A Bad Election to Win

Who would have been worse as Prime Minister?

  • Neil Kinnock

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • Michael Howard

    Votes: 6 40.0%

  • Total voters
    15
While discussing elections parties should have lost for their own long term good (Conservatives in '92 and probably Labour in '05) the phrase 'A good election to lose' kept cropping up.

Logically therefore if it would have good to lose it would be bad to win. Looking at the two losing candidates it's a hard argument to refute. The question is which would have been worse (for country and party) - PM Kinnock or PM Howard?
 

wormyguy

Banned
If I might introduce a little Amerocentrism into here - this is what I would consider to be the "good elections to lose" and "bad elections to win" (presidential elections) in recent history.

Good Elections to Lose: (won OTL, but should have lost)

Republicans:

1920
1928
1968
1972
2000
2004

Democrats:

1912
1916
1944
1948
1976

Bad Elections to Win: (lost OTL, and still shouldn't have won)

Republicans:

1912
1916
1976
1996

Democrats:

1920
1928
1968
1972
1980
2000
2004




Note that I am talking about health of the party (as in, popular support), and not necessarily successful implementation of its preferred policies.
 
Top