Customer Reviews

They Also Ran: The Story of the Men Who Were Defeated for the Presidency

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a book about losers. By losers, I mean the men who came in second best in the political arena where winner takes all; specifically in the race to become President of the United States.

The book, published in 1945, consists of twenty biographical sketches of losers of presidential races from Henry Clay in 1824 to Thomas E. Dewey in 1944. THEY ALSO RAN, as well as giving biographical data on each of its subjects, includes a history of the times in which each of them lived, ran, and lost; and social, economic, and political backgrounds of each era. Using these twenty men as focal points, Stone gives us a fairly comprehensive picture of the political history of the United States from 1824 to 1944.

Now, I am going to do something that I think is rare, if not unique, in these book reviews. I'm going to devote most of the rest of this review to the dust jacket. Across the dust jacket there is a graph consisting of 21 lines ranging from minus ten (-10) to plus ten (+10). In case you're wondering, the twenty-first line is the zero (0) line in the middle. Stone refers to this zero line as "the danger line," i.e. a candidate in the negative zone may well do more harm than good if he wins the presidency. The graph rates the winners and losers of twelve elections according to Stone's estimation of each man's "ability and worth to the nation at the time of the election." The candidates are represented by silhouettes having their heads at one of the lines. For clarity and consistency, the winners are in white and the losers in outline form. It is interesting to note that the lower ranked in some years are sometimes ranked higher than either the winner or loser in other years.

Some interesting evaluations:

Highest ranked winner in any year: Abraham Lincoln (+10) in 1860. His opponent, Stephen A. Douglas had a (+1) ranking.

Lowest ranked winner in any year was Warren Harding (-9) in 1920. His opponent who lost the election was James M. Cox who was rated at (+3).

Most evenly rated election: 1928 when winner, Herbert Hoover and loser, Alfred E. Smith were both rated (+5).

In three elections the winner fell into Stone's "danger zone." These were: 1856, James Buchanan (-1); 1872, Ulysses S. Grant (-5); and 1920, Warren Harding (-9).

Of the twelve elections on the graph, according to Stone's ratings, the man more valuable to the country at the time the election was held won six times and lost five times. In the twelfth election the candidates were considered evenly qualified.

It is my opinion that Stone's research was good, and that he was as politically unbiased as was humanly possible. I would find it interesting if someone with Stone's credentials and even-handedness were to write a sequel covering the elections from 1948 through the court decided election of year 2000. Any takers?

Someone gave this book to Bob Dole after '96; I hope Al Gore gets a chance to read it, too. What I took from the book is that on many occasions, America dodged a bullet by not being governed by a clearly unqualified loser. In other cases, we should consider ourselves unfortunate that the loser wasn't the winner.

Originally written in the 1940's by the late Irving Stone, the book is woefully in need of an update by a prominent historian who can add Dewey, Stevenson, Goldwater, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole and Gore. And I agree with the previous reviewer: the inside of the dust jacket is fascinating--if you can find one of these rare hard cover copies.

I ran across this book on my grandfather's bookshelf as a teenager in the early '70's and have returned to it many times since. The format of short essays on each race made it quite readable while conveying a useful series of sketches of the procession of issues and political trends across the first 160 years of U.S. Government under the Constitution. I'm trying to convince my son to read it to fulfill his non-fiction summer reading assignment and checked here to see whether it was still in print. Sorry to see it is not.

"The story of the men who were defeated for the Presidency."
A very interesting book about those that were defeated in their bid for the White House. The author brings these men to life by answering the questions, who were they, why did they run, why did they lose, and also speculating on the job they would have done had they won.

A great read for any history buff.

Stone's collection of short essays about men that ran unsuccessfully for U.S. President is more readable than a "thriller" but thoroughly researched. He takes a strong moral stance on his subjects. He ruthlessly condemns folk heroes such as Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser (Stone portrays him as a selfish, vainglorious meglomaniac) and William Jennings Bryant (Stone portrays Bryant as having a weak grasp of the concepts he bruited about in order to gain public attention). He has a gift for wonderful details about his subjects, all of whom seem very colorful -- including the highly moral, eccentric Horace Greeley; Cox the intrepid newspaper man; lesser-knowns also-rans such as Fremont the brave explorer (beloved of Indians and whites alike) that took to the wilderness in a canoe laden with books that he read as he navigated, who -- several years after running for president as a rugged explorer and national hero -- died alone and destitute in a hotel room for paupers. This review barely scratches the surface of Ston'e collection of historical gems.