Lewis's account of the 1996 presidential election is a captivating read.

In some respects, it may seem dated, but in others, it hits the mark. It is one of his most skillfully written books, offering a thrilling journey.

You can sense his fondness for the "losers" mentioned in the title through his prose. However, once the primaries conclude and he is left with the 2 1/2 main candidates, the energy in his writing noticeably wanes.

Nonetheless, it is well worth reading through to the end to discover his deeply personal reflections on John McCain.

These musings provide unique insights into McCain and add an extra layer of depth to the book.

Overall, despite its flaws, Lewis's book is a valuable contribution to the literature on the 1996 presidential election.

Reading this at this time in history was truly apropos.

The connections between the manner in which the Democrats managed Clinton's re-election campaign and the way the Republicans have gleaned lessons from that and taken it to the next level are rather alarming.

It provides a brilliant snapshot of a specific moment in time and offers some excellent perspectives on individuals who don't currently receive the attention they deserve for their actions leading up to 1996.

This piece delves into the strategies and tactics employed by both parties during that crucial election year, highlighting the evolution and adaptation of political campaigning.

By examining these historical events, we can gain a better understanding of the present political landscape and the forces that have shaped it.

It serves as a reminder that history often repeats itself, and that we can learn valuable lessons from the past to navigate the challenges of the future.

In "Losers" (formerly titled "Trail Fever", perhaps an attempt to deter as many readers as possible), Michael Lewis delves into the chaotic 1996 Republican presidential field. It was a motley crew of hacks, disingenuously vying for the dubious honor of being trounced by Bill Clinton in the general election. Clinton, regardless of his other qualities, had an uncanny ability to convincingly feign authenticity, far surpassing that of all the Republican pretenders combined.

I witnessed these events firsthand, and some of these farces were even more repulsive than I recalled. Take Phil Gramm, for instance. There was no politician whose smug face I wanted to punch more squarely on the nose than dishonest, charisma-free Phil (until J.D. Vance came along, that is. JUST KIDDING, Stasi brownshirts at the White House, DOJ, and the FBI!). Voting against him in the 1996 Texas Senate election, albeit fruitlessly, remains a highlight of my political career. Then there's the lugubrious nepo baby Steve Forbes. Lewis's account of Forbes making his way through a buffet line and eating lunch alone at a campaign event is both hilarious and deeply disturbing, sad, and pathetic. And who could forget LAMAR!, a.k.a. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, whom anyone with any sense had already forgotten years ago. The only rational response when his face appears on your TV screen is to frantically search for the remote to change the channel.

And let's not forget Bob Dole, who managed to win the race to the top of this dung heap, only to be clobbered by Slick Willy. At least Dole partially redeemed himself with his ironic post-retirement commercials and funny appearances on "The Daily Show".

Lewis, quite rightly, spends relatively little time on these losers. Even at the end, when the general campaign narrows down to Clinton v. Dole, he maintains his sanity by sneaking off to cover the other minor candidates. These are the losers who aren't really LOSERS: Morry Taylor, the self-made tire magnate who was out of the race so quickly I don't even remember him, but who is wildly entertaining and, in a parallel universe, is Donald Trump without the crassness, narcissism, and autocratic tendencies; Alan Keyes, the culture-wars crusader who unfortunately happened to be Black in the mid-1990s Republican Party but comes across as sincere (perhaps even creepily so); Pat Buchanan, who I probably should have included in the major-candidate-flops paragraph above due to the scares he gave Dole early on and who seems eerily prescient in 2025, a Trumpian populist who actually believes what he's saying and who does support the American form of government; and John McCain, the Senator from Arizona who stays out of the race and loyally supports Dole, even though he knows the campaign is doomed. This is the impressive, straight-talking John McCain before the gimmick of the Straight-Talk Express, the body blow of Dubya's lies about him in the 2000 South Carolina primary, and selling his reputation in 2008 by naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. I miss the mid-1990s John McCain. Lewis clearly loves him.

This is Lewis not quite yet in his prime... but it's still a lot of fun, especially if you lived through it. I found myself laughing out loud frequently. And it's certainly easier to read 30 years later, when you know who wins in the end. I voted for Bill Clinton three times, including the 1992 Pennsylvania presidential primary, which is my only meaningful vote in a presidential election since I've lived in either deep blue or deep red states ever since. Clinton always looms large in the background, striding across the narrow world of the 1996 Republican primary like a colossus, with his petty Republican challengers scurrying about beneath his huge legs, searching in vain for an honorable political resting place...

Russillo was indeed right. There is an incredibly prescient book that foreshadows precisely where we are headed.

This book contains several profound quotes that are truly favorites. One such quote is, "Thus people who take their power for granted share something with people who have no power: in neither is there any strong impulse to activism. The rich, like the poor, lead lives filled with foregone conclusions." This statement makes us reflect on the different attitudes towards power and how it can lead to a lack of motivation for change.

Another thought-provoking quote is, "The more innocent your life, the less you have to say about your fate." It makes us wonder about the relationship between our experiences and our ability to shape our own destinies. Are those who have led more sheltered lives less equipped to handle the challenges and uncertainties that come their way?

These quotes from the book offer valuable insights into human nature and society, and they serve as a reminder of the importance of being aware of our own positions and taking action when necessary.

Sharp, funny, and well-written, this piece is truly a gem.

It has the ability to engage the reader from the very first sentence with its witty remarks and clever observations.

The author's writing style is both engaging and accessible, making it a pleasure to read.

However, at times, the piece can come across as a little preachy.

While the author has some valid points to make, they could perhaps be presented in a more nuanced way to avoid turning off readers who may not initially agree.

Overall, though, this is a great piece of writing that has a lot to offer.

It is sure to make you laugh, think, and maybe even see things from a different perspective.

Whether you're looking for a quick read to brighten your day or something more substantial to sink your teeth into, this piece is definitely worth checking out.

Good reminder of elections past. It is interesting to look back and see how elections have unfolded over the years. There are often commonalities and patterns that emerge.

For example, in many elections, there is a great deal of campaigning and advertising. Candidates try to convince voters of their worth and their ability to lead. There is also often a lot of mudslinging and negative campaigning, as opponents try to discredit each other.

Another similarity in elections is the importance of the issues. Voters are typically concerned about things like the economy, healthcare, education, and national security. Candidates who are able to address these issues effectively and offer solutions are more likely to win the support of the voters.

In conclusion, while each election is unique in its own way, there are also many similarities that can be observed. By studying the elections of the past, we can gain a better understanding of the political process and the factors that influence voter behavior.

Interesting read. I really love the way Lewis writes. His style is unique and engaging. However, this particular piece was a bit slower than the others I’ve read. It didn’t have the same pace and excitement that his other works usually do.

The quote “The definition of a genuine man (sic): one who couldn’t even prepare to play himself” is quite thought-provoking. It makes you wonder what it truly means to be a genuine person. Does it mean being so true to yourself that you can’t even pretend to be someone else? Or does it imply that a genuine man is one who is constantly evolving and changing, and therefore can’t prepare to play a static version of himself?

Overall, while this article may not have been as fast-paced as some of Lewis’ other works, it still contains some interesting ideas and quotes that are worth pondering.

Quick review:

This is a book that I read several years ago as part of a book club. To be honest, I don't remember all the details very clearly. However, it is part of my series of reviews that are more based on my overall impression (and my somewhat faulty memory).

I really loved this book for several reasons. Firstly, I was the one who chose it for the book club, so there is a bit of self-interest involved. Secondly, I have a great interest in politics, and this book delved into the political arena.

But the main reason I loved it was because the author has an amazing ability to spot the absurdities in politics and then describe them flawlessly. He knows exactly how to use the English language to bring the scenes and the candidates to life. He does a great job of not only describing the specific situations the candidates are in but also making incisive comments on the larger U.S. political system.

Although the specific details may have escaped me over the years, I would highly recommend that you read this book. It offers a unique perspective on politics and is both entertaining and thought-provoking.

Unfortunately, this is Michael Lewis's weakest book.

The failed presidential bid of Dole (and the other Republicans) in 1996 simply does not make for interesting reading.

There is a lack of engaging narrative and captivating details that one would expect from a work by Lewis.

The story seems to plod along, failing to grip the reader's attention and keep them invested in the outcome.

Perhaps if more effort had been put into exploring the personalities and motives of the key players, or if the events had been presented in a more dynamic and exciting way, the book might have been more successful.

As it stands, it is a disappointment for fans of Lewis and those interested in political history.

An interesting account of the 1996 Republican Primary followed by the Presidential election was presented. Michael Lewis, in this work, acknowledges the common criticisms that are leveled against the modern political campaign. He, however, takes a stance where he attacks the system rather than the participants. It's important to note that the novel does not offer any radical or original fixes to the current political problems that America is facing. Nevertheless, what it does provide is an illuminating inside account. This account is refreshingly less cynical compared to that of many political journalists. It gives readers a different perspective and allows them to gain a better understanding of the political process during that particular time period.

How good is this book!

The 1996 Presidential Campaign might seem like an old story by now. However, this book manages to bring it all to life in the most vivid way. It does so with a great deal of humour, which makes the reading experience not only informative but also highly entertaining.

Moreover, it has lots of resonance for us in 2022. It allows us to draw parallels and gain insights into the political landscape of today. This makes it an essential read for all students of politics, regardless of where they are from.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book. It is a great addition to any political science library. I would rate it a 9/10.

It's not "Fear and Loathing" and the election it covers is among the most insignificant in our country's history. However, Lewis is a great writer and there's a lot in here that I really enjoyed.

It was kind of refreshing to read about our not-so-distant past. Back then, Pat Buchanan was the most marginal candidate that the Republicans considered nominating. The truly prescient part was when professional nut-case Alan Keyes, with a platform very similar to Michele Bachmann's, said that he wasn't running to win that election, but so a candidate 20 years from then could win.

This made me shiver a little bit, but generally it made me feel nostalgic for that era of politics. It was bad, but the worst that could happen was a bogus impeachment as compared to today's threat of default. The political landscape has changed so much since then, and it's interesting to look back and see how we got to where we are now.

Overall, while the election itself may not have been particularly important, Lewis's writing makes this a worthwhile read. It gives us a glimpse into a different time in our country's political history and makes us think about how far we've come and where we might be headed.