Best campaign: Clinton 1992 Reagan 1980 or Obama 2008

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think it is Bill Clinton because he won his election decisively despite Republicans being more popular than Democrats in 1992 .  Unlike Reagan or Obama who basically were all but guaranteed their victories in their election , Clinton had to fight to the very end to beat Bush and if it was anybody else Republicans might have won again in 1992 while in 1980 any republican would have won and same in 2008 when any democrat would have won.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Following the 1976 GOP convention, it was pretty clear that Reagan would be the party's nominee in 1980. Coupled with the fact that the incumbent was a notoriously weak politician, having barely beat the Republican the previous election following several years' worth of controversy, and the country's economy/foreign policy was in shambles--it's easy to see why Reagan curb-stomped Carter in 1980. He ran a good campaign, but no huge surprises here.

Clinton ran an excellent campaign in 1992, and successfully built momentum as the primary went along, and had to do so partially because the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire were certainties going into the primary. It's hard to give him an enormous amount of credit for the general election victory, considering there were so many external factors affecting the outcome (economy, third party candidacy, running against a fourth term of Republican Presidents, etc.).

Considering the state of the country at the time, Obama's general election performance wasn't too impressive. However, he ran an incredibly skilled campaign against a skilled politician who had the party's full support, and most people--going into the 2008 election--simply assumed would be the party's nominee.

Have to go with Obama's 2008 campaign, specifically the primary. He achieved a seemingly impossible task.

The economy in 2008 was far worse then it was in 1992. In 1992 the economy was in recovery stage while 2008 was the peak of its recession

[OSR stands with Israel]

Without the Crash in 2008 Obama wouldnt have won North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia,Florida, Nebraska 2nd District. and the margin would have been. Iraq instead of the economy gets used against Mccain though

Mccain 239
Obama 299

Anyways Hilary would have won similarly  taking West Virgina, Missouri, but losing Indiana, North Carolina making the electoral margin winning 355-183

Hillary

Without Bill Clinton 1992 the candiate would have been Jerry Brown who wouldnt have campaignedd as a moderate, New Democrat who doesnt support defict spending and wants welfare reformed. He would have campaigned as the Same Old Liberal Democrats in the past which then would make half of Perot voters vote for Bush in fear of the same democrat as the old and would have lost every state Bill Clinton won by less then 6% plus all the Southern states he won.

Brown still would have pulled it out winning with this map

Brown would still win 276-262 despite losing the popular vote by more then 2% but only because he wins in a razor thin margin in Wisconsin.

Like in 2008 when Hillary would have won big in 1980 Bush would have won Big as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

Where do u think trump 2016 ranks in these

[OSR stands with Israel]

Following the 1976 GOP convention, it was pretty clear that Reagan would be the party's nominee in 1980. Coupled with the fact that the incumbent was a notoriously weak politician, having barely beat the Republican the previous election following several years' worth of controversy, and the country's economy/foreign policy was in shambles--it's easy to see why Reagan curb-stomped Carter in 1980. He ran a good campaign, but no huge surprises here.

Clinton ran an excellent campaign in 1992, and successfully built momentum as the primary went along, and had to do so partially because the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire were certainties going into the primary. It's hard to give him an enormous amount of credit for the general election victory, considering there were so many external factors affecting the outcome (economy, third party candidacy, running against a fourth term of Republican Presidents, etc.).

Considering the state of the country at the time, Obama's general election performance wasn't too impressive. However, he ran an incredibly skilled campaign against a skilled politician who had the party's full support, and most people--going into the 2008 election--simply assumed would be the party's nominee.

Have to go with Obama's 2008 campaign, specifically the primary. He achieved a seemingly impossible task.

Seeing now that she lost to Trump , that win gets a little less impressive .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Clinton, because his election actually brought a national realignment.  Obama couldn't have won in 2008 if Clinton hadn't in 1992.

1992 was not a realignment. If it was, WV, LA, AR, KY would still be voting Democrat.

1988 was a realignment.

1992 was a realignment because most of the Northeast and Upper Midwest have been voting D ever since.  2000 was only a regional realignment because the Outer South began shifting to the GOP nationally, but the rest of the country stayed the same.

By that criteria, if 1992 was a realignment then was so 2008 because of states like VA, NC, and CO switching partisan allegiances.  Certainly there aren't political realignments every 16 years.

In fact, looking trying to define political realignments based on how certain areas with certain characteristics vote is quite silly for the simple reason that the characteristics of any particular place are unlikely to stay constant for any considerable period of time.  It makes no sense to compare the voting habits of Forsyth County, GA in 1980 with Forsyth County, GA in 2008 because, between 1980 and 2008, Forsyth County might as well not even be the same place anymore.  Rather, it makes sense to define realignments based on changes in the party's respective coalitions or the rise/fall of wedge issues.        

Clinton won CO in 1992.

Anyways, I think Obama ran the greatest campaign I ever seen. I was too young to see Reagan's campaign in 1980 because I was a 1 year old on Election Day 1980 and I was too young and not into politics in 1992 as a 12-13 year old in 1992. If I'm not mistaken though wasn't Clinton's campaign in disarray in 1992 in the primaries really early and him and his campaign team were fighting just to stay above water and not drop out of the race early or it never got to that point?

except Bush in 1992 was  tougher to beat then McCain in 2008

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obama 2008 has defined the technical art of campaigning that we live in.  Full stop.

Reagan, Obama, and Clinton might have been equivalently charismatic, and the top advisers might have been equivalently shrewd strategists, but if you're talking about who ran the better campaign? Obama 2008 and 2012 were technical masterpieces that won't be replicated for a good while.

Before the crash in 08 Obama was barely beating McCain , while even without that crash Obama should have won pretty handily seeing how unpopular Bush was in 08.


Clinton in 1992 should have won no where near as big as he did while Obama should have won by a larger amount and Reagan won just slightly larger then he should have .

[OSR stands with Israel]

-snip-

Ross Perot was an unpredictable factor, the brilliance of the Obama campaign was in organizing persuasive field organizing that bore fruit over the course of the entire campaign, and where the heck are you getting numbers for "how big they should have won?"

The GOP should not have won more then 140 electoral votes in 2008, seeing how bad the conditions they were .

Yes Clinton probably doesnt get over 300 electoral votes if Perot doesnt won,without Perot that election should be a slight victory for George Bush. Even with Perot Clinton should not have gotten over 310 electoral votes