When has the better candidate lost the election? When has the worst candidate won?
History is generally written by people admiring the winnner and therefore assuming that he/she "must" have been the better candidate.
I'm talking about irrespective of the politics, the political environment, and the issues. If you had to bet money on a candidate which one would you want on your team?
It has happened.
1997 New Jersey: Christine T. Whitman was the worst candidate against Democrat McGreevey
2000 national: Bush was a better candidate than Gore but lost popular vote
1996 Virginia: Mark Warner was a better candidate than John Warner
2006 Maryland: Martin O'Malley was the worst candidate against incumbent Bob Erhlich
My point is that the media tends to glorify winning campaigns and candidates and tear down the losers. The reality is that in our country everything is political. The news. History. Everything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It may interesting to read someone's opinion regarding who is and who is or isn't a "better candidate" or a "worse candidate". But it mean very little when you fail to use and discuss criteria for what makes a candidate better or worse and how these various candidates rate based on your criteria.
For all I know, your judgements are made on a whim or a simple perception of things that may not be close to reality. This seems to be the case based on my reading of your words
Generally speaking, the person you might think of as the "better candidate" has lost an election, might have lost because of what some think are outside circumstances beyond his/her control. But, if that is true, then that candidate failed to adapt and adopt either in the campaign or long before.
Guess what THAT makes such a candidate. The worse one.
Post a Comment