Almost President: The Men Who Lost The Race But Changed The Nation

by Scott Farris

As the 2012 presidential campaign begins, Almost President profiles a dozen men who have run for the American presidency and lost—but who, even in defeat, have had a greater impact on American history than many of those who have served as president. Scott Farris tells us the stories of legendary figures from Henry Clay to Stephen Douglas, William Jennings Bryan to Thomas Dewey. He also includes mini-profiles on every major candidate nominated for president who never reached the White House but who helped ensure the success of American democracy.   Farris explains how Barry Goldwater achieved the party realignment that had eluded FDR, how George McGovern paved the way for Barack Obama, and how Ross Perot changed the way all presidential candidates campaign. There is Al Smith, the first Catholic nominee for president; and Adlai Stevenson, the candidate of the “eggheads” who remains the beau ideal of a liberal statesman. Others covered by this book include Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain. The mini profiles also include evocative portraits of such men as John C. Fremont, the first Republican Party presidential candidate; and General Winfield Scott, whose loss helped guarantee the Union victory in the Civil War.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Biography, Presidents, The United States Of America

352 pages, Hardcover

First published December 6, 2011

Reviews

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of those books that immediately I can't resist. I was a tad worried that only a year after both CNN and PBS did excellent video series on past elections and candidates, as well as some of my recent reading list, there might not be a whole lot left to learn.

I needn't worry though since Farris does a particularly good job in relaying these stories. I suspect Farris knew about the most famous book of this kind (and his notes pages do admit his awareness) Irving Stone's 1943 book, They Also Ran, and likely because of that (and probably commercial pressures) focuses a lot on modern losing candidates. Farris's intent is to cover the candidates that lost that he thought had the biggest effect in American history.

The book starts with a great chapter on concession speeches. This, he argues, is the fabric of America. Even if you disagree with Al Gore (or if you're old enough and still haven't gotten over Samuel Tilden) and think he conceded too easy; by doing so, he helped move the country in a healing way. Even in the modern divisiveness of McCain conceding to Obama. It rings particularly true post 2016 when some might have liked to seen more fight in Hillary, or one suspects if Trump had not ascended into the White house, would he have moved forward with concession or tore at old wounds and argued that he should be President- a move which clearly would be damaging.

He also points out that as far as the popular vote goes, landslides are rare. There are only four elections in the post-Federalist era that one candidate received 60% of the vote (Harding over Cox, FDR over Landon, LBJ over Goldwater, Nixon over McGovern)

Farris's picks are

Henry Clay- Clay is a great American in a time of mediocre Presidents. Unfortunately, the Whigs tended to be the minority party, so the only times they were able to get enough votes to win was when they nominated ex-war heroes. Farris argues that though Andrew Jackson is the father of the modern Democratic party, that it is Clay whose views are more aligned with the liberals of today. Farris treats Clay as a bit of a Bill Clinton figure. Loved by his party, hated by the opposition, and a bit of a lovable rogue.

Stephen Douglas- Douglas did try to keep the union together despite the country tearing apart in Civil war. Republicans wanted everyone to follow in step and silence dissent. Douglas may have saved his party, offering a differing voice and criticism that likely helped the country. It also kept the Democrat party strong enough to at least give Grant a strong challenge, win state and local elections and return to the White House in 20 years. (Douglas of course is on the wrong side of slavery, and Farris discusses that difficult topic as well)

William Jennings Bryan- Bryan is strongly associated with the Scopes Monkey Trial, but Farris argues that he wasn't anti-science. Instead, in those times, people were arguing that Darwinism and more accurately through Social Darwinsim and Eugenics that there was not a humanistic need to help those who were in need. Bryan strongly believed in government assistance and safety net.

Al Smith- Smith was the first Catholic Presidential candidate in a country that discriminated against Catholics, and a group whose main involvement in politicswas as boogeyman for groups like the Know Nothings and the KKK. Smith got stomped but Catholics entered the mainstream, which was helped by Hollywood in the 30s and 40s and priests as portrayed by Bing Crosby and Spencer Tracy.

Tom Dewey- Dewey, like Smith was governor of New York and has a fascinating bio. Dewey ran strong against FDR in 1944 and as you know was expected to win in 48. Farris picks Dewey as the GOP leader who set the precedent (that even know is still strongly adhered to except in rare cases) that the GOP was not going to attempt to repeal Medicare or Social Security.

Adlai Stevenson- One person said this was the chapter where it was okay for an 'egghead' to be President. Adlai is where the Dems started to get painted with the brush of the intellectual elite and out of touch with the traditional blue collar crowd (though in fact, he was much less a Blue Blood than Ike and Nixon). After Adlai, the Dems have been the party of Tsongas and Hillary and even Obama was tagged with being 'too smart'.

Barry Goldwater- The 1964 election could have been very interesting. Goldwater had written a book that was hot, and President Kennedy had fumbled in his first couple of years. JFK and Goldwater were friends and pictured a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates across the country where they would argue their points intellectually. That did not happen, of course, and no one likely would have beat LBJ. Goldwater's legacy of course did live in, although Barry might not have always agreed with his predecessors.

George McGovern- Under McGovern, the Democrats put more than an inordinate amount of power first in hands of the people via caucuses, and then to groups like women and minorities. From a strictly numbers point of view, this was not a winning strategy in 1972. It however, was the campaign plan that got Obama elected.

Ross Perot- Perot is an interesting one. He for sure made a 3rd party movement viable. As this book was published, his legacy was questionable. While he had success, he was unable to keep the movement going without him- people like Pat Buchanan and Dick Lamm did not have his appeal. Farris also argues that Perot had middle of the road appeal, so he is not particularly analogous to the Tea Party. Reading this in hindsight, Perot clearly helped pave the way for Trump, who was able to take a lot of Perot's appeal and a country that desired a businessman not a politician.

Gore, Kerry, McCain- Farris clearly wanted to hedge his bets and he puts these three together. Too close in the rear view mirror to judge. Farris argues that these men changed the definition of the 'also ran' to what it used to be - the leader of the opposition, instead of what t became- a Mondale or Dukakis. Gore, of course for his activism. Kerry as Farris correctly predicted someone with Secretary of State aspirations. McCain as a voice of dissent during the Obama administration.

The best part of the book may be the end which has short bios of everybody who ever had a major party nomination and lost (and unlike Jefferson, Jackson, Nixon et al never won). That is pretty fascinating. A list of great mostly forgotten Americans like Horace Greeley and John Fremont and people even history fans tend to forget like Horatio Seymour and Charles Evans Hughes. Farris mentions that no one writes about the losers- even someone as great as Henry Clay. Even the lowest President gets more press. He points out for example, that no one has written a biography on Alton Parker (1904, lost to TR).

There was a lot about this book I liked and I learned a lot and specially liked the extra bio sketches. (As an FYI, I found this unbiased, but Farris did run for US Senate in Wyoming as a Democrat so that is where his heart lies)

[Judy · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a general rule, Americans focus on victorious presidential candidates and relegate the losers to the ash heap of history. However, according to Scott Farris, these unsuccessful presidential candidates have had a greater impact on the history of the United States than many of the men who actually held the office. They have helped to create, transform, and realign political parties, advocate new policies and programs that would later become law, and break barriers of class, religion, and gender. Losing candidates have often been prophetic while many successful candidates have been locked into the politics of the past. This book focuses on the men who won the nomination of a major political party, but then lost the general election. It omits men who lost and then later won the presidency or those presidents who were defeated in a bid for re-election. Focusing on ten major unsuccessful candidates, Farris also included Ross Perot because he felt that of all of the third party candidates in U.S. history, Perot and former President Teddy Roosevelt running as a Progressive in 1912 were the only two third-party candidates who really had a chance to be elected.

Henry Clay, who was one of the greatest legislators in U.S. history and who ran for president three times, is the best example of how failing to win the presidency reduces a candidate's historical presence. Clay's crafting of the American System, the Missouri Compromise, and the Compromise of 1850 tried to ensure that each section of the country had its needs addressed, displayed his ardent nationalism, and delayed sectional conflict through legislative compromise.

There are numerous other examples of the importance of defeated candidates. Stephen Douglas lost to Abraham Lincoln in 1860, but he worked to ensure that the Democratic Party survived the Civil War intact and was an important force in reuniting the country after the war. Largely because of Douglas's emphasis on the Democratic Party as the "loyal opposition", the Democrats remained competitive in national elections during and after the Civil War. Douglas also broke precedent and personally campaigned for the presidency, traveling to states like Rhode Island which he had no hope of winning. After campaigning in New England, he also traveled to the South were he repeatedly spoke against secession. Ultimately he campaigned in 23 states in three and a half months.

William Jennings Bryan believed that the national government should become involved in working for a more just and compassionate society and he was often viewed as much as a preacher as a politician. Running against William McKinley in 1896 and abandoned by the center of the Democratic Party, Bryan campaigned around the country, traveling 18,000 miles through 26 states drawing crowds of as large as 70,000. After Bryan, the tradition of the "front porch" campaign died out Despite his lack of money and support from his own party, Bryan carried 22 states in the South and West and received over 47% of the popular vote. While also running unsuccessfully for President in 1900 and 1908, Bryan's lasting legacy for the Democratic Party was moving it away from its conservative past and into a more liberal, reform-seeking future.

Other "almost presidents" were instrumental in changing American politics. In 1928, the unsuccessful run by Democrat Al Smith, the first Catholic to run for president from a major political party paved the way for John Kennedy's victory in 1960 and helped to change the way many American viewed Catholics. Thomas Dewey guided the Republican Party away from an agenda of New Deal repeal and into a reconciliation of the basic outlines of the welfare state. And, Adlai Stevenson helped Americans overcome the prejudice against "eggheads" running for office. There are also lengthy essays on Barry Goldwater, Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain as well as shorter pieces on the remaining "also-rans" for President.

[Kennedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this and learned a lot. For any of you doing the presidential biography challenge--definitely take a look at this.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a nice find for me. I caught it on sale, and it languished away on my shelves for months. If I'd have known it was this good, I would have read it right away.

The most fascinating almost-presidents were Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, and Ross Perot, but you don't want to miss William Jennings Bryan (Scopes Trial) either.

Political junkies should pick this up right away

[Blaine Welgraven · Rating 4 out of 5]

"There was a time when America was more forgiving of failure and when a single loss did not define a person's legacy. In a study of changing American attitudes toward failure in business, Scott A. Sandage notes that before the nineteenth century, the whole concept of failure applied only to the world of commerce and even then 'failure was an incident, not an identity.' In the early days of our republic, industriousness was admired, but ambition was not." - Scott Farris, Almost President

An interesting book, with levels of biographic nuance that really surprised me. Farris really researched his presidential profiles - and it shows. I particularly appreciated his layered, careful approach to such presidential candidates as Stephen Douglas and William Jennings Bryan.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed parts of this book, especially the first half that dug deeper into some parts of history that most Americans don't often think about. Unfortunately, the second half becomes less of a series of mini-biographies and more of the author's quest to portray democrats as the saviors of democracy and civil rights while convincing the reader that republicans are anti-intellectual racists. Speaking out against integration and equal rights on the part of democratic candidates is presented, as it should be, as history, an unfortunate but not to be forgotten part of the American journey. Where precisely the same is true of those on the other side of the aisle, the author is merciless in insisting that even libertarianism is a form of racism. I would love to recommend this book, just stop about the time you get to Adlai Stevenson.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almost President is about candidates that lost the presidential election but had an impact on the nation despite losing. I question how John Kerry makes this list, but most of the people that author Scott Farris wrote about I agree with.

Some of the figures covered are Barry Goldwater, William Jennings Bryan, and Adlai Stevenson. Barry Goldwater, for example, lost the 1964 election to Lyndon Johnson, but he made conservatism influential and brought Ronald Reagan to the attention many with his "A Time of Choosing" speech. A short and interesting read.

[Danny Proffitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fairly well balanced and entertaining read about those who have run for the presidency and lost. If you know American political history reasonably well, there won't be many surprises and some sections feel like a textbook review (necessary to give context for those less steeped in political history). However, there remain some valuable and interesting tidbits that make for a satisfying read.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Today, to attain the Presidency, is to rise to the height of power and influence in the United States and to fail to attain it, a sign that your political career and usefulness to the United States is at an end. However, this current state of affairs is a recent addition to America's governmental landscape. In fact, for most of the past 200+ years, the "almost presidents" referenced in this book of the same name, provided good service to the United States, either before or after their failure to rise to the presidency. "Almost President: the Men Who Lost the Race But Changed the Nation" casts an investigative eye onto those men who forever changed this country through their failure.

These overlooked men include the Great Compromiser, "Henry Clay, a Secretary of State and the man who helped prevent the Civil War from occurring 40 years earlier with his Missouri Compromise, but who ran afoul of public opinion by daring to be a foe to war hero Andrew Jackson, which ultimately cost Clay the presidency.

In addition, the legacy of party loyalty to the Republican Party by African-Americans for a century was overturned by Barry Goldwater during his racist campaign to have the Republicans take back the South for white males, thus turning blacks into the Democratic Party stalwart supporters they are today. Goldwater's campaign sounded the death knell for bipartisanship in American politics.

The other "almost presidents", from Stephen Douglas, who worked hard after his loss to Abraham Lincoln to keep the Democratic Party a united force in American politics, as a result, the party survived the Civil War intact, to Ross Perot who changed the way presidential candidates campaign, to William Jennings Bryan, the perennial candidate who would have been appalled as the mudslinging which went on during the recent losses of Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain, all made their mark on America without being President. Though the influence of the later three has yet to be determined, but Gore had made significant forays into protecting the environment, while both Kerry and McCain are powerhouses for their respective parties in the Senate.

I found "Almost President" by Scott Farris to be a very engaging and informative book. I was already interested in the history of American politics, so it wasn't a hard sell to get me to pick-up this book. But the style in which it was written, from word choice to the presentation of the information, would make it easily approachable by even history novices. I look forward to reading future historical forays by Scott Farris.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would highly recommend this book for anyone following the current Presidential nominations/election. There are many lessons that could be applied from the past to this present situation. As it was, however, I enjoyed learning about the people who lost out on being president but were significant, influential men nonetheless. Americans are focused too much nowadays on "winners vs losers" but if more were to study the men who lost presidential elections maybe they would see there's a lot to learn from these people. For instance, I learned quite a bit about Stephen A. Douglas, who has been overshadowed completely by President Lincoln. I learned how Barry Goldwater and George McGovern are largely to credit for the current statuses of the Republican and Democratic parties individually. Just an overall great read for American history buffs, president buffs, and those following the current elections.

[Sherry Sharpnack · Rating 5 out of 5]

For history geeks such as myself,
This was a really fascinating,
& prescient, book to read right after Hillary Clinton's "loss" in the 2016 US presidential race. I had no idea how much influence many of these men had on the course of politics in the US. I particularly enjoyed the first chapter, "Concession," as the election loser's attitude toward the loss & the concession speech have been all-important in the country moving forward after an election, & the peaceful transformation of
Power from one administration to the next, as exemplified by Al Gore in his "loss" in 2000. Now we have had two contenders in 16 years win the popular vote but lose in the Elextoral College. I would like to know Mr.
Farris' opinion on that and on Trump's unimaginable election to the presidency. Strange times...

[Liz Hargnett · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was frustrating to read because it was both interesting and boring at the same time. It was interesting during the parts which actually discussed how a candidate changed our political structure, as the premise of the book states. For example, that Barry Goldwater's campaign made the Republican party conservative and the Democratic party liberal, whereas before him each party had conservative and liberal extremes.

But it gets wonky too easily. I just don't care who's a Federalist and who's a Whig and who supported the rise and fall of those parties. And I had to wade through a lot of wonkiness to get to the good stuff.

Although, I never fully appreciated at the time the true nuttiness of Ross Perot. That's a good chapter.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although the author's political leanings are pretty apparent (just compare the chapters on Goldwater and McGovern), this was overall a great study on some talented men we never hear much about but should. Recommended for anyone interested in history and politics.

[Saleh · Rating 5 out of 5]

For history lovers, the not so popular stories that changed the face of the american political history. Good read especially in an election year.

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed learning about the presidential runner up's that have had such an impact on the shape of our country.

[Jean · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is vastly informative and also quite entertaining; it encapsulates the history of the United States by focusing on "the men who lost the race but changed the nation." As the author states, presidential elections show not only what Americans vote for, but what they vote against. And the first way that presidential losers influence the immediate future is in conceding the election to the winner, thus allowing American democracy to continue. In each chapter, we see how the losing candidate concedes, whether conceding graciously, ungraciously, or perhaps prematurely (as in the case of Al Gore in 2000.)

In all of the chapters the author shows what continuing influence the losing presidential candidate had on the flow of American history. Prior to the advent of television and the concept of "celebrity," the losing party's leader was usually esteemed and valued as a wise leader, but since the 1950s no losing candidate has been rewarded with positions of leadership.

Chapters 2 through 10 feature nine men whose candidacies for president have had the greatest impact on the American political system-- from Henry Clay to Ross Perot. In chapter 11, the jury is still out on the influence of Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain, three who coincidentally served in the VietNam war. The Appendix gives shorter summaries on candidates who had lesser influence from 1804 to 1996. As the book was ready to be published in 2012, the author was able to add an addendum regarding Mitt Romney, who lost to Barack Obama that year.

Each of the chapters provide background information and detail the philosophies of candidates as well as the national mood influencing our elections. These details also include many human interest stories and bring the candidates to life. The wealth of research by the author makes it feel like he was present alongside the "almost presidents" who have helped to advance American politics and history.

I'm curious as to whether another edition will be forthcoming to include "a woman who lost the race but changed the nation" in 2016, and the matter of concession/insurrection in 2020.

[Jim Gallen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I chose “Almost President” to learn a bit about unsuccessful candidates for the presidency and their influence on history, both through their candidacies and other parts of their careers. It begins with a chapter on the importance of the concession speech for the defeated candidates’ legacies. It then continues with chapters about losers who had significant influence: Henry Clay is cited for his long legislative career and his founding of the Whig party that contested elections for decades before the Civil War; Stephen Douglas for saving the Democratic Party as a loyal opposition during the Civil War when it could have been forever destroyed by the one issue of rebellion; William Jennings Bryan for introducing liberal, populist movements that started the transformation of the Democratic Party from a conservative to a liberal instrument; Thomas E. Dewey for overcoming Republican isolationism and making internationalism a dominant force in his party; Adlai Stevenson for bringing intellectuals into the Democratic Party; Barry Goldwater for the conservative takeover of the Republican Party; George McGovern for opening the Democratic Party processes to new voters; and Ross Perot for his new ways of reaching the electorate. The three Vietnam veterans, Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain share a chapter. The appendix presents brief articles about all other major party losers followed by an addendum for Mitt Romney.

I found this work to be a very interesting read for the insights it provides into the places these individuals played in the history of our country. So often, they are remembered only for their moment in the limelight, without recognizing that these were only a few months of their lives. On these pages I learned much about the accomplishments that made them presidential timber, the wake of their campaigns and how they used their notoriety to be forces in their parties and nation.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read a lot of books, even a lot of books about elections and politics [1], but the response I got to this book was very remarkable and striking to me, to the point where as I read it at lunch, and then at dinner, people stopped to ask me about the book and then gave me conspiratorial nods about how relevant the work was to what is going on right now. And indeed that is true. Yet although I read a lot of books few of them draw the sort of interest that this book did. I suppose it ought to be a sign that anything about politics is going to draw a lot of interest. In the case of this book, the attention is deserved, as even though I disagree with the point of view of the author concerning what is ideal, the subject matter of this book is without a doubt very timely, and that is something that deserves to be appreciated. This book was certainly a worthwhile read and that is something worth celebrating, even if it was distracting and a bit irritating having to talk to people who wanted to hear about this book while I was in the process of reading it.

This book has straightforward contents and begins with a chapter that discusses the importance of the concession in preserving the overall political legitimacy of the American political system, something that is extremely relevant at present. After that the author spends several chapters talking about notable and influential people who never won the office of presidency but made it close and whose ideas have stood the test of time and whose behavior was massively influential: Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Ross Perot, and then a combination chapter with Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain. The book's appendix gives short discussions of all the failed major-party candidates for the presidency. There are some elements of this book that were prophetic, in that they showed John Kerry's fitness to be Secretary of State, which he was in Obama's second term. The author mentions more than once that Alton Parker has never had a biography written about him, which someone needs to get done. The author appears to be open for a new project if there is a publisher interested.

There is a lot that we can learn about elections from studying those who lost. For one, it is hard to do an election right. There have been times where campaigning hard cost someone a win, times when not campaigning hard enough did it. There were times where certain parties seemed predestined to lose, other times where candidates were chosen not because of any commitment but because it was simply their time to run. There have been many occasions where people struggled to find the right image in order to win, and some people that seemed unable to win because they had far too high of negatives and happened to make blunders that ruined their chances. Yet the defeat of a campaign has not meant a defeat of one's ideas, as those ideas can be repackaged and promoted by others whose reputations are less toxic because of a frightening past history to work from. One can only wonder what kind of expansions to this book will be made given our more recent politics after this book stopped, a subject it is perhaps too depressing to dwell upon at length.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2015...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

Scott Farris spent his early career as a reporter and campaign speech writer, so he knows how to put words together into readable and listenable sentences. (He begins the book with a chapter on concession speeches.) Though an appendix provides a few paragraphs on losers whom he considers less important, there is a full chapter on each of nine men: Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Thomas Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, and Ross Perot.

In 1998, Farris ran in the Wyoming Democratic primary as a candidate for Congress, so the commentary leans a bit left but not offensively so. We can quibble about whether all these men were “almost president” or whether they “changed the nation,” but nonetheless, Farris makes shrewd judgments about many of his subjects. Of course, a lot of water has flowed over the dam since the book was published, so some of the author’s observations now sound ironic, like Farris’s praise for the peaceful transfer of power following American elections and his approval of George McGovern’s ability to restructure the Democratic party to better reflect the interest of women and minorities.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Traditional studies of U.S. history include those who occupied the Oval Office. Scott Farris has written an engaging summary of those who sought that hallowed office but fell short. Almost President is a great read for those who consider the study of history an enjoyable past time and not just a school subject. While the history of each candidate is by no means exhaustive, each mini-bio might invoke a lover of history to additional reading on those he or she finds interesting. Almost President is mostly objective while sharing each man's story; however, fans or detractors of them might provide a complete new perspective. The book concludes with a brief review of McCain, Kerry and Gore that challenges the reader to ponder what legacy lay ahead for these three. Lover's of history and presidential politics will not be disappointed with Almost President.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almost President was published in 2012 so it gives perspective on US presidential elections with the exception of the most recent one. We love winners but throughout history the losers have made a considerable impact on the country. This book proves it. May we remember their memories - good and bad - and learn from them.

[Hugh Heinsohn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and well written. The author has an interesting thesis that he defends and expounds upon quite well: Losing presidential candidates can have more consequential effects on the future of the country than the winners. Excellent capsule biographies of Tom Dewey, Al Smith, Henry Clay, George McGovern, and many others.

[Claire August · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have a habit of reading books quite outdated because my main source of books is little free libraries and boxes on the sidewalk and this isn’t entirely outdated but oh man what a trip it was to read an entire first chapter about how important it was that America always has a peaceful transition of power in a concession speech without political violence 😀😀

[Patrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Clever concept (brief biographies of losing presidential candidates who nevertheless made their mark on American history) marred by sloppy editing and some weird choices. Thomas Dewey gets an entire chapter to himself but Hubert Humphrey is lumped in the appendix?

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was full of interesting information, but each chapter was written like a rambling college term paper. I would have enjoyed more focused writing, but I did learn a lot.

[Csparrenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book with lots of interesting facts about some persons you have never heard of. Well done.

[Craig · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting stuff to be learned in this book about men who almost became president. Many are forgotten after the election, but had interesting lives after.

[Renee · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's some interesting stuff in this book. I ended up liking William Jennings Bryan more than I thought I would. The problem was this book just felt way too long.

[Bookworm · Rating 2 out of 5]

I couldn't get into the book. The idea sounded very intriguing--a look at various men who lost the election and how they handled it in the immediate aftermath (the concession speech) and how they went on afterwards.

Obviously many have full lives ahead of them after losing an election, and the book examines how selected defeated candidates handle themselves after the election. They include people like Adlai Stevenson and Ross Perot (which I thought was an odd selection, but I'm sure the author had his reasons).

It was disappointing to see some of the more recent ones (Gore, Kerry and McCain. The book was updated for 2012 but as it really hasn't been all that long it's hard to say what, if any, legacy Romney has/will leave. As of this writing, Romney has reappeared to criticize the Obama administration about its handling of Russia and Ukraine.) combined together and see Perot get his own chapter. Perot pops up every now and again, but I couldn't quite understand why he got his own chapter but Bob Dole doesn't, particularly as Dole's wife, Elizabeth, would run for office herself.

Something about the writing style isn't very good and it was very difficult to get into the writing. It isn't a matter of political bias, since I think I probably agree politically with the author more than not. But I was looking forward to this book and couldn't find a way to get interested.

If you're interested in politics and want to see what happens to those who have lost, it's not a bad read, but would recommend the library. It might make a great companion book to "The President's Club" which tells the story of Presidents and how they interact with their successors.