Who ran the worst Senate campaign in 2016?

[Maxwell]

I want to know who you think ran the worst Senate campaign of 2016? I included winners and losers, and I'll give you some reasons why I think the way I do:

Ted Strickland - my number one choice because he totally blew a wide name recognition advantage and got decimated as soon as the race got serious. I've never seen someone as experienced as Strickland get blown out of the water so quickly. Truly an embarrassing race. Lost by 21 points, doing much worse even than Hillary Clinton in a state she did very poorly in.

Russ Feingold - started the race with a double digit lead and every pundit in the country very sure of his victory. But when things closed, he under-performed Hillary Clinton by 3 - despite still probably being more popular than Ron Johnson, the victor. This person is my number 2 pick for worst campaign.

Evan Bayh - this guy just got savaged and never really made a compelling argument for his candidacy.

I cast a wide net, but you can still make your own write-in option.

[mencken]

What was so bad about Rand Paul's campaign? That he ran 5 points behind Trump?

[Maxwell]

What was so bad about Rand Paul's campaign? That he ran 5 points behind Trump?

I cast a wide net - Rand ran pretty far behind The Donald this year and pretty close to his 2010 result, despite being in the Senate for a full term and getting an opponent who nobody really gave a shot.

[Cynthia]

Evan Bayh ran the worst campaign. He never really engaged Indiana voters and turned a D+20 race to a R+10 one.

[Xing]

Bayh and Strickland, who went from favorites to jokes.

[Santander]

Bayh

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'm going with Ted Strickland. As well-respected as Rob Portman is, he's not all that well-known, and Strickland didn't seem to be making any effort to gain ground there at all. Also, his completely boneheaded remark about Antonin Scalia's death didn't help things.

Strickland lost a couple of fairly high-profile union endorsements to Portman, and I'm going to guess it's because he didn't even contest them. I think Strickland really thought he was just going to walk in and take the Senate seat with little to no resistance.

Kirk's and Duckworth's campaigns were both garbage. Kirk's was probably better up until his racist gaffe in Springfield (which was hardly his campaign's fault), but I saw no events for either candidate in my area. It seems to me that Kirk was lazy about campaigning while Duckworth only focused on Cook County.

I actually don't see what was so bad about Darryl Glenn's campaign except for all the spammy fundraising emails they sent out. Glenn was left for dead by every significant national Republican organization as far as I can tell; I don't even think the Senate Conservatives Fund gave him support. Despite that, he only lost his race by a few points, essentially running even with Donald Trump. I don't think we've seen the last of him.

[Mr. Smith]

Strickland.

[Skye]

Strickland, Bayh and Feingold. The new Charlie Christs.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Bayh and Strickland, who went from favorites to jokes.

[PAK Man]

Ted Strickland, by far. He took what should have been a competitive race and completely botched it. From his awful fundraising to not defending himself from GOP attacks. I always had Portman as the one with the advantage (my rating of the race was never less than Leans Republican) and Strickland just completely failed.

Evan Bayh gets a close second. He failed to answer simple questions that people were asking and dug himself into a hole he couldn't get out of. That, and he never seemed like he really wanted to run in the first place. I suspect that's why he didn't put too much effort into his campaign.

[MT Treasurer]

Roy Blunt is the obvious answer here, though Kirk's campaign was basically just as bad as Blunt's.

[Maxwell]

Roy Blunt is the obvious answer here, though Kirk's campaign was basically just as bad as Blunt's.

I mean if Kirk had just shut up and run a dignified campaign, he might've lost by a respectable margin and might've got a chance to leave political office with his head up high. Instead he ran into the mud and got savaged.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bayh and Strickland, Strickland ended up being the Lee Fisher, Dems were hoping to avoid in 2016 again.

[peterthlee]

Ted Strickland
He imploded completely, turning a Tilt R race to a Solid GOP Hold race.

[Orser67]

I went with Strickland, since his campaign was basically over by September.

But I'm not sure that any of the Senate campaigns actually made a difference this year, except maybe in NH.

[Kingpoleon]

Strickland, Bayh and Feingold. The new Charlie Christs.

Then we either better prepare for them all to serve in the House, which I would definitely like, or, if you didn't make a typo, we better prepare three crosses.

[hopper]

Strickland, Bayh and Feingold. The new Charlie Christs.

Um no Charlie Christ is a newly elected Congressmen!

[publicunofficial]

Strickland seemed to have completely forgotten how to run a competitive race. It was if he wasn't prepared for attack ads.

[Fusionmunster]

Bayh.

[JMT]

While Strickland's campaign was terrible, I'm going to say Kirk ran the worst campaign. He made several high profile gaffes and likely made life harder for down-ballot Republicans in the state (e.g. Bob Dold). I know Kirk was always projected to lose, but Duckworth didn't run a great campaign either and it should've been a more competitive race. It's pretty embarrassing to be an incumbent that loses by 14 percentage points, especially in a cycle that was rather favorable to your party.

[Zioneer]

I say Bayh ran the worst campaign, as he went from leading by double digits in the polls to losing by 10%. He couldn't answer basic questions, and from I understand, he came across as arrogant and entitled.

Strickland at least had the excuse of facing off against a strong opponent in Portman. He messed up like crazy too, but he wasn't hyped up as much as Bayh. Both of them seemed to want to waltz into their seats though.

Feingold also did badly, though I can't tell if its mostly his fault, or the fact that it was a bad year for Midwestern Democrats. Or if Ron Johnson was a genuinely strong opponent.

And being a Utahn, I have to look at Misty Snow's campaign, in which she didn't even crack 30%, though most of that is not her fault. I do think she ran a lackluster campaign outside of Salt Lake City, and seemed to want to only appeal to Salt Lake City Democrats. Though I don't think Jonathan Swinton would've done any better.

[ElectionsGuy]

I would say Strickland and Kirk in 2nd place.

[morgieb]

Strickland. Bayh in second.

Feingold's collapse was also bad, but I'm not sure what the cause was. Certainly it wasn't his own problems as much as it was for Strickland and Bayh.

All this proves is that retreads should be ignored.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All this proves is that retreads should be ignored.

I wonder what ever happened to that 4 time loser Liberty Union nominee who never broke 6.1% in Vermont in the 1970s.