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?