A study conducted at University of Bristol published in Biology Letters assumes that Charles Darwin may have been wrong when he argued that competition was the major driving force http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939 However I have never studied evolution myself so I can’t have firm scientific opinion for or against this observation or interpretation . My observation is that its the second best which survives the struggle for existence. The best and biggest reptiles their times became extinct (smaller reptiles survived). The mammals ( perhaps the second best) survived. All the best warriors are dead the second best survived the battle (perhaps they were not in the forefront to bear the first brunt of enemy fire ). In real life if you are second best you have more chances of winning the race as all centrations will be on defeating the best runner. In life and career mediocre people reach to the top easily as they work consistently with same speed and get less criticism and competition (back biting, bickering jealousy) More aggressive people in real life hardly succeed. Its calm and calculative and cool mind which wins the political race and more firebrand politicians end up soon. I don’t have to quote any examples but if you are first or near winning position all focus of opponents is to defeat you and chances are that they may defeat you also. If you are second in race there are more chances that you win the race. However in the final outcome it will always be best person who wins the race. This has nothing to do with Darwin theory of survival of fittest its my observation only.