Your favorite opponents

Who would have been the weakest candidates for president, prime minister or chancellor in your candidates. Who would you really like to run against.
As a US Citizen and a Democrat, there have been certain Republicans I would loved to see get the nomination. This is year my favorite was Herman Cain. If only his extra marital affair had remained secret until after he won at the convention. In addition to that scandal is the fact that he let himself be caught off guard when asked about the intervention in Libya. He also did not seem prepared when confronted about his sexual harrssment charges.
Four years ago we had Rudi Giulani whose views on abortion would have caused a split in the Republican party and inspired a third party social conservative candidate. There is also his personal life, the extra marital affairs and the alienated children. I would have been so happy if Pat Buchanan won the 1992 or 1996 nomination. His culture war rhetoric would have turned off most of the electorate, Then there is Pat Robertson with his feminist encourage women to leave thier husbands, kill thier children and practice witchcraft. I recently read that he linked Methodists and Presybterians to the anti christ. In 1980, Paul Crane managed to keep his drinking problem from the public. I doubt he could do that if won the nomination. Yes I know that Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980 and 1984 but in 1968 his hawkish views would have been unpopular. Whats more with Wallace on the ballot the conservative vote would have been split. 1964 is the one year when my Republican won the nomination.
 
As a US citizen and a Theodore Roosevelt-style Republican, I'd love to run against the 1980 version of Jimmy Carter. Kicking the living snot out of a self-righteous Democrat would be pure joy. And who knows: perhaps (please, please, PLEASE!) the 2012 version of 0-bama will prove to be Carter's equal.
 
As a Republican, I remember rooting for Howard Dean or Joe Leiberman in 2004. The former because I knew he was too far left to win and the latter because he was so moderate it would depress the base.

Of course, if one's main concern was winning, I would love to have run in the 1950 or 60s if one of the major parties had been dumb enough to nominate an African American. Prejudice along would almost guarantee victory. The closest OTL analogy would be running against the Catholic Al Smith in 1928. But I really don't think I would want to win that way.
 
In 1988, Jesse Jackson was running for the Democratic nomination and Pat Robertson for the Republicans. If they'd both won, it would have been the election from Hell. They could have picked Ted Kennedy and Evan Meacham, respectively, as their VP candidates to put the icing on the cake.

Although we didn't know it at first, John Edwards was the nightmare candidate four years ago. This time around, I thought Michelle Bachmann was the most obviously unfit of the potential challengers.
 
As a Republican, I remember rooting for Howard Dean or Joe Leiberman in 2004. The former because I knew he was too far left to win and the latter because he was so moderate it would depress the base.

Dean wasn't "far left" on any issue but foreign policy - but that was the focal issue of the campaign, so that's what everyone knows him as. He supported UHC but was otherwise a fiscal moderate.

In 2012, Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann would have been perfect candidates to run against, as would Jon Huntsman (who could lead to a right-wing split) - but none of them ever had a chance to win the nomination.
 
Well, in Italy, probably one of the weakest candidates has been, in my opinion (with hindsight) Walter Veltroni in 2008.
I would have loved beating him. Obviously, as a candidate to his LEFT.

(for those not familiar with the situation, Veltroni was the Premier candidate of the Italian Democrat Party, that represents a very moderate centre-left. He was running against Berlusconi, and lost even more badly than expected, behaving with almost incredible dumbness as an opposition leader afterwards. There was a ragtag coalition to his left that fared even worse, not even reaching the threshold to enter the Parliament for the first time in the history of Italian Republic).
 
Dean wasn't "far left" on any issue but foreign policy - but that was the focal issue of the campaign, so that's what everyone knows him as. He supported UHC but was otherwise a fiscal moderate.

Right. But in 2004, foreign policy was the most important issue. Fiscal policies took a backseat. Plus it wasn't so much him actually being that far left, it was more his whole demeanor. If you have an extremist attitude and embrace extremist rhetoric, it give you a reputation for being an extremist politically too, regardless of what your policies actually are. See Newt Gingrich for an example of this on the other side of the spectrum.
 
Herman Cain. If only his extra marital affair had remained secret...

Alleged affair. Alleged, IIRC, by someone who just happens to live in Axelrod's apartment building.

In 1980, Paul Crane managed to keep his drinking problem from the public.

First, you mean Phil Crane. Second, Crane wasn't a drunk in 1980. That happened later, as he became bored with the political dead end he'd boxed himself into.

However... Democrats I would like to see nominated:

Jesse Jackson would be a catastrophic loser.

Al Sharpton would be another.

Let's not forget Dennis Kucinich.

For sheer madness - Hunter Thompson.

Going back in history: suppose Stephen Douglas had lost his Senate seat to Lincoln in 1858; that kills him for 1860, and leaves the moderate Democrats leaderless. So the Democrats nominate John Breckinridge on a flat out pro-slavery platform. The Republican wins the election with about 55% of the vote.
 
Top