Presidential Candidacy Lengths

This is a question for the board, regarding factors that go into constructing political ATLs. Some explanation first:

Is it just me, or does it seem like the length of time a potential president "runs" for the office has a certain... effect on him? I don't quite have my finger on it -- but I guess you could call it desperation, or cynicism, or something else but it seems if you're rumored to be and/or are running for President for more than four years, then you're method of campaigning undergoes a kind of change?

Examples: Hillary Clinton was talked about as a candidate for President all the way back in 2000, then as the primaries went on, her campaign developed a reputation for dirty tactics and mudslinging; John McCain was notably more conservative in his 2008 run than he was in 2000, and more prone to wild gambits; and there's Mitt Romney in 2008 vs Mitt Romney today. Not to mention long candidates before, like the differences between Nixon or Humphrey in 1960 vs either in 1968 -- it's been argued that the roots of his the Nixon Presidency's paranoid style was sown in his 1960 defeat, and that Humphrey underwent a major transformation tying himself ever closer to the Democratic structures. That's still saying nothing of Bush Sr during the 1980's -- though it's also saying nothing of Reagan, who (I'm not sure) may be the exception to... whatever I'm getting at.

My AH question then -- to what extent should ATLs, that have politicians doing better at earlier Presidential runs, or pulling a Nixon (not of OTL), parallel the similarly successful campaigns of OTL? For example, how much should "McCain wins in 2000" TLs take from the senator's OTL 2008 run? Or say a TL has JFK lose to Nixon in 1960, only to have a political comeback in 1968 -- would it be presumptuous to have an earlier Nixon Presidency be "saner", while having JFK take on classically "Nixonian" character traits? And whatever applications of this tendency, or of its rejection, are there?
 
It can go both ways, depending I suppose on circumstance and narrative one wants to develop. Let's deal with the 'comeback scenario' first.
There are two situations we can draw from OTL:

1) The Breakdown - Nixon and McCain are good examples of this. People who ran and lost ('60 and '00) then got further the second time around, supposedly loosing their values in the process ('68 and '08). These sort of situations seem to come around when the candidate falls to 'dirty tricks' and also when it is their 'time'.
I think a better ATL example than the JFK one (since he'll likely not be in a healthy place to run in '68) is RFK loosing to Humphrey in '68 Primary, rerunning in '76 with a not-so-sunny campaign.

2) The Rebranding - This scenario is by those who were close to winning but were probably running a little prematurely. So the second time the run, they've matured campaign-wise (and maybe personally) and run a more effective campaign. This is harder to think of specific examples of, happening more at the Primary level. Gary Hart (before Donna Rice) and Jesse Jackson in '88 were better than '84. Reagan in '80 was better than '76 and '68.

GHWB could fall into either of the two categories above, in fact I think he does in both. He started the '88 campaign as The Rebranded - appearing Presidential, the heir inherent. However, the campaign began to take its toll, with poor primary showings. People were just tired of the same administration after 8 years; and Bush was no Reagan. In the general, Dukakis wasn't doing well, per se, but Bush was doing poorly. Atwater is usually blamed for the nasty tone the race took, but Bush was the one who had to greenlight it.

Honorary mention goes to Bob Dole. Poor, poor Bob...

102451.jpg


Now, for earlier wins, there are (at least) two options as well.

1) The Innocent - Candidates who win earlier on are, by definition, less experienced, perhaps a little naive. In this example, perhaps it is for the best they did not win earlier. Reagan in '68 would start the Presidency with only two years of governmental experience of any kind! He would not be the same President as '80. Clinton and Gore were likely mediocre choices in '88. Arguably, Carter could've been a better choice for '80, maybe with a few Senate years under hes belt.

2) The Paragon - Without a doubt, Nixon in '60 would've been a better President then '68. Without a doubt, McCain in '00 would've been better than '08. These are examples of candidates sullied by the world of presidential politics, charred husks of their former greatness (pardon the dramatic flare). What shining beacons would Dole in '80 or Gore in '92 would've been? Only the whispers of unfufilled destinies, carried by butterfly winds, can tell.
 
Top