Sorry, but when you put a candidate up against someone they never ran against a decade later, you are conducting a different test entirely, and thus different results can be expected.
That’s why these conditions are important.
We are discussing running a losing candidate against the ticket they lost against again, specifically.
And that is why you have to limit your comparisons to like situations.
You want to loosen the conditions to the point where they are no longer relevant, invalidating the test completely.
Hell, why not use George Bush as an example while you’re at it?
George Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, but 8 years later George Bush beat Al Gore.
Hey, look at that! My whole hypothesis has been disproved by your standards.
You still haven't addressed my fundamental questions. And I don't think you want to.
I would've expected more of a John Galt fan.