Can someone tell me why previous presidential candidate don't re-campaign?

[WooDaddy]

Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

That's a good question. I've always wondered why Gore didn't run again. Dukakis I understand, he got walloped pretty badly.

I guess the old saying rings true on both sides of the aisle... "Nobody likes a loser."

The same question could've been asked of GHWB or Dole as well.

Al Gore IS strongly considering running for President in '08. That would be interesting.

Kerry is most likely running again in '08. Hillary is most likely going to run in '08.

Dean, if he doesn't get DNC Chair, is going to run in '08. It's going to be a very crowded primary. Sheesh!

 

[bamacre]

Wow, if the two parties have anything in common, it's nominating horrible candidates.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Wow, if the two parties have anything in common, it's nominating horrible candidates.

Hehe, maybe so.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

That's a good question. I've always wondered why Gore didn't run again. Dukakis I understand, he got walloped pretty badly.

Gore ruined his chances of running because of the way he acted after he won.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Nixon did, quite successfully, winning more terms than where won by the first guy to defeat him.

so, I?d say, that usually turns out very well.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Nixon did, quite successfully, winning more terms than where won by the first guy to defeat him.

so, I?d say, that usually turns out very well.

BTW, nice edit. LOL. But I agree, there's no real pervasive reason to think that someone couldn't run again and be successful.

 

[WooDaddy]

True.. Forgot about Nixon

 

[bamacre]

IIRC, Lincoln ran and lost a lot of elections before he became President. Anything is possible, it would all depend on the candidate and the state of the nation.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Nixon did, quite successfully, winning more terms than where won by the first guy to defeat him.

so, I?d say, that usually turns out very well.

BTW, nice edit. LOL. But I agree, there's no real pervasive reason to think that someone couldn't run again and be successful.

thanks :-D

and i agree.

gore would be great to see in 08

I?d like to see a gore Hillary ticket for 08.

 

[yllus]

Not knowing who the Republicans would put up, I would hypothetically cast a vote for Gore in 2008. He could never run of course - losers in that big a race are tainted for life. And Kerry was just a bad choice altogether. I don't doubt the actual intelligence of the man - but if he holds any real opinions on the issues, he just doesn't have charisma to put them forward convincingly.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Nixon did, quite successfully, winning more terms than where won by the first guy to defeat him.

so, I?d say, that usually turns out very well.

BTW, nice edit. LOL. But I agree, there's no real pervasive reason to think that someone couldn't run again and be successful.

thanks :-D

and i agree.

gore would be great to see in 08

I?d like to see a gore Hillary ticket for 08.

I'm not so sure Al would want Hillary on the ticket. But a Gore/Dean ticket would cluster both sides of the Dem line.

Edit: A Kerry/Dean ticket would've won it easily for Kerry. Dean would've been able to swing more non-voters out of the woodwork and he would've been the attack dog Kerry needed versus Cheney.

 

[digitalsm]

Al Gore ran in 1988, and 1992, he just got beat in the Democratic primaries both times.

Why dont party nominees run on mulitple occassions? Its tough to do when your base sees you as a loser...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Al Gore ran in 1988, and 1992, he just got beat in the Democratic primaries both times.

Why dont party nominees run on mulitple occassions? Its tough to do when your base sees you as a loser...

So I guess John McCain shouldn't run in '08 then? And didn't GHWB run in '80?

 

[raildogg]

Believe Al Gore would run in 08, just like Nixon did after losing in 60. Only thing is that things were going really terribly for LBJ, that probably got Nixon got elected. Lets see what happens.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Believe Al Gore would run in 08, just like Nixon did after losing in 60. Only thing is that things were going really terribly for LBJ, that probably got Nixon got elected. Lets see what happens.

Agreed... '08 should be quite interesting.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

It?s a sand commentary on humanity when anyone is attacked because of there non-violent religious beliefs or by the violent religious individual.

When will we learn that vengeance in the name of our faith is never something that any of us can honestly believe is righteous.

losers in that big a race are tainted for life.

he won the popular vote, the same reason Nixon could run and win later on.

And didn't GHWB run in '80?

and was a big critic of Reagan?s voodoo economics, and thus was quieted by being moved into the VP position.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
It?s a sand commentary on humanity when anyone is attacked because of there non-violent religious beliefs or by the violent religious individual.

When will we learn that vengeance in the name of our faith is never something that any of us can honestly believe is righteous.

losers in that big a race are tainted for life.

he won the popular vote, the same reason Nixon could run and win later on.

And didn't GHWB run in '80?

and was a big critic of Reagan?s voodoo economics, and thus was quieted by being moved into the VP position.

I saw his (Gore's) speech at Georgetown University on C-Span.org. He's certainly improved his speaking skills over the last 4 years.

 

[daveshel]

And there was Harold Stassen!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

Reagan did. Nixon did.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reagan, ntdz? Hardly.

The LOSER! stigma is usually too much for any candidate's party to overcome, bring back any of the voters' rejects... Nixon was the only candidate to do so successfully in modern history, iirc. He won only because of the split in the Dems over Vietnam, and he crypto-racist messages in the Repubs' then new "Southern Strategy"....

Prior to that, TR couldn't do it successfully, and the only example I know of is the Harrison-Cleveland flipflop of the late 1880's to early 1890's...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

Reagan did. Nixon did.

Did Reagan run in the '76 Primaries?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

That's a good question. I've always wondered why Gore didn't run again. Dukakis I understand, he got walloped pretty badly.

I guess the old saying rings true on both sides of the aisle... "Nobody likes a loser."

The same question could've been asked of GHWB or Dole as well.

Al Gore IS strongly considering running for President in '08. That would be interesting.

Kerry is most likely running again in '08. Hillary is most likely going to run in '08.

Dean, if he doesn't get DNC Chair, is going to run in '08. It's going to be a very crowded primary. Sheesh!

I might as well throw my Hat in the ring, couldn't possible do worse than Gore or Kerry and no one could be a worse President than Bush.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: WooDaddy
Quick question,

Only the presidents are limited to two consecutive terms. Why is it that previous candidates don't typically try again? I understand that if they lost they feel shamed, but they won't have to compete against that candidate again especially in the case of a lame duck presidency.

Now I'm not saying Al Gore, John Kerry or Dukakis should... but someone give me your opinion why they don't.

Because they've already proven themselves to be losers! If Kerry couldn't even beat someone like the Dub what makes you think Americans would vote him again?