Worst Candidates in Modern History
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:45:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Worst Candidates in Modern History
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Author Topic: Worst Candidates in Modern History  (Read 31845 times)
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: May 27, 2010, 10:56:10 PM »

hmm Dukakis still gets my award
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: June 04, 2010, 07:48:21 PM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

Nixon was unbeatable in 1972. And Bush did beat Gore.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: June 04, 2010, 07:57:34 PM »

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,827
Ukraine
Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: June 07, 2010, 04:02:54 PM »

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.

How on earth was Gerald Ford one of the "worst candidates in modern history"?

He overcame a thirty-point deficit to practically tie the election with Carter!

 I suppose you could argue that the Poland gaffe cost him the election, but surely the fact that it took a gaffe like that to cost the Republican the election after Watergate shows that Ford was a pretty good candidate, no?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: June 07, 2010, 04:09:12 PM »

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.

How on earth was Gerald Ford one of the "worst candidates in modern history"?

He overcame a thirty-point deficit to practically tie the election with Carter!

 I suppose you could argue that the Poland gaffe cost him the election, but surely the fact that it took a gaffe like that to cost the Republican the election after Watergate shows that Ford was a pretty good candidate, no?

First of all, Ford is number 13 on the last, pretty low down there. I would call Ford one of the worst candidates in modern history because of that Poland gaffe and the fact that he didn't make a better VP choice than Dole, who was uncharismatic and made some gaffes of his own (such as saying "more people were killed in all the Democrat wars in the 20th century then the total population of Detroit", or something like that). I mean, Ford only needed a few thousand extra votes in OH and HI to swing the election to him. He could have done it, even though I agree that Watergate and the poor economy greatly hurt his chances. BTW, early polls are essentially meaningless--most people typically only begin to pay attention to the race after Labor Day, and after Labor Day, Ford and Carter were pretty close in the polls. Even though, now that I think about it, I probably should have placed McCain above Ford, but the financial crisis pretty much screwed him over regardless of what he did afterwards or whom he would have picked as VP.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: June 08, 2010, 01:35:23 PM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: June 08, 2010, 01:37:01 PM »

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.

How on earth was Gerald Ford one of the "worst candidates in modern history"?

He overcame a thirty-point deficit to practically tie the election with Carter!

 I suppose you could argue that the Poland gaffe cost him the election, but surely the fact that it took a gaffe like that to cost the Republican the election after Watergate shows that Ford was a pretty good candidate, no?

First of all, Ford is number 13 on the last, pretty low down there. I would call Ford one of the worst candidates in modern history because of that Poland gaffe and the fact that he didn't make a better VP choice than Dole, who was uncharismatic and made some gaffes of his own (such as saying "more people were killed in all the Democrat wars in the 20th century then the total population of Detroit", or something like that). I mean, Ford only needed a few thousand extra votes in OH and HI to swing the election to him. He could have done it, even though I agree that Watergate and the poor economy greatly hurt his chances. BTW, early polls are essentially meaningless--most people typically only begin to pay attention to the race after Labor Day, and after Labor Day, Ford and Carter were pretty close in the polls. Even though, now that I think about it, I probably should have placed McCain above Ford, but the financial crisis pretty much screwed him over regardless of what he did afterwards or whom he would have picked as VP.

That's a good way to put it. How close an election is doesn't always reflect the electability of a candidate.
Logged
Deldem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: June 09, 2010, 10:54:25 PM »

1. Walter Mondale- there was no hope for him, but he shouldn't have lost that badly.
2. Barry Goldwater- Far too extreme, especially in 1964.
3. George McGovern- same as Mondale. Plus, way too far to the left.
4. Michael Dukakis- He never fought back against the sleaziness of Bush. In addition, poor debater.
5. Jimmy Carter 1980- blew a huge lead to a guy whose views should have made him unelectable.
6. Al Gore- Somehow managed to associate with all of the negatives of the Clinton administration and none of its positives.
7. John McCain- picking Sarah Palin, plus the suspension of campaign, made him look terrible.
8. John Kerry- Like Dukakis, never fought back against misleading ads.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: June 09, 2010, 11:37:59 PM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?


Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: June 10, 2010, 02:44:01 AM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?


Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?

You clearly only have a perception of U.S. history that goes back to 2000. I'll do that after you find me where the national news media is responsible for calling an election. You don't know this but you will now. The candidates get their information LONG BEFORE the news networks do. That's why you see concession speeches immediately after the news reportings because if the candidates waited for the news to call a race, then it would be an hour later that you heard concession and victory speeches. Do you really think George Washington waited for 11:00 news to find out how he did? Come on you're making this too easy for me. Once you concede it's over. No looking at our constitution is necessary unless of course you think that Bob Dole should be allowed to contract his concession from 1996? Now you're telling me that 1996 wasn't close or close enough. Well what is close enough? Oh I guess close enough is whatever you say it is? Right, such a great argument.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: June 10, 2010, 01:03:25 PM »

No genius its not over till all the votes are counted!!!!!!!!
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: June 10, 2010, 06:29:55 PM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?


Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?

You clearly only have a perception of U.S. history that goes back to 2000. I'll do that after you find me where the national news media is responsible for calling an election. You don't know this but you will now. The candidates get their information LONG BEFORE the news networks do. That's why you see concession speeches immediately after the news reportings because if the candidates waited for the news to call a race, then it would be an hour later that you heard concession and victory speeches. Do you really think George Washington waited for 11:00 news to find out how he did? Come on you're making this too easy for me. Once you concede it's over. No looking at our constitution is necessary unless of course you think that Bob Dole should be allowed to contract his concession from 1996? Now you're telling me that 1996 wasn't close or close enough. Well what is close enough? Oh I guess close enough is whatever you say it is? Right, such a great argument.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes conceded the election to Samuel Tilden in 1876, then took back his concession once the national GOP told him that there is a chance he will be able to dispute the results in LA, SC, and FL and win the election. In the end, Hayes ended up winning after his challenges to those states' EVs were successful. If there is a difference of several hundred votes, and the media makes a mistake and calls a state for your opponent, if the media corrects it's mistake later then I don't see why the candidate shouldn't be able to take back his concession if he didn't realize the race would be so close in the end?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: June 10, 2010, 07:48:04 PM »

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?


Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?

You clearly only have a perception of U.S. history that goes back to 2000. I'll do that after you find me where the national news media is responsible for calling an election. You don't know this but you will now. The candidates get their information LONG BEFORE the news networks do. That's why you see concession speeches immediately after the news reportings because if the candidates waited for the news to call a race, then it would be an hour later that you heard concession and victory speeches. Do you really think George Washington waited for 11:00 news to find out how he did? Come on you're making this too easy for me. Once you concede it's over. No looking at our constitution is necessary unless of course you think that Bob Dole should be allowed to contract his concession from 1996? Now you're telling me that 1996 wasn't close or close enough. Well what is close enough? Oh I guess close enough is whatever you say it is? Right, such a great argument.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes conceded the election to Samuel Tilden in 1876, then took back his concession once the national GOP told him that there is a chance he will be able to dispute the results in LA, SC, and FL and win the election. In the end, Hayes ended up winning after his challenges to those states' EVs were successful. If there is a difference of several hundred votes, and the media makes a mistake and calls a state for your opponent, if the media corrects it's mistake later then I don't see why the candidate shouldn't be able to take back his concession if he didn't realize the race would be so close in the end?

Right I'm saying that it's not the media, but those who count the votes who are able to decide if an election is still winnable. Those who count the votes know before the media.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: June 10, 2010, 07:55:49 PM »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: June 10, 2010, 09:14:43 PM »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

Oh I believe it. Those Republicans were awful before the mid 20th century. Alot of people only support conspiracy theories that benefit their party's image, but I happen to believe MOST but NOT ALL of them.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: June 10, 2010, 10:04:48 PM »
« Edited: June 11, 2010, 12:42:29 PM by cpeeks »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

Oh I believe it. Those Republicans were awful before the mid 20th century. Alot of people only support conspiracy theories that benefit their party's image, but I happen to believe MOST but NOT ALL of them.

As opposed to now? Really I mean really? When Reagan took office  we were 800 billion dollars in debt and now were close to 13 trillion dollars in debt, they have destroyed the constitution, put us in a un just war, have the biggest divide ever between the wealthy and the poor, and have destroyed the middle class. THE REPUBLICANS ARE AWFUL NOW!!!! REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: June 11, 2010, 04:32:59 PM »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

Oh I believe it. Those Republicans were awful before the mid 20th century. Alot of people only support conspiracy theories that benefit their party's image, but I happen to believe MOST but NOT ALL of them.

As opposed to now? Really I mean really? When Reagan took office  we were 800 billion dollars in debt and now were close to 13 trillion dollars in debt, they have destroyed the constitution, put us in a un just war, have the biggest divide ever between the wealthy and the poor, and have destroyed the middle class. THE REPUBLICANS ARE AWFUL NOW!!!! REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

Can you hear me all the way back there in 1936?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: June 11, 2010, 06:27:08 PM »

I am not sure what that means, of course I am not sure what your talking about on most of your post anyway.LOL
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: June 11, 2010, 06:38:41 PM »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

No. If Tilden had won, it would only have been because of massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: June 11, 2010, 08:50:00 PM »

I am not sure what that means, of course I am not sure what your talking about on most of your post anyway.LOL

You sounded like you were quoting the Democrat playbook from 1936 when you heard words like "fat cats," "corporate greed," "evil capitalists." Those words were used to dumb down Americans when those reasons were anything but why the depression happened.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,986
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: June 11, 2010, 10:45:34 PM »

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

No. If Tilden had won, it would only have been because of massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South.

Agreed. In a free and fair election hayes would have won LA, SC, and MS (due to their balck majority populations), thus giving him 189 EVs, more than enough to win.
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: June 12, 2010, 12:31:18 AM »

I am not sure what that means, of course I am not sure what your talking about on most of your post anyway.LOL

You sounded like you were quoting the Democrat playbook from 1936 when you heard words like "fat cats," "corporate greed," "evil capitalists." Those words were used to dumb down Americans when those reasons were anything but why the depression happened.

Well I am not a democrat, but I am d*** sure not a republican, I hate both parties. As George Wallace said in 1968 theres not a dimes worth of difference between the two.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: June 12, 2010, 10:31:02 PM »

I am not sure what that means, of course I am not sure what your talking about on most of your post anyway.LOL

You sounded like you were quoting the Democrat playbook from 1936 when you heard words like "fat cats," "corporate greed," "evil capitalists." Those words were used to dumb down Americans when those reasons were anything but why the depression happened.

Well I am not a democrat, but I am d*** sure not a republican, I hate both parties. As George Wallace said in 1968 theres not a dimes worth of difference between the two.

So who do you think is the worst candidate in modern history?
Logged
cpeeks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 699
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 on: June 14, 2010, 05:23:34 PM »

Probably Dukakis, I mean he blew a 17 point lead. Mondale was not as bad as Dukakis he just never had a chance.
Logged
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,615
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: June 14, 2010, 05:33:40 PM »

I agree. Mondale also blew a 17 point lead I believe but I cut him a break because he ran against Reagan.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.