As someone who has become somewhat obsessed with American elections in the last year, I thought it would be interesting to start a thread on who people think would have been the most likely primary candidates who could have brought the losing party to victory in each election from 1900-2012 (to avoid any problems with current politics). For any given year it should be the candidate that you believe would have been most likely to win any given election for their party if they had managed to win in the primaries. (Example: The Republicans lost in 1948 and then the goal is to find whoever from the republican primaries of 1948 would have been most likely to win it instead.) Major third parties like Progressives and Reform count as well.
Losing American primary candidates who could have won in the general election?
- Thread starter West234
- Start date
-
- Tags
- american elections
I'm not make arguments- just voting: No. No. Yes.
Is this post limited to candidates who stuck around for Iowa? Some of those candidates were pretty big duds; Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel. No to all, but some went home early. But "Yes," to many of the announced Democratic candidates, regardless of whether they stayed in past Iowa.
McCain wins the popular vote in 2000 and Florida by a comfortable enough margin to avoid any controversy.
Last edited:
Chapman
Donor
You mean 2000? It would be the greatest political comeback of all time for McCain to win 2020’s GOP primary.
Democrats had a chance of winning every election after 1984. Obviously the ones with incumbents could not have a different candidate (and Gore basically was an incumbent in the 2000 primary), and some like 1988 and 2004 were harder to win. 2016 also had so few candidates, Bernie likely could have won but it would have been a lot better for the party to have a completely open primary where Hillary didn't run.
1996 and 2008 were unwinnable for Republicans, and 2012 was pretty difficult (it looks like Romney, while weak, was the most electable candidate who could win the primary). 1992 was also very hard to win against Clinton, and would not have been helped by primarying Bush. Obviously Bush and Trump were the inevitable nominees in 2004 and 2020. In 2016, Clinton was beatable against much of the field. In 2000, McCain could have won by more than Bush.
1996 and 2008 were unwinnable for Republicans, and 2012 was pretty difficult (it looks like Romney, while weak, was the most electable candidate who could win the primary). 1992 was also very hard to win against Clinton, and would not have been helped by primarying Bush. Obviously Bush and Trump were the inevitable nominees in 2004 and 2020. In 2016, Clinton was beatable against much of the field. In 2000, McCain could have won by more than Bush.
Yes, I concur. With his cross-over appeal, 2000 could have been McCain’s year.
And weirdly, 1988 could have been the year for a younger Al Gore. As long as he doesn’t overplay then motif of the angry, determined Southerner.
Muskie could have won '72, you say. Probably not. His anti-war stance would have gotten him painted as a liberal extremist just like McGovern. Moreover, there's no way Muskie would have had enough (any) appeal in the South or border states to garner some of those electoral votes and that would be the end of his election chances.
As I noted in Post #4, Humphrey is another "No." American voters normally don't support retreads, Tricky Dicky, though, being a notable exception. But ultimately, there wasn't any big policy failure during Nixon's first term that would caused enough voters to think, "Gee, I should have voted for Humphrey, he would've done that better!" Humphrey was so loved by his own Democratic Party that he got 25% of their votes in the primaries.
You next observed that "Wallace was... Wallace." Agreed. He'd do about as well as McGovern but drawing his support from a different constituency. That said, he'd probably get more electoral votes than McGovern by grabbing several Southern states.
You contend that Jackson was too militaristic. I think that was his strength in this race. He may not beat Nixon but he's the one Democratic candidate that could have been competitive. His foreign & defense policies cut heavily into Nixon's turf.
Lastly we have Shirley Chisholm. "Pinko peacenik" sums her up pretty well. Nixon's landslide would've been even bigger-- 534 electoral votes and ~68% of the popular vote.
Outside the scope of the 20th-21st centuries:
Any Democratic-Republican in 1824 would have won :trollface:
A non-Zachary Taylor Whig would not have won in 1848
Joseph Lane declined to be nominated but still could have won in 1860 if the election were thrown to Congress
Within the scope of the 20th-21st centuries:
Any Democrat from 1932-1940 would have won
Any Democratic-Republican in 1824 would have won :trollface:
A non-Zachary Taylor Whig would not have won in 1848
Joseph Lane declined to be nominated but still could have won in 1860 if the election were thrown to Congress
Within the scope of the 20th-21st centuries:
Any Democrat from 1932-1940 would have won
I was just responding to the question. I wasn't trying to start a discussion about those specific elections.