Worst-run Presidential Campaign

[CARLHAYDEN]

  I don't think Bush really wanted to win. 

My dad always says that but still...that big of a loss?

His heart just wasn't in it.  I think he was repulsed by the ugliness of Washington, and he really had little idea about why he wanted to be president.  Unlike Clinton, his ego wasn't big enough to want to be president just for the sake of being president.

He ran out of ideas and steam.  Bush did some very good things as president, responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and managing the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.  But after that, he had nothing left.  I voted for him in '92 without much enthusiasm because I didn't think Clinton and his wife were trustworthy, and I just couldn't bring myself to trust the Democratic party on critical issues like national security.

But when the base has no enthusiasm for the candidate, he is done.  I'm sure Bush didn't want to lose on a conscious level, and he clearly wasn't willing to walk away from the office, but he also wasn't willing to do much to avoid losing.

Bush pere really ticked off two key constiuencies.  Those who do not like tax increases and his support for gun control. 

[Defarge]

How much was Dukakis ahead by after the DNC? 18? 20?

[skybridge]

Clay, 1844.

The Whig Platform was but 100 words long. Their campaign slogan was "Hooray for Clay."

Haha! That's pretty good

[MasterJedi]

Dukakis easily.

[ATFFL]

How much was Dukakis ahead by after the DNC? 18? 20?

[Blank Slate]

I voted Other.

I know others on here are voting Dukakis, but I think Mondale had the far worse run campaign.  (I know Reagan was supposedly wildly popular and most would say that he would probably have won in the reelection landslide that he did anyway, but this isn't necessarily so).

If people remember that far back, at the beginning of 1984, it really looked like Reagan might be in trouble, because of how well the Democrats did in House and statewide and legislative elections in 1982, and also there were a lot of doubts about Reagan's age and also how well he was doing foreign policy wise. 

Mondale's worse mistake wasn't his comments about taxes (although that didn't help).  NO, Mondale's worse mistake was picking Gerry Ferraro as his Veep.  (Probably second worse Veep choice after McGovern picked Eagleton in '72, although McGovern did have the sense enough to force Eagleton from the ticket after the revelation of Eagleton's mental health problem and replace him with Shriver, not that did McGovern any good, but you have to give the man credit).  The vetting process on Ferraro must have been a disaster for the Mondale campaign (there were far better potential Veeps, even women for the Democrats that year). 

Of course living in the south at the time, of 1984, and especially in Florida and part of that year in Georgia, of course any semblance of a Mondale/Ferraro campaign was NONE.  At least Dukakis in Florida put up a fight and Pinellas and Pasco County (the two counties I campaigned in, and actually Pasco where I lived) were a lot closer than in previous campaigns or at least the most close since 1976. 

Yes, Dukakis made terrible gaffes and mistakes and of course he details them in his own books, but I don't think they were nearly as bad as the ones Mondale made four years earlier.   And certainly the election results (both the popular and electoral of 1988 vs. 1984), would certainly lend credence that Dukakis and his handlers ran a far better campaign then Mondale. 

Of course the most memorable thing about the 1988 campaign was that evening of the election, which by the way was on my 25th birthday that year -- November 8, 1988, and coming out of the Pinellas county Democratic HQ's and being told by a woman who had also campaigned for Dukakis and hearing her say, "I just wish the Democrats would win the Presidency once before I die."

Of course then in 1992, that woman Lisa, whom I referring to, hope she had a much better perspective.  The most memorable thing from that campaign of 1992, was someone writing on the chalkboard, the next day, at the Pinellas county Democratic HQ's:

Murphy Brown    1
Dan Quayle        0

And just two other things about 1988 election and working for Dukakis and the rest of the Democrats:

1.  The Dukakis campaign had a lot of GREAT food at all of their events, from Boston clam chowder to greek salads to plenty of Baklava, etc.  So I can't put them down for that.  -:)

2.  The Friday before the election that year, I was invited and went to a Dukakis party in Tarpon Springs, FL and I was dressed to the nines, as it were, which was very difficult for me to do on the budget I was on back then (still is to many degrees) and I was actually told by the elderly women that were there that I must be a candidate for something and this was over other legislative and statewide candidates that year.  -:)   

[dazzleman]

Interesting comments, Blank Slate.

I agree about the selection of Ferraro.  The feminists publicly pressured Mondale to pick a woman, and he caved.  It made him look weak.  Of course, she was not the right woman.  A three-term congresswoman from Queens, NY?  Get serious.  If she'd been a man with those credentials, she'd have been laughed right out of the convention hall.  Her run for VP did no service to woman running for public office who want to be taken seriously.

It's too bad that woman in Pinellas County eventually got her wish.   I think the whole Murphy Brown joke about Dan Quayle shows the brainlessness of some Democrats.  Dan Quayle was absolutely right about single parenthood, and the feckless Pres. Bush should have backed him up.  Did he expect to get the votes of "sophistocated" liberals in any case?

[TomC]

Kerry leaps to mind first.

Does this mean primary, too? Gephardt really should have done a lot better. Mondale was just a bad candidate, and Carter had a terrible situation. 

But after thought, It'd have to be McGovern

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

Kerry 2004 was a close second in my opionion. Granted Kerry was a terrible candidate, sticking his foot in his mouth at every opportunity, and Edwards as VP added nothing to the ticket, he still should have won. Bush had A LOT of potential weaknesses, including the economy, Iraq, gas prices, healthcare, education, and outsourcing. Kerry's campaign should have just put together an ad of Bush's worst moments and aired it nonstop. Also go after the swiftboat vets and answer their charges.

I agree Dukakis in 88 was pretty bad, but he probably would have lost anyway as all Bush had to do was paint him as an elitist northeastern liberal out of touch with the rest of America.

Bush 1992 was probably doomed from the start by the economy and the fact that Bill Clinton was a MUCH better politician. Even a great campaign would probably still have lost.

[Akno21]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

[dazzleman]

I don't think Gore ran a bad campaign; I think he was just a bad candidate.

I respect Donna Brazile as a strategist and I think the basic strategy was sound.  Many people disagree on that, thinking that Gore should have embraced Clinton more than he did.  But I think that embracing Clinton more would have largely helped Gore where he didn't need it, and hurt him where he needed more support.

Whenever there is a razor-sharp margin, the losing side second guesses everything, or has everything second-guessed for them, since almost any small change could have produced a different outcome.  It's almost better to lose big.

[Blank Slate]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was badly run, because it wasn't. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

[Akno21]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was badly run, because it wasn't. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

I agree with that, although Kerry's biggest problem was simply everything that happened from the terrible Dem Convention up until the 1st debate. The convention was just horrible, bringing back memories of the Vietnam War is not the way to get a bounce, and then he let the Swifties run around slandering his record all throughout August. After the "Say 9/11 as often as possible (GOP)" convention, he was simply in too big a hole, and even his superb debate performance and acceptable finish put him in a position where he couldn't win.

[Blank Slate]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was not badly run, because it was run well. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

I agree with that, although Kerry's biggest problem was simply everything that happened from the terrible Dem Convention up until the 1st debate. The convention was just horrible, bringing back memories of the Vietnam War is not the way to get a bounce, and then he let the Swifties run around slandering his record all throughout August. After the "Say 9/11 as often as possible (GOP)" convention, he was simply in too big a hole, and even his superb debate performance and acceptable finish put him in a position where he couldn't win.

I will also agree with that, as well.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was badly run, because it wasn't. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

I agree with that, although Kerry's biggest problem was simply everything that happened from the terrible Dem Convention up until the 1st debate. The convention was just horrible, bringing back memories of the Vietnam War is not the way to get a bounce, and then he let the Swifties run around slandering his record all throughout August. After the "Say 9/11 as often as possible (GOP)" convention, he was simply in too big a hole, and even his superb debate performance and acceptable finish put him in a position where he couldn't win.

I will also agree with that, as well.

Ok maybe  I was a little hard on Al Gore and Donna Brazile. But still, it's pretty impressive (not in a good way) that he lost despite having helped preside over peace and record prosperity. When I said he should have gone after AR, TN, and WV, I think he probably could have done it without pushing people over to Nader: just repeatedly remind people that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, which I don't think enough people in 2000 understood.  An aggessive campagin tour by Bill Clinton could probably have won AR, while a few more visits and ads by Gore could probably have won TN and maybe WV.

[PBrunsel]

Hoover 1932 was very bad as well. He didn't really care about being reelected by then, and made only 12 campaign speeches. Before speaking in Baltimore a group of unemployed men began to chant "Hang him."

His message was a somber one to say the least:

"Let no man tell you this could be worse. It could indeed be so much worse that the current economy would be preferable."

That was true, but not rousing.

[Sam Spade]

Gore 2000. 
What other incumbant has lost with peace and prosperity as his platform?

Nixon.

The end of the Dwight Eisenhower era was not a prosperous time.  America had gone through a recession in 1958-1959 and was weak at the time.

Kennedy proposed cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy, whereas the Republicans wanted to keep the tax rate the same and sucessfully ran to the right of Nixon on this issue, one of things that probably helped him win the election.

[The Duke]

Obviously McGovern and Mondale were awful.

Mondale chose a VP who had not come even close to being properly vetted, and had no control over his convention.  Contrast that with Bush's conventions in 2000 and 2004 and the tightly controlled atmosphere.

Walter and his lady friend promised to raise taxes while holdng their convention in San Francisco.  Are you kidding?  Why don't you just nominate Castro/Qadaffi and be done with it.

I voted Goldwater.  By the time it was over, he looked like a total nutjob who wanted to nuke Asia just for fun.  The inability to respond to these attacks doomed him.

[freepcrusher]

thought I would bump this slightly older than eleven years old thread

[Mr. Smith]

I wonder how many "Others" are gonna rise to account for Hillary '16?

[mianfei]

I wonder how many "Others" are gonna rise to account for Hillary '16?

Many will I think. She focused far too much on Trump and paid the price for not understanding his great appeal in rural areas and to ordinary Americans who are excluded from living in the exclusive urban centres.

The gaffes in Walter Mondale’s campaign caused me to vote “other”, though.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

McGovern '72, anyone?

[SingingAnalyst]

McGovern '72, anyone?

The '72 Dems were compromised by Watergate. Muskie had to drop out after crying publicly-- a no-no for men in 1972-- over an attack on his wife. I'd say Dukakis '88: his missed opportunity to give a passionate answer to Brit Hume's death penalty question; and of course the tank ride in my hometown. Bush '88 also had gaffes ("I haven't sorted out the penalties" comes to mind).

[Mr. Smith]

Also, Ford '76 and Romney '12 ought to be worth something if Kerry is listed. After all, Kerry's the closest a losing candidate has gotten to winning the EV. All he needed was Ohio...not bad considering the Iraq War was still popular at the time and the swiftboat thing, and being nowhere the year before against Dean.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Dukakis 1988, due to many self inflicted wounds