Worst Candidates in Modern History

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

[Bo]

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

I agree with you about Reagan being overrated but keep in mind that this thread is about bad candidates, not bad Presidents.

[Derek]

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

Why does the left always think negative about the economy? We added 22 million jobs and grew the GDP while he was in office. The Soviet crumble was due to his free enterprise which they couldn't compete with.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

Why does the left always think negative about the economy? We added 22 million jobs and grew the GDP while he was in office. The Soviet crumble was due to his free enterprise which they couldn't compete with.

Reagan had 16 million. Clinton had 23 million.

[Sewer]

Keith Russell Judd.

[Bo]

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

Why does the left always think negative about the economy? We added 22 million jobs and grew the GDP while he was in office. The Soviet crumble was due to his free enterprise which they couldn't compete with.

Reagan had 16 million. Clinton had 23 million.

jfern's statistics are correct. Also, I agree that the U.S.S.R. collapsed in large part because its economy failed to compete with the West. However, Reagan had nothing to do with that. The U.S. economy was capitalist both before and after Reagan. Reagan being responsible for the end of the Cold War is one of the greatest myths of the late 20th century, if not the greatest.

[Communists For McCain]

Hey children, this thread is about the worst candidates in modern history, not the worst presidents in modern history.

[Cubby]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

[Bo]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

Indeed, I would expect Clinton to win 400+ EVs. Hell, even Bush Sr. himself would be a more competitive candidate than Dole.

[Derek]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

[Bo]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

I really wouldn't blame Gore for losing TN. The reason he lost it was because he flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters became alienated and there was little chance of winning them over again. It would be like Scott Brown flip-flopping on abortion while running for President and then proceeding to lose his home state. And the 1990s were just barely over in 2000. However, I agree with you that Gore should have focused on the good economy much more. TBH, I think both Gore and Kerry lost both because of their personality flaws (both were boring and awkward, or at least perceived that way) and because they made many campaign mistakes.

[Derek]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

I really wouldn't blame Gore for losing TN. The reason he lost it was because he flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters became alienated and there was little chance of winning them over again. It would be like Scott Brown flip-flopping on abortion while running for President and then proceeding to lose his home state. And the 1990s were just barely over in 2000. However, I agree with you that Gore should have focused on the good economy much more. TBH, I think both Gore and Kerry lost both because of their personality flaws (both were boring and awkward, or at least perceived that way) and because they made many campaign mistakes.

I agree mostly but don't think Scott Brown would win his home state regardless of his positions on the issues. The boom of the 90's was heading downward as early as 1999 which was almost a congress before the 2000 election. I accredit computers and the internet with the boom of the 90's and there came a point where most people had computers. Tennessee didn't go anywhere though. The democrats had moved to the left of that state in the 90's and by 2000 were too far from the average voter in that state. You could say the same thing about KY, LA, MO, AR, and WV too. On the other side, NJ, VT, ME, CT, DE, and CA were very purple until the GOP moved to their right but not to as great an extent.

[Bo]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

I really wouldn't blame Gore for losing TN. The reason he lost it was because he flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters became alienated and there was little chance of winning them over again. It would be like Scott Brown flip-flopping on abortion while running for President and then proceeding to lose his home state. And the 1990s were just barely over in 2000. However, I agree with you that Gore should have focused on the good economy much more. TBH, I think both Gore and Kerry lost both because of their personality flaws (both were boring and awkward, or at least perceived that way) and because they made many campaign mistakes.

I agree mostly but don't think Scott Brown would win his home state regardless of his positions on the issues. The boom of the 90's was heading downward as early as 1999 which was almost a congress before the 2000 election. I accredit computers and the internet with the boom of the 90's and there came a point where most people had computers. Tennessee didn't go anywhere though. The democrats had moved to the left of that state in the 90's and by 2000 were too far from the average voter in that state. You could say the same thing about KY, LA, MO, AR, and WV too. On the other side, NJ, VT, ME, CT, DE, and CA were very purple until the GOP moved to their right but not to as great an extent.

Scott Brown won in his home state when he was running for the Senate, just like Al Gore did previously. And the American people still felt pretty good about the economy until 2001, which should have been enough for Gore to win the election had he focused more on the economy. On Election Day 2000, 65% of Americans (if I remember correctly) thought the U.S. was going in the right direction.

[Derek]

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

I really wouldn't blame Gore for losing TN. The reason he lost it was because he flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters became alienated and there was little chance of winning them over again. It would be like Scott Brown flip-flopping on abortion while running for President and then proceeding to lose his home state. And the 1990s were just barely over in 2000. However, I agree with you that Gore should have focused on the good economy much more. TBH, I think both Gore and Kerry lost both because of their personality flaws (both were boring and awkward, or at least perceived that way) and because they made many campaign mistakes.

I agree mostly but don't think Scott Brown would win his home state regardless of his positions on the issues. The boom of the 90's was heading downward as early as 1999 which was almost a congress before the 2000 election. I accredit computers and the internet with the boom of the 90's and there came a point where most people had computers. Tennessee didn't go anywhere though. The democrats had moved to the left of that state in the 90's and by 2000 were too far from the average voter in that state. You could say the same thing about KY, LA, MO, AR, and WV too. On the other side, NJ, VT, ME, CT, DE, and CA were very purple until the GOP moved to their right but not to as great an extent.

Scott Brown won in his home state when he was running for the Senate, just like Al Gore did previously. And the American people still felt pretty good about the economy until 2001, which should have been enough for Gore to win the election had he focused more on the economy. On Election Day 2000, 65% of Americans (if I remember correctly) thought the U.S. was going in the right direction.

The only part I disagree with is Scott Brown. Yes, of course you have to win your home state in order to win a senate election lol. At the federal level, most states are set on who they're going to vote for. Scott Brown wouldn't win that in a presidential election. The same goes for Mitt Romney.  As for the economy, it was heading downward as early as March 2000. I know there's more to like than the DJIA, but look at how it fell from that point on. As for the right direction, people were obviously wrong based on the last 10 years. In fact, we've been heading in the wrong direction for almost 50 years now.

[cpeeks]

Dole wasnt that bad of a candidate. He was the best they could have got that year, although the Clinton team was very worried about Lamar Alexander. Clinton would have hammered Powel at that time.

[hawkeye59]

 Dewey (48 (2nd)), GOLDWATER (winner), Dukakis, (3rd)

[Bo]

Dewey (48 (2nd)), GOLDWATER (winner), Dukakis, (3rd)

To be fair, Dewey would have probably ran a better campaign at the end if the pollsters continued doing their job until the start of November. Once he would have saw that his poll numbers are collapsing, he would have likely changed campaign strategy.

[Derek]

Dewey (48 (2nd)), GOLDWATER (winner), Dukakis, (3rd)

To be fair, Dewey would have probably ran a better campaign at the end if the pollsters continued doing their job until the start of November. Once he would have saw that his poll numbers are collapsing, he would have likely changed campaign strategy.

Dewey is someone who could've had 2 terms actually, 1944 and 1948. At least he gets the GOP of the decade lol.

[feeblepizza]

1. George McGovern - Replaced Tom Eagleton because he took electric shock (even though he supported him "1000 percent")

2. Walter Mondale - Boring

3. Michael Dukakis - Idiot

4. John Kerry - "I voted against it before I voted for it"

[Bo]

1. George McGovern - Replaced Tom Eagleton because he took electric shock (even though he supported him "1000 percent")

2. Walter Mondale - Boring

3. Michael Dukakis - Idiot

4. John Kerry - "I voted against it before I voted for it"

You forgot Gore. Gore blew an election that had everything going for him. At least Mondale and McGovern never stood a chance. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry had a chance to win the Oval Office and they blew it. Also, you might as well add Nixon in 1960, since Ike was pretty popular and Nixon still couldn't win.

[Derek]

Hmm who do you think would make a terrible candidate today in both parties?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Scott Brown won in his home state when he was running for the Senate, just like Al Gore did previously. And the American people still felt pretty good about the economy until 2001, which should have been enough for Gore to win the election had he focused more on the economy. On Election Day 2000, 65% of Americans (if I remember correctly) thought the U.S. was going in the right direction.

Scott Brown would not be able to carry Massachusetts, any more than Mark Begich could carry Alaska. Brown could definitely deliver New Hampshire, and possibly Maine.

[Vepres]

Al Gore in 2000 is certainly one. He should've been a shoe-in, instead he lost, and would have won if he simply won his home state Tennessee!

[Bo]

Al Gore in 2000 is certainly one. He should've been a shoe-in, instead he lost, and would have won if he simply won his home state Tennessee!

I agree with you about Gore being one of the worst. However, it would have been easier for Gore to focus harder on FL, NH, OH, and NV than focus on TN. Those states were more Democratic than TN and even though TN was Gore's home state, Gore flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters there stopped liking him. There was no way Gore could have become pro-life again in 2000 without committing political suicide.