Worst Candidates in Modern History

[Derek]

And the dems would've never won congress at all. The GOP would still be in control and I am somewhat confident that Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell would have been running the show until he was voted out with 44% of the vote in 2008.

Who would have been voted out? Kerry, Delay, or McConnell? Even tough I agree that the GOP would have been in a much better position right now if Kerry won in 2004.

Kerry would've been voted out in 2008. Maybe not 44% but 46% at best.

[Derek]

I'm liking this discussion very much! I am also officially endorsing Dukakis as the worst candidate since 1952. He ran against a mediocre Republican after 8 years of that party being in the White House, he picked a great running mate, and blew a 17 point lead.

[Bo]

I'm liking this discussion very much! I am also officially endorsing Dukakis as the worst candidate since 1952. He ran against a mediocre Republican after 8 years of that party being in the White House, he picked a great running mate, and blew a 17 point lead.

Keep in mind that the issues (the economy, lack of foreign wars, and Reagan's popularity) favored Bush Sr. in 1988. Thus, it wasn't that surprising that he won at the end. Many people also don't pay attention to the election until after Labor Day, so taht is why Dukakis intiailly had a large lead. Once people began to pay attention to the race (and the issues), Bush Sr. created a solid lead for himself.

[cpeeks]

I am not sure if Kerry would have been voted out, I dont think we have ever had two consecutive one termers, I know we havent in modern history.

[Derek]

that's true it's very difficult to say with an alternative time line.

[cpeeks]

I think it would depend on number of factors, the most important how Kerry and the democratic congress worked together.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

The Democrats would not have taken over Congress in 2006 if Kerry had won.

[cpeeks]

Oh I think they could have even won a larger margin with a democratic president.

[Derek]

No the voters were never in love with the democrats. They voted for conservative democrats in 2006 who were pro guns, pro life, and strong on defense. Voters were unhappy that year with the out of control spending that the GOP had going. The Republicans abandoned their principles and base and it cost them the 2006 midterms. Had Kerry been in office spending like Bush and Obama, the GOP would've gone back to their roots in order to score political points against a tax and spend liberal and would've picked up seats in 2006 like any party does who doesn't have the white house at a mid term.

[cpeeks]

it wasnt so much them being in love with democrats that they sick of republicans and if Kerry could prove they were tying his hands they would have won by larger margins, people were so sick of the republicans then.

[Derek]

Kerry was a dork and wouldn't have proven anything.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Out of control spending cost the GOP Congress in 2006? I'm pretty sure it was the war. I'm not a firm believer in polls or exit polls but they were pretty consistent on that.

[Derek]

Iraq was a big part of it too but Kerry wouldn't have been able to blame the GOP congress for it in 2006.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

No the voters were never in love with the democrats. They voted for conservative democrats in 2006 who were pro guns, pro life, and strong on defense. Voters were unhappy that year with the out of control spending that the GOP had going. The Republicans abandoned their principles and base and it cost them the 2006 midterms. Had Kerry been in office spending like Bush and Obama, the GOP would've gone back to their roots in order to score political points against a tax and spend liberal and would've picked up seats in 2006 like any party does who doesn't have the white house at a mid term.

It was Iraq and the Republicans moving too far to the right.  In 2006, it was mostly moderate Republicans in swing/Dem states who lost.  Republicans lost 3 seats in NY, 2 in CT, 4 in PA, 2 in NH, 2 in FL, 2 in IA, and 1 in CO.  None of these are conservative states - nor were the districts patricularly conservative or Republican.  A couple of conservative Dems unseated Republicans, but they were the exception, not the rule.  The conservative base turned out, and Republicans actually did well in conservative states like GA, AL, and OK; they were just overwhelmed by the anti-GOP vote of independents and Democrats.

As for worst Pres candidate, it's Goldwater.  What happened with conservatives later didn't matter; he was a terrible candidate for 1964, and was on the wrong side of several major issues that year.  Even with the Deep South backlash against civil rights, he still managed to do worse than Mondale or McGovern.  He didn't win a single county north or east of Pennsylvania.

[Former Moderate]

I say Mondale. He was sure as hell dealt a bad hand having to go up against Reagan '84, but independent of that, he was uncharismatic and had terrible instincts. I mean, openly calling for a tax increase? Gutsy, but dumb as hell.

[Derek]

In his concession speech he mentioned how he wasn't a TV person and doesn't even own a TV. In fact he doesn't even watch that much of it. Then followed up with how he gave it his best shot. I'll tell you what Walter, I'll tell you what.

[Bo]

I say Mondale. He was sure as hell dealt a bad hand having to go up against Reagan '84, but independent of that, he was uncharismatic and had terrible instincts. I mean, openly calling for a tax increase? Gutsy, but dumb as hell.

Mondale thought voters would admire him for his honesty on the issue and his detailed solutions. If Hart would have lost the PV to Reagan by 13 pts. instead of 18, would that have made him a good candidate?

[Californian Tony]

Well, Dukakis was certainly an epic loser. In term of vote share, Goldwater and Landon were far bigger fails than Mondale. Kerry was a rather poor candidate too, considering 2004 was an easy occasion for democrats.
However, there is a very bad candidate who isn't mentioned, that is George W. Bush. Of course he was elected two times, but look a bit further. The first time, he was almost beaten by McCain in the primaries and then was actually defeated by Gore (despite him being quite a poor candidate too). Then in 2004, he realized one of the most pathetic showings for an incumbent President, and in wartime. Any other democrat would easily have beaten him.

[Derek]

No one else would've done better against Bush. If that was the case the democrats would've nominated them. The only thing on their minds was beating Bush and Kerry was the best of those 9. He was still a top 3 worst candidate since 1952 though. LOL.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

and then was actually defeated by Gore

lol

[Derek]

that's not how I remember it

[Bo]

and then was actually defeated by Gore

lol

^^^^^^^^^

Despite the irregularities, Bush Jr. won that election (and he would have won it by a much larger margin if it wasn't for the DUI story). I'd rank Gore as the worst candidate ever since he didn't win despite the fact that the economy and foreign affairs were going in his favor and despite the fact that some embarassing last-minute revalations about Bush Jr. were released right before Election Day.

[Bo]

that's not how I remember it

Were you talking to Antonio?

[Californian Tony]

and then was actually defeated by Gore

lol

^^^^^^^^^

Despite the irregularities, Bush Jr. won that election (and he would have won it by a much larger margin if it wasn't for the DUI story). I'd rank Gore as the worst candidate ever since he didn't win despite the fact that the economy and foreign affairs were going in his favor and despite the fact that some embarassing last-minute revalations about Bush Jr. were released right before Election Day.

That's not the point. Gore got more votes, so anybody who cares about democracy should consider him the true winner.

[hcallega]

and then was actually defeated by Gore

lol

^^^^^^^^^

Despite the irregularities, Bush Jr. won that election (and he would have won it by a much larger margin if it wasn't for the DUI story). I'd rank Gore as the worst candidate ever since he didn't win despite the fact that the economy and foreign affairs were going in his favor and despite the fact that some embarassing last-minute revalations about Bush Jr. were released right before Election Day.

That's not the point. Gore got more votes, so anybody who cares about democracy should consider him the true winner.

Where in the world is there a more democratic system then in the US? Look at Britain where the voters had no say in the creation of the government after the deadlock. Look at Israel where the number 2 party seat wise is the Government leader. I do like France's runoff system, but the reality is that Bush did win that election. Maybe not fair and square, but a win nonetheless.