You know what they say, “sometimes you’re better off losing”. Who are “they,” you ask - losers, that’s who and you know what, that’s fine!
Losing is harder to prepare for, harder to deal with and a hell of a lot harder to bounce back from, but it does make for a great story. Did you know that Abraham Lincoln lost 8 different elections and had a nervous breakdown before becoming President of the United States in 1860? Loser? I don’t think so.
Successive loss can obviously destroy some but for others, it propels them forward. Following his controversial loss in the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore went on to have a renaissance of sorts in his career. He won 539,000 more votes than George W. Bush in 2000 but lost the presidency, becoming the symbol of an aggrieved party that believed the 2000 election was stolen. A radical transformation took place within the Washington native, he became passionate and honest and devoted to issues he actually cared about - remember that Ozone Layer business?
After leaving office, Gore remained prominent as an author and environmental activist, whose work in climate change activism earned him (jointly with the IPCC) the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
What many don’t know is that Gore also campaigned for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States in 1988, losing out eventually to Michael Dukakis.
He went on to serve as Vice President during the Clinton Administration. He was initially hesitant to accept a position as Bill Clinton's running mate for the 1992 United States presidential election, but after clashing with the George H. W. Bush administration over global warming issues, he decided to accept the offer.
Having buried the elusive dream of ruling from the Oval office, many would refer to Gore as a 'nearly man' but it seems Gore’s political losses hardened him for a tougher battle - An Inconvenient Truth. He highlighted global warming to the masses, something which would have been placed on the back burner if he wound up in the White House.
Now, while Gore's losses spurred him on to explore other issues, some choose to persevere for that win. Hillary Clinton, another who has run unsuccessfully in the past, is currently finding herself back in the same position once more.
Back in 2008, when the veneer of invincibility slipped away, so did much of the campaign's strategic foundations, leading to the staff infighting, public eruptions, financial woes and a string of devastating defeats that contributed to Obama's clinching of the Democratic nomination.
In 2008, she wasn’t prepared for Barack Obama,” said pollster John Zogby. She was going to be the historic figure and the charismatic figure in the race. Then Obama became electric and charismatic and appealed directly to the constituents that Hillary thought would be hers: young people and African-Americans and the college-educated, for starters. While Sanders has certainly made the race more interesting than anyone could have imagined, it finally seems as though the tide has shifted in Mrs.Clinton's direction.
8 years ago, Clinton touted her 35 years of experience, but voters were looking for a change, not experience. Polls showed that about three in five Democrats were more interested in change than experience and about three-fourths of those favored Obama over Clinton. Clinton came up against a similar brick wall this time around in the shape of a retail mogul. The desire for change this time around was fuelled by hate and anger, no one could have predicted the outcome.
We must remember that failing isn’t so bad, it just leads to the development of something else. Avoiding taking risks because it might lead to failure is a bigger mistake and this is why we must take our hat off to Mrs.Clinton. She has survived the shock defeat in 08, the Benghazi scandal, the popular rise of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and she will survive the loss to Trump. We highly doubt that 2016 loss will define what was a very long and industrious political career.