Candidates who suffered by failing to excite the "base"

[tpfkaw]

Examples I can think of are Lewis Cass, Horace Greeley, Benjamin Harrison (1892), Alton Parker, William Howard Taft (1912), John Davis, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Hubert Humphrey, and George H.W. Bush (1992).  All of these are debatable (Davis, Landon, and Willkie are the most obvious), several were harmed by third party candidates, and most occured during large shifts in the composition of their party's "base," where one faction was directly opposed to the other.  H.W. is also the only recent one.  Is pissing off the "base" overrated?

[tpfkaw]

McCain?

It's possible, but conventional wisdom is that Palin counteracted that.

[tpfkaw]

McCain?

It's possible, but conventional wisdom is that Palin counteracted that.

I think Palin rallied the base, but she turned out to be a net-negative because independents and moderates were turned off by her.

Well yes, but this isn't what the thread is about.

I'd personally say that the only election that was very likely lost due to avoidable irritation of the base was 1940.

[tpfkaw]

You could say Al Smith, given that he certainly didn't appeal to the Democratic base (southern whites), and only won the Deep South "yellow dog" states.

Not really, since he was incredibly exciting to the larger component of the Democratic base (Catholics and immigrants).  Saying Al Smith didn't excite the base would be like saying George McGovern and Barry Goldwater didn't because they alienated labor and WASPs.

[tpfkaw]

McCain?

It's possible, but conventional wisdom is that Palin counteracted that.

I think Palin rallied the base, but she turned out to be a net-negative because independents and moderates were turned off by her.

Well yes, but this isn't what the thread is about.

I'd personally say that the only election that was very likely lost due to avoidable irritation of the base was 1940.

Who do you consider the base to be for 1940?  Is there another candidate who could have done better?

The two front-runners for the nomination, Robert Taft and Thomas Dewey (then an isolationist) would've both done far better than Willkie.  The base were the isolationist Midwestern conservatives.  In 1940, FDR had completely worn out his welcome with the 1938 recession, the court-packing attempt, running for an unprecedented third term, and trying to involve the US in World War II.  He was quite unpopular at the start of the campaign.  It was looking like isolationist Catholics would break strongly to the Republicans (they actually *did,* just not as strongly as they might've).  Nominating Willkie, a foreign policy interventionist who wasn't willing to strongly criticize Roosevelt's policies and who played into the Democrats' populist narrative of the Republicans being controlled by rich people (he being a wealthy utility executive), the GOP successfully and spectacularly threw an election that should've been theirs for the taking.

[tpfkaw]

You could say Al Smith, given that he certainly didn't appeal to the Democratic base (southern whites), and only won the Deep South "yellow dog" states.

Not really, since he was incredibly exciting to the larger component of the Democratic base (Catholics and immigrants).  Saying Al Smith didn't excite the base would be like saying George McGovern and Barry Goldwater didn't because they alienated labor and WASPs.

Barry Goldwater alienated WASPs? What do you think Orange County was at the time?

Northeastern WASPs obviously.