mohamed]

For GOP:
Most: 1996 - Bush Sr. and Dole, much like Kerry & Gore, were both stiffs. The GOP realized they needed someone who matched Clinton's charm and likability, which GWB had, even if he was a bit a dumb. Plus, they knew they needed to someone who could distance themselves from the unpopular antics of the GOP congress, hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

Tbh, Kerry actually performed relatively well in 2004 given all circumstances and fundemantals. He came within 100k votes in a single state to unseat a war-time incumbent while country wasn't in recession.

[mjba257]

For GOP:
Most: 1996 - Bush Sr. and Dole, much like Kerry & Gore, were both stiffs. The GOP realized they needed someone who matched Clinton's charm and likability, which GWB had, even if he was a bit a dumb. Plus, they knew they needed to someone who could distance themselves from the unpopular antics of the GOP congress, hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

Tbh, Kerry actually performed relatively well in 2004 given all circumstances and fundemantals. He came within 100k votes in a single state to unseat a war-time incumbent while country wasn't in recession.

True. The fundamentals at the time suggested a landslide re-election for Bush. So Kerry does get credit for closing the gap. But with how close the election turned out to be, perhaps a more charismatic, Southern or Midwestern Dem could've actually won.

[Sir Mohamed]

For GOP:
Most: 1996 - Bush Sr. and Dole, much like Kerry & Gore, were both stiffs. The GOP realized they needed someone who matched Clinton's charm and likability, which GWB had, even if he was a bit a dumb. Plus, they knew they needed to someone who could distance themselves from the unpopular antics of the GOP congress, hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

Tbh, Kerry actually performed relatively well in 2004 given all circumstances and fundemantals. He came within 100k votes in a single state to unseat a war-time incumbent while country wasn't in recession.

True. The fundamentals at the time suggested a landslide re-election for Bush. So Kerry does get credit for closing the gap. But with how close the election turned out to be, perhaps a more charismatic, Southern or Midwestern Dem could've actually won.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure another Dem would have flipped states in the South. In 2004, the path to 270 EVs for a Dem candidate was going through OH in particular, maybe IA and NV on top. FL just wasn't close enough for another candidate to actually win outright.

[mjba257]

For GOP:
Most: 1996 - Bush Sr. and Dole, much like Kerry & Gore, were both stiffs. The GOP realized they needed someone who matched Clinton's charm and likability, which GWB had, even if he was a bit a dumb. Plus, they knew they needed to someone who could distance themselves from the unpopular antics of the GOP congress, hence Bush's "compassionate conservatism".

Tbh, Kerry actually performed relatively well in 2004 given all circumstances and fundemantals. He came within 100k votes in a single state to unseat a war-time incumbent while country wasn't in recession.

True. The fundamentals at the time suggested a landslide re-election for Bush. So Kerry does get credit for closing the gap. But with how close the election turned out to be, perhaps a more charismatic, Southern or Midwestern Dem could've actually won.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure another Dem would have flipped states in the South. In 2004, the path to 270 EVs for a Dem candidate was going through OH in particular, maybe IA and NV on top. FL just wasn't close enough for another candidate to actually win outright.

Kerry was able to keep Arkansas within a single digit margin, despite being a piss poor fit for the state. He also only lost MO by 7% and WV was only in the low double digits. I do think a Southern/Midwestern moderate could've won those states, in addition to IA, NV, and NM.

[DS0816]

Most: Nixon after 1960.

Agreed.

Least?

Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party, from and since 2016.

[Skill and Chance]

Most: Nixon after 1960.

Least: Pains me to say it, but WJB. No business running in 1908. At all.

I still don't get this TBH.  I can understand the renomination in 1900 given his charisma and how close he kept it under near impossible economic circumstances in 1896, but why, oh why, would they bring him back 8 years later after double losses?

[President Johnson]

Most: Nixon after 1960.

Agreed.

Least?

Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party, from and since 2016.

Well, but Democrats did well in every national election after 2016. And pretty much everything Hillary said and warned about in 2016 became true. Or was even an understatement. I think she's fairly overhated, but history will vindicate her.

[wnwnwn]

Democrats didn´t learn much about 1920, nominating a very internationalist "moderate" that alineated western progressives and eastern catholics. McAdoo could had at least won Missouri and New Mexico. Smith would be the same as 1928 (even if Hoover was more of a moderate than Coolidge).

Republicans didn´t learn much about 2008, nominating a too reaganite / Tea Party friendly? ticket in 2012 that mantained the base but couldn´t win the swing states.