most disappointing prersidential candidate of the last 50 years?

[WalterMitty]

my disappointing, i mean  what candidate totally failed to live up to his/her potential?

ill say nelson rockefeller.  he had it all..money, famous name, governor of a big state and yet he failed miserably in his 3 presidential runs.

getting appointed veep as a consolation gift, long after his political career was over, was almost embarrassing .

[NDN]

Arguably Bush. Let's see he had the Republicans controlling all branches of government, the nation (and world) rallying around him after a crisis, and to top it off basically got the Presidency handed to him. What did he do? He pissed it away on a hackish Rovian-domestic policy, spent more than any other President of the last 40 years, rolled back civil liberties (in the name of 'patriotism' and 'freedom' ironically) and started a pointless war of choice based on a bogus rationale.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'll go with someone different and say John Glenn. Though '84 was unwinnable, Mondale was a poor candidate. Glenn had a good record and a movie going for him, but he couldn't win.

[WalterMitty]

i guess pete wilson 1996 deserves a mention too.  but in fairness he had some medical problems come up.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I say Rockefeller.  He would have beaten JFK in 1960, and probably would have won in 1968, if he had chosen to run.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I agree with Walter and say Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. He probably would have gotten the '64 GOP Nomination thanks to a victory in the California Primary, however that wasn't to be the case all because he married a woman who was about 20 odd years younger than him. He would have done better than Goldwater against LBJ in '64 but still he wouldn't have been elected President.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Rocky (and I don't mean Conor Flynn ), had the potential but never followed through. I wouldn't called it disappointing because he didn't even win the nomination.

IMO, it has to be Al Gore. He had that election on a silver platter. The 2000 election for the Democrats should have been like 1988 for the Republicans and they blew it big time.

[Lincoln Republican]

I will go with Governor George Romney of Michigan in 1968.

He was the front runner for the Republican nomination for some time, was making a very good impression on the elctorate, and it looked as if he may go all the way to the White House.  Then he went to Vietnam, came back and gave his famous "brainwashed" statement.  It was all downhill from there.

He was a tremendously gifted executive and leader, who would have made a great President.  There would have been no Watergate scandal.  America would have been well served with George Romney in the White House.

Going back 60 years if I may, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York has to rank as the candidate who should have been President, but wasn't.  Dewey was the favorite to win in 1948, was a great District Attorney and a very effective Governor, and would have made a very capable President. 

[Beet]

Rocky (and I don't mean Conor Flynn ), had the potential but never followed through. I wouldn't called it disappointing because he didn't even win the nomination.

IMO, it has to be Al Gore. He had that election on a silver platter. The 2000 election for the Democrats should have been like 1988 for the Republicans and they blew it big time.

The dynamics of 1998 screwed Gore. In 1997, Gore was leading Bush in the one or two polls which came out. In 1998, Bush led Gore in every poll, often substantially, and kept this lead until September of 2000.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal came out in early 1998; this disgusted the electorate, and Gore was (unfairly in my opinion) tarred with this.

The Republicans in the House however, started attacking Clinton hard and this created a backlash. People didn't like seeing their President attacked like that when things seemed to be going well. So they rewarded Clinton with high approval ratings and blunted the GOP in the 1998 Congressional elections.

But their digust at Clinton's perjury and infidelity had to be displaced somewhere, and it was displaced upon Gore, who represented 'the administration';

In contrast was Bush, who represented 'traditional values' and everything that the Lewinsky scandal offended.

At the time, the perception was that the GOP had miscalculated by going too far. People didn't notice the persistent Bush lead or didn't connect it to the Lewinsky scandal. The 1998 Republican failure had a healthy, moderating impact on the party and the religious right would remain quiet as their candidate, George Bush, ran on a platform of 'compassionate conservatism'. So in a way, the Lewinsky scandal did hand the GOP the White House.

---------

George Romney was also hurt when Lyndon Johnson said that his view on Vietnam was precisely the same as Romney's. It made Romney seem colorless. Romney also failed to court the emerging southern wing of Republican kingmakers.

[J. J.]

I would have to say Gary Hart, 1988.  He was the front runner, brilliant, experienced, ready to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction.

[NDN]

I'm surprised no one is bringing up Ed Muskie or Teddy Kennedy.

[NDN]

I would have to say Gary Hart, 1988.  He was the front runner, brilliant, experienced, ready to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction.

You have a point there, but it wasn't really him so much as the media's obsessive focus on a trivial (albeit hypocritical) personal failing of his.

[memphis]

Ross Perot. He really had the ability to shake up the two-party system, perhaps in a serious way, but wasn't sure that he wanted to be president.

[DownWithTheLeft]

John McCain is another name, he should have won in 2000 but he didn't have the PR machine to do it

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm surprised no one is bringing up Ed Muskie or Teddy Kennedy.

I don't see Muskie as a big dissapointment because he would not have won the GE if he had ran.  Kennedy, though, would have made a great President; instead, he is doing a wonderful job in the Senate.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Ed Muskie was a disappointment when he ran in 1972. He was the clear frontrunner, he was a Democratic Senator and Governor from a then traditional Republican state. Then he blew it when he cried in the snow over an article attacking his wife or something to do with his wife. Then come New Hampshire Primary, he wins but not by the margin his anticipated.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would say that Ted Kennedy was the most disappointing, closely followed by Gary Hart and Nelson Rockefeller. Kennedy could've been President had he not decided to wait to report that car accident that everyone knows about. Gary Hart is second because like Kennedy, he had charisma and was very popular, but he had a big mouth. Nelson Rockefeller just never seemed able to capitalize on his chances.

[Хahar 🤔]

I will go with Governor George Romney of Michigan in 1968.

He was the front runner for the Republican nomination for some time, was making a very good impression on the elctorate, and it looked as if he may go all the way to the White House.  Then he went to Vietnam, came back and gave his famous "brainwashed" statement.  It was all downhill from there.

He was a tremendously gifted executive and leader, who would have made a great President.  There would have been no Watergate scandal.  America would have been well served with George Romney in the White House.

Going back 60 years if I may, Governor Thomas Dewey of New York has to rank as the candidate who should have been President, but wasn't.  Dewey was the favorite to win in 1948, was a great District Attorney and a very effective Governor, and would have made a very capable President. 

Winfield, why are you so Romney-obsessed?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I would also say Governor Michael Dukakis in 1988. After the Democratic National Convention in Atlanta, the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket had a massive 17 point lead over the then incumbent Vice President George H.W. Bush. Then his campaign went down hill after those Willie Horton commercials and his response about Kitty Dukakis' being raped in the Presidential Debates.

[StateBoiler]

John McCain is another name, he should have won in 2000 but he didn't have the PR machine to do it

Not sure how you can say that. When the Republicans have a nomination contest, it's decided by a central committee and the primaries are merely a coronation. There was no way George W. Bush was not going to win that nomination, props to McCain for making it last as long as he did. When you win a state that's not supposed to be friendly to you (Michigan), and the sitting governor of said state publicly apologizes to the establishment nominee for him not winning, you know you accomplished something.

This year is a notable exception as the central committee is split.

[HardRCafé]

getting appointed veep as a consolation gift, long after his political career was over, was almost embarrassing .

Less so than how he died.  Nelson Rockefeller and Paul Lynde are the only two I know of for whom medical attention was the furthest concern.

[HardRCafé]

I would have to say Gary Hart, 1988.  He was the front runner, brilliant, experienced, ready to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction.

You have a point there, but it wasn't really him so much as the media's obsessive focus on a trivial (albeit hypocritical) personal failing of his.

Which he (dumbly) dared them to do.

[StateBoiler]

George H.W. Bush, 1992.

[gorkay]

Disappointing candidates of the past 50 years? There were a lot of them.

Republicans: Nelson Rockefeller (although his lack of success was due as much to timing as any shortcomings-- in 1960 Nixon had the nomination sewed up and in 1964 the party swung way to the right; maybe the only time he really goofed was '68, when he waited too long to get into it and thus ceded too big a lead to Nixon. After that it was too late for him.), William Scranton (who made a credible showing after his very belated entry in '64 but then never tried to run again), John Connally (a perennial contender who fell on his face in 1980, the only time he made a serious run), Phil Gramm (another one for whom great things were predicted but who was a total flop when he did run), Phil Crane, Pete DuPont, Jack Kemp (the last three examples of empty suits with good resumes). I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but these are the ones who come to mind first.

Democrats: Stuart Symington (an eminently qualified man who was deadly dull as a candidate), Ed Muskie (a guy who seemed to have it all and then totally flopped at his one big chance), Birch Bayh (who was actually predicted by some to win the '76 nomination but who fell totally flat), Fred Harris (ditto in '76), John Glenn (another empty suit with a good resume), Alan Cranston (a man who had much to recommend him but who was totally out of his element trying to run for President-- remember when he dyed his hair red?), Bill Bradley (who picked the wrong time to run and turned out to be pretty much a total bust when he did), and, last but certainly not least, Mario Cuomo, who could never make up his mind whether to even run or not.   

[WalterMitty]

cranston was much too old when he finally ran for president.  and if i remember correctly he was pretty much a single issue candidate...the nuclear freeze...which wasnt a popular issue anyway.