I am sick of people saying losers can't win - as if there is historical

proof. There really isn't and the number of elections in the modern era is too small to make any inference from.

So, I just posted what is easily the dumbest analysis I ever did - and am glad DU is anonymous - Certain colleges might want math degrees back.

Works out well for Kerry though.

If you take just the elections in the last 54 years, there were only 14 elections, 28 nominees - eliminating the duplicates, there were only 19 men who were their party's nominee. Of those men, 8 won on their first try. 1 won on his second try.

So 12% of Presidents in the last 54 years won after losing -I know there's only one.

only 2 of the 11 first time losers were nominees a second time - which is 18%, but to be fair K or G should be eliminated because we looking at the historical likelihood and either still can then it is 20%.

Additionally, excluding Kerry and Gore because we don't know yet, only 2 of the 9 remaining losers even tried to win the nomination. So, of the losers who tried to run again the percent that got the nomination was 100% Although clearly if Gore and Kerry both run, this estimate will change.

And another way of looking at it is that when a candidate ran who previously lost - they win 50% of the time. (Which is exactly the percent of people who are nominated who win each election :))

So, if you are impressed by this splendid analysis made on far too little data to make sense, it looks like a losing nominee who makes an effort to get the nomination has an excellent shot of getting the nomination and a 50/50 shot at winning the Presidency. Throw in that it is likely a Democratic year and Kerry and Gore should be in good shape.

.

I was just annoyed with some people who pretty much said Kerry was a great choice but he lost so let's find someone else.

Has anyone else been having problems with it? It used to work great for me , but now when the first mispelled word comes up, I click on to change it, then the frame freezes, until I click elswhere on the page. Really weird, all of a sudden, I think since we got the new format! I was active on the post you are referring too. Some dems are batshit crazy like the bush co.!!:crazy:

I haven't had any problem with spell check. I some times skip using it - which isn't a good idea because I'm a really bad typist and not a very good speller.

I'd say losing candidates or losing nominees can win. There are a lot of losers out there, but Kerry and Gore aren't in that category.

From: http://www.cybernation.com/lincoln/bio.php



Maybe Abe knew something we don't know.

And a little quote garden to tide me over:

It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. ~Albert Einstein

Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short races one after another. ~Walter Elliott, The Spiritual Life

People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them. ~G.B. Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession, 1893

Look at a stone cutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred-and-first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not the last blow that did it, but all that had gone before. ~Jacob A. Riis

When I get some reading on my hands done I am gonna write an essay about how Lincoln still matters even today. Got inspired to do this because of this great tribute my history professor made to Lincoln and the Lincoln memorial at the end of history the past semester. It was so touching and perfect and it explained so well the meanings behind all the things we learned about this year.

I have always "seen" Abe in his STATURE and his depth. I KNOW in my heart of hearts that John Kerry will be the second GREAT EMANCIPATER, as POTUS!! How's that for Faith?

It was just such a moving tribute to the president who I think has had the most prolonging impact on the republic. I'd like to see Kerry form his own legacy as president. He'd be the best president in my lifetime if elected. I think he would be much better than Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and yes Clinton.

I will give credibility to the people who in November of 2003 said John Kerry would win the Iowa Caucus and then go on to pretty much sweep the rest of the primaries.

Gee, I think in Nov of 2003, two months before the first caucus, the punditocracy was saying that Kerry's campaign was dead and that he was going to withdraw from the race. Two months before he won Iowa.

So, if the pundits who correctly predicted this, if all the keepers of politicial wisdom who just knew that this course of events would happen could point me to their prognostications, I would gladly read them and give them some respect in their current predictions. Anyone? Anyone at all?

Otherwise, they don't know nothing.

John Kerry ran for President only ONCE. He got the nomination on his FIRST TRY. And he came damn close (or won if you take election fraud into consideration) to defeating an incumbent President during wartime.

Al Gore ran for President three times, which means he lost twice before 2000. And if you also consider that he didn't get the nomination on either of these two prior attempts, it can be said that Al Gore's track record is not nearly as good as John Kerry's.

In horse racing lingo, Kerry had one start and lost by a nose resulting in a second place. Of Al Gore's three starts one was a Photo Finish resulting in second place and in the other two he was an Also Ran.

Kerry: one start - second place
Gore: three starts - second place

I'm not sure if you know anything about handicapping horse races, Karen, but from a mathematical perspective, who do you think they handicappers would prefer?

but Kerry seems the the better horse from this information. (I had forgotten how poorly he did in 1988 until reading the article posted in Sara's thread - which I think said he polled something like 3%. I also remember he had some kind of nasty fight with one of the other candidates.

The other think that many forget is how easily Kerry won the primaries. Some put it down to front loading - but if you compare the dynamics to 1992, if either Edwards or Clark were as good a candidate as Kerry, they could have easily become the frontrunner on the first multi-state day. Kerry won Iowa with 38% and Edwards got 32%, Dean 17%. IN NH, Kerry got 38%, Dean 26%, Edwards 12%, Clark 12%. So at that point, Kerry was clearly the front runner and Dean and Edwards were tied for second.

Edwards or even Clark had the potential to pull an upset in the first multi-state day. The states, SC, OK, MO, DE, NM and AZ were the type of states, except DE (and even Delaware is a Mason Dixon line border state) that the "red state - friendly" Edwards or Clark should have done well in if they were going to do well anywhere. These are not Massachusetts liberal friendy states. The media in fact ran stories on Edwards at this point. Kerry won 5 of the states and did poorly in none. The lowest result he got was 27% in OK to 30% each for Clark (who won) and Edwards. In South Carolina, Edwards got 45%, Kerry 30% and Clark 7%. In Mo, Kerry got 51%, Edwards 25%, Clark 4%. In no other state did Edwards get above 11%. (Numbers from: http://rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html )

CNN reported the day as a big win for Kerry and a small win for Edwards. In my view - this was too positive for Edwards, given the states involved - it was a huge Kerry win. All without the usual he's got the momentum stories. In reality, from the moment the first state cast it's votes, Kerry was the winner.

Kerry clearly didn't have the party or media support that say Hillary is likely to get, so it had to be that when people looked at his credentials or saw him, he was a very impressive candidate who connected very well. I loved the comments of Femrap who saw him at Utica this weekend. She wrote:

"I also attended his Campaign Speech in Newark, Ohio in the summer of 2004.

What a difference! During the '04 campaign, I would scream at TV when I heard Kerry speak, "Speak from your damn heart....stop listening to your dumbass advisors."

Yesterday, he spoke from his heart and people were just awed. He was honest, funny, approachable, kind, smart, caring....everything everyone would want in a President. He even admitted to making mistakes.

He was signing autographs when I approached him...I had to thank him for trying to stop the Alito nomination....he told me that he just doesn't get it....all his colleagues say they don't want Alito but they won't stand up for their convictions. Well, I would have just loved to delve into that conversation....but I said instead that he should tell his colleagues that many of us along with Daniel Elsberg (who I heard say this on Democracy, Now) are self-hating Democrats due to their behavior. He got a kick out of that...and laughed. "


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2637642&mesg_id=2638608

Great analysis of the primaries. It was during the primaries that Kerry grew on me. People who don't give Kerry credit for winning incredible support don't know what they're talking about.

Looking at it I was amazed at how massive the Kerry victories were. The amazing thing is that no one seems to remember this - which makes me feel better for not remembering. I knew he won all but a tiny group of states, but the fact that he won them by big margins is significant.

It also makes you wonder at things like the comment by the WP guy in the article for which theirs a link at the end of the Reilly article. Read Edwards - the results really don't live up to "Edwards is the most naturally talented politician in the field, a raw charisma that paid major dividends in 2004." It's interesting as he then ads:
"And he will benefit (as will Kerry) from having been through the wringer of national politics once before." Although it seems that Kerry took the brunt of everything. Oddly, he ends with " But there just doesn't seem to be the same energy for Edwards in the insider community as there was at this time in 2002." Yet he still places him a step before Kerry - who he may be under-estimating again.

support from the Democratic Party. He got zero support from the Democratic Party and they openly undermined him at every turn. Frankly, I am convinced that the party wrote off 2004 even before the first primary was held. Some were already positioning Hillary even back then and others were thinking of their own ambitions.

The article left me with a strong impression that the pundits are starting to notice that John Kerry has a lot of support and still can draw huge crowds. They are finally having to acknowledge that. Washington has dictated that John Kerry's all washed up but the people are the ones who matter in the end.

Many people are actually getting to know Kerry for the first time after the election. There wasn't enough time before the election for people to really get a handle on who John Kerry really is. Most of what they saw of him was either distorted or "canned."

winning, but TWO prior WINNERS actually, finally CLAIMING their victories.

The glass IS fully-full here. ALL votes need legally counted THIS time. And the already victorious two Dem candidates merely need to run again...and NOT back down. "No retreat...no surrender"...for REAL.