Weakest Presidential Candidate

[jeron]

Mondale. He had the charisma of an oyster.

[Nym90]

Mondale. He had the charisma of an oyster.

True, but at least he didn't scare people like McGovern or Goldwater.

On second thought those two were probably the worst. Both lost many areas that their parties had never lost before, at least not in 100 years or more.

I'd still pick Dukakis as honorable mention as the worst candidate who could've or should've won. McGovern and Goldwater would've never been nominated in the first place if their parties had any chance at all of actually winning those elections in the first place. A good Democratic candidate could've beaten Bush in 1988 or at least come close. Dukakis tried to pretend not to be liberal when he had really no moderate positions at all (at least by the standards of the day). That combined with his total lack of charisma and emotion enabled him to epically fail at connecting with most voters.

Gore's campaign is in my opinion the worst. Yes, he had a great grassroots turnout operation, but he managed to lose when the incumbent President had a 60 percent approval rating. All he had to do was run as Clinton's 3rd term, but instead chose to "be his own man" and distance himself. Commendable in some ways as I'm sure he wanted to feel he had earned the Presidency on his own rather than it being handed to him but still....ya gotta win above all else.

[Storebought]

You all are wrong.

The right answer is Bob Dull, 1996. I was of political age then, and I can't remember a damn thing that man ran on (I do remember his Senate resignation, though).

[Nym90]

You all are wrong.

The right answer is Bob Dull, 1996. I was of political age then, and I can't remember a damn thing that man ran on (I do remember his Senate resignation, though).

Dole was quite boring, but considering how popular Clinton was he didn't do that badly. He was at least an acceptable alternative for those who hated Clinton, and most everyone agreed he'd have been a competent President. He never really gave a good rationale for why he wanted to be President other than that he wasn't Bill Clinton; he was kind of the Republican version of John Kerry in that regard, but running against a more popular incumbent than Kerry faced.

[dead0man]

Kerry and Dewey

[Math]

It's interesting to compare the vote for a presidential candidate and the agregate vote of the house candidates of his party when we want to answer this question. It can shows hom the presidential candidate is less (or more) dynamic than his party.

Kerry-59 028 000 48,3%     D-52 754 000 46,6%

Dukakis-41 809 000 45,6%    D-43 473 000 53,2%

Mondale-37 577 000 40,6%    D-42 799 000 51,9%

McGovern-29 170 000 37,5%    D-36 780 000 51,6%

Goldwater-26 860 000 38,5%     R-27 908 000 42,4%

Dewey-21 970 000 45,1%     R-20 979 000 45,4%

So, I would say Mondale and McGovern. Not a surprise.

Surprising, Ford runs far better than the républicans in 76'.

Ford-39 146 000 48,0%     R-31 302 000 42,1%

[pragmatic liberal]

I'll echo some of the others here. Dukakis was weakest for BADLY losing a winnable race.

Beyond that, McGovern and Goldwater were totally unelectable -- and, honestly, they'd probably have been unelectable in almost any election. However, both did run in years in which no Democrat (1972) or Republican (1964) would have won.

As for Gore and Kerry, I'll defend both of them. In Gore's case, yes, he could have run a better campaign in some regards, but keep in mind that open-seat elections are almost ALWAYS close, even if the incumbent is popular ('88 was a big exception). When a president retires, or one party has held power for two terms, the time-for-change factor kicks in. Gore was always likely to face a stiff challenge from Bush and he ended up overperforming expectations in many respects (few expected him to win the popular vote, for example).

Kerry gets a bum rap. He wasn't dynamic, but his campaign presence was about as good as Gore's and both were far better than Dukakis'. Yes, Kerry's campaign wasn't fantastic, and he could have won. But he was running in a polarized election in which Bush had about 45% of the vote locked up. The incumbent still had approval ratings hovering around 50%, the economy was okay and he was overseeing two wars (plus the aftermath of 9-11).

For Kerry to lose narrowly was not really underperforming. In fact, I'd say a substantial Bush win was just as possible as a narrow Kerry win. Moreover, for all the talk about Kerry being a weak "anybody-but-Bush" candidate, the exit polls at the time didn't actually reflect that. According to the CNN exit poll, 57% of Kerry voters said they were voting FOR him, not just anti-Bush and his favorability ratings among Democratic voters was as high as Clinton's in '92. NOW, of course, Kerry's seen somewhat negatively, because he lost a race Democrats desperately hoped he'd win.

So I wouldn't name Gore or Kerry as the most inept or weakest. Dukakis, by a longshot.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dole and McGovern, Dole having run for VP in 1976 and having experience as Senate leader in the senate should of had ran a better campaign, blew states he should of won like KY, GA, and FL.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Dole and McGovern, Dole having run for VP in 1976 and having experience as Senate leader in the senate should of had ran a better campaign, blew states he should of won like KY, GA, and FL.

He won GA.

[jeron]

You all are wrong.

The right answer is Bob Dull, 1996. I was of political age then, and I can't remember a damn thing that man ran on (I do remember his Senate resignation, though).

Mmm, i always had a good laugh, especially when the platform went down and the look on his face was hilarious and of course because of his ridiculous speeches: "You're going to see the real Bob Dole from now on."

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's interesting to compare the vote for a presidential candidate and the agregate vote of the house candidates of his party when we want to answer this question. It can shows hom the presidential candidate is less (or more) dynamic than his party.

Kerry-59 028 000 48,3%     D-52 754 000 46,6%

Dukakis-41 809 000 45,6%    D-43 473 000 53,2%

Mondale-37 577 000 40,6%    D-42 799 000 51,9%

McGovern-29 170 000 37,5%    D-36 780 000 51,6%

Goldwater-26 860 000 38,5%     R-27 908 000 42,4%

Dewey-21 970 000 45,1%     R-20 979 000 45,4%

So, I would say Mondale and McGovern. Not a surprise.

Surprising, Ford runs far better than the républicans in 76'.

Ford-39 146 000 48,0%     R-31 302 000 42,1%

Interesting, but, the problem is that in 1948 the Republicans did not have candidates for many Congressional races!  If the vote total had been only for districts in which the Democrats and Republicans both fielded candidates, I suspect Dewey would have seriously trailed the Republican Congressional candidates total.

[Torie]

In a quick scan, nobody mentioned Bob Dole, which is a bit surprising.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

In a quick scan, nobody mentioned Bob Dole, which is a bit surprising.

Dole has been mentioned by almost everyone.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Easily Dukakis or Kerry because they had easy wins that blew up

[auburntiger]

Does this topic apply to presidential candidates seeking re-election?
If so, Carter-1980 by FAR. He lost in a landslide defeat, and actually did worse in the EC than Goldwater. If John Anderson hadn't made a run, Reagan's margin of victory could have even been greater in the popular vote, since he was a moderate Republican.

If not, Dukakis. blew a huge lead. I'm hoping the same thing happens this year, but Obama is a far better candidate, and it might end up being 2000-part 2

[ChrisFromNJ]

I am surprised that Mondale's name has appeared here. Yes, he did lose by a large margin - but he was a victim of the times. He faced a popular incumbent and was a fierce advocate of an ideology that was on its death bed at the time- New Deal liberalism. As walter said a few pages back, a decade or so prior, Mondale would have been a terrific candidate. One could argue that if his ticket had lost in 1976, it would have been beneficial to him. He could have ran in 1980 without the dead weight that was Jimmy Carter's presidency around his neck. He would have been better positioned to win the presidency in that scenario. Alas, it didn't work out that way and he was on the sinking life-boat that was Carter's presidency, and that led to Reagan. After Reagan steered the country out of its deep 1982 recession, you could have written Mondale's obituary then.

You could find many worse candidates than Walter Mondale - and the biggest that comes to mind for me is Michael Dukakis. One could argue whether he should have won or not - that is certainly debatable. But his campaign was a national laughingstock - and he never should have lost by as much as he did. He was easily definable, politically tone deaf and receieved some bad advice from his advisors. His campaign is still a punch line to this day.