History weighs in on a second Kerry run

http://orangeotter.blogspot.com

Kerry might run again; will he run into trouble? History weighs in.
So the news tells me that John Kerry, the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, might make another attempt at being the leader of Democratic efforts to retake the White House. Is this possible? Can someone who lost an election by over three million votes have a chance to change his fortune fours years in the future? To answer this question (as I do most questions) I defer to history.

The tale of this country includes eight men who were able to capture their party’s nomination multiple times despite their initial losing efforts. Grover Cleveland would be the most obvious reference, but he never failed to gain the popular vote and was president before he lost the election. There is little in the way of a parallel so he is not included in the list. John Quincy Adams was on the ballot in 1820 against President Madison, but was not nominated by a party (they were in different factions of the same party, and there was little if any other oppositional party activity). Since Adams did not have to win approval from a party after failing them he is also not included. We are left with a list that has eight men who appeared on the ballot a total of 20 times in the slot for president.

Let’s trim the fat and look exclusively at those who were successful to see if there are any clues as to Kerry’s chances.... http://orangeotter.blogspot.com

Where is the news item ledvader?
I didn't see anything about that anywhere...I would be glad if he were to do so...
I am actually a strong supporter of JFK-I never felt that he was just "better than Bush"...I always thought that he was way more liberal than he allowed himself to appear during this campaign....
His environmental record really impressed me, in a campaign where the environment has been completely side-lined....

I would be delighted if he were to run again

He fights for a recount in 2004. Otherwise, no way.

He must be a thorn at Bush's side. A resistance fighter. But, otherwise, I don't want to repeat the last week.

I think the fact that he comes from Massachusetts puts him at a disadvatage. One person who I think would be a good candidate would be Evan Bayh--the junior Senator from Indiana. He was a former governor of that state and is a moderate Democrat. He is popular in that state. He graduated with honors from Indiana U. which would indicate superior intelligence. He is a leader of the New Democratic Movement and is chairman of the DLC. If he runs, he would carry the entire Midwest, including Indiana and Ohio. There is a slogan "Keep Your Eye on Evan Bayh".

against the popular Eisenhower. Stevenson ran an inspirational campaign but came up far short. Of course William Jennings Bryan was nominated three times by the Dems: 1896 (the closest election), 1900 and then 1908.

If we are going to nominate a past nominee by vote would be for ex-VP Al Gore.

i didnt put in the stuff about htose who lost b/c i was trying to just dicuss chances of winning, but stvenson and bryan as well as dewey and certianly nixon show that partys have been open to the proposition in modern times

Kerry has a chance to keep fighting Chimpie in the senate and if he battles Chimpie for the next four years and if they are as bad as these past 4 have been, he will be in a very good position....

I mean I think at the end of this term in general, if nothing else, fatigue with the Repub. party will be setting in, if nothing else and *hopefully* a high profile dem, who is a known face could swing it...

especiall;y if the elemts of kerry's campaign against Bush prove to have accurately predicted all of the problems that will fop up under Bush's next four years. If Bush cannot eleiminate the deficit, or reduce it by the 50 percent he has claimed (alreadythey are talking aboiut raising the debt ceiling, and most of Europes is trying to ivest itself of American investments in such a way that they do not harm their own economies) If we are still bogged down in Iraq, and Afghanistan in four years to the degree that our presence is increased, not decreased. If the military situation result in Bush having to reinstitute the draft. And if Bush actively creates economic chaos, Krerry, as the person who predicted it all, will have a fair shot of benefiting from his foresight.

One of the things that was neglected during this cam,paign was for the Democrats to point out how accurate Kerry was on predicting the way the war in Iraq would unfold if Bush inveded as he did. Kerry accurately predicted that we would face a massive insurgency, adn not be greated with cheers and flowers. HGoing back to Kerry';s pre war speeches at the CFR and his op-ed pieces and he nailed down the course this war would take very accurately, and he hass also predicted that under theBudsh plan we will be there for decades, with the conditions deterioratring and not improving. There is more likelihood that Iraq will go the waar o Iran, rather tn ever have a democratic government, as if such a thing ever really occurs aftre the U.S. gets involved. Everyone Bush has appointed has been some kind of thug who knows dem-speak but will end up ruling a pupet government for the U.S. We are setting uip another Shah as we did in Iran.

Ifkerry can be seen as a Cassandra, someone who was totally correct, but not beleived, this cna give a great deal of political capital.

If Kerrey pulls an Inran-Contra on Bush sometime during this administration (we know that they will now get too cocky for their own good). Kerry could greatl benefit from this as well.