I was quoting defeated presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in the last thread I started, and also recently have been reading Irving Stone's book They Also Ran, about the losing candidates in American presidential elections. Stone tries to determine which of the losers would have made better presidents than the winners.
To the American posters here, which losing presidential candidates do you think would have performed better in the office than the victors, and why?
To the non-American posters, which losing candidates for the post of head of government in your country would have done better than the victors, and why? As some posters come from countries where democratic institutions are not very long established, I think we need to restrict the question to politicians who lost genuinely democratic elections.
Strictly speaking the head of government is the Queen, but she is not elected and does not have much power. The position of most power is Prime Minister, but that position entails a lot less power than the US president or even the UK Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the most inept post-war governments were probably the van Agt cabinets (1977-1982) which racked up huge deficits for no real reason and the Balkenede I cabinet (2002-2003) which managed to do pretty much nothing in the wake of the very successful Purple era (1994-2002) (subsequent Balkenende governments weren't much more successful).
Originally posted by TeinosukeJohn Kerry
I was quoting defeated presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in the last thread I started, and also recently have been reading Irving Stone's book They Also Ran, about the losing candidates in American presidential elections. Stone tries to determine which of the losers would have made better presidents than the winners.
To the American posters here, w ...[text shortened]... think we need to restrict the question to politicians who lost genuinely democratic elections.
Al Gore
Michael Dukakis
Walter Mondale
Jimmy Carter
George McGovern
Hubert Humphrey
Adlai Stevenson
Al Smith
Robert LaFollette
James M. Cox
William Jennings Bryan
Eugene Debs
Originally posted by TeinosukeFord probably would have done better than Carter... but I'm only confident of that because an inanimate lump of coal probably would have done better than Carter.
I was quoting defeated presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson in the last thread I started, and also recently have been reading Irving Stone's book They Also Ran, about the losing candidates in American presidential elections. Stone tries to determine which of the losers would have made better presidents than the winners.
To the American posters here, w ...[text shortened]... think we need to restrict the question to politicians who lost genuinely democratic elections.
Pre-Inconvenient Truth Gore (read: pre-narcissist phase Gore) may have done a better job than Bush.
Not sure about McCain-Obama. Jury's still out I guess.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo who was the leader of the opposition in Van Agt's time - and would he have avoided those mistakes?
Strictly speaking the head of government is the Queen, but she is not elected and does not have much power. The position of most power is Prime Minister, but that position entails a lot less power than the US president or even the UK Prime Minister. Nevertheless, the most inept post-war governments were probably the van Agt cabinets (1977-1982) which ra ...[text shortened]... essful Purple era (1994-2002) (subsequent Balkenende governments weren't much more successful).
Originally posted by sh76It seems that integrity and honesty are not important factors for a president in your opinion. Otherwise why this constant Carter bashing? Is it the Camp David Accord?
Ford probably would have done better than Carter... but I'm only confident of that because an inanimate lump of coal probably would have done better than Carter.
Pre-Inconvenient Truth Gore (read: pre-narcissist phase Gore) may have done a better job than Bush.
Not sure about McCain-Obama. Jury's still out I guess.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThere were multiple opposition parties, but the main one was the Labour Party led by Joop den Uyl, who was Prime Minister in the Den Uyl I cabinet (1973-1977). This cabinet did a much better job, at least fiscally, especially considering they had to cope with the oil crisis. The Labour Party won a massive victory in 1977, but was unable to form a majority coalition, and the christian democrats (led by van Agt) and conservative liberals formed a coalition which had a two-seat majority.
So who was the leader of the opposition in Van Agt's time - and would he have avoided those mistakes?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't approve of an inability to handle skyrocketing energy costs, huge interest rates and low economic growth or his botching of the Iranian hostage crisis.
You didn't approve of falling unemployment, balanced budgets and his scaling back of the War on Drugs?
Originally posted by sh76The energy crisis and stagflation issues were global (although Carter definitely should have significantly raised taxes on petrol to reduce foreign oil dependence). As for the hostage crisis I'm sure you are aware of the agreement between Reagan and the Iranian regime.
I don't approve of an inability to handle skyrocketing energy costs, huge interest rates and low economic growth or his botching of the Iranian hostage crisis.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReagan didn't have any agreement with anyone a year and a half before he took office.
The energy crisis and stagflation issues were global (although Carter definitely should have significantly raised taxes on petrol to reduce foreign oil dependence). As for the hostage crisis I'm sure you are aware of the agreement between Reagan and the Iranian regime.