Worst Candidates in Modern History

[HappyWarrior]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

[Nym90]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

[HappyWarrior]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

Who else could blow a twenty point lead and not steal the election?

[hcallega]

It's worth asking whether we mean candidates or campaigns. The Dukakis campaign was terrible, but he was a half-decent candidate. His campaign made a lot of bad choices, but if we're talking candidates here Mondale and McGovern have to be at the top.

[Tuck!]

I would consider a candidate's ability to campaign well as a factor to determine whether or not the candidate was good or not. A candidate who can't campaign is not a good candidate.

[Bo]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

Who else could blow a twenty point lead and not steal the election?

Carter in 1980 (and almost in 1976).

[Tuck!]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

Who else could blow a twenty point lead and not steal the election?

Carter in 1980 (and almost in 1976).

Also, wasn't Nixon up quite a bit atone point in 1960 (prior to the debates)?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Top four:

Dukakis - a man who simply blowed up double-digits lead against uncharismatic candidate, after 8 years of GOP in power.

Dewey - lazy man, who took all for granted and never moved his ass. It had been said that he asked his wife shorthy before an election how it would be sleeping with the President of the United States. Mrs. Dewey asked after election: "so Harry is coming to me or I have to go to the White House?".

Bush Sr. - never was good in campaigns. Won in 1988 only thanks to the fact his rival was even worse candidate. Royally screwed up in 1992.

Gore: Won pv and only needed to put more energy to win, but screwed up that.

Not bad:

Dole - his time just passed out. He'd be a great candidate in 1980s, however.

Ford - comes very close despite being rather a poor campaigner, being weakened by Reagan challenge and own misteps.

Mondale - no one could beat Reagan in 1984 and I can't see other Democrats doing better.

Remember: Mondale pv share was better than McGovern's, Goldwater's or Bush Sr. in 92.

Stevenson - the same. No one could possibly beat Einsenhower and his performance as volunteering sacrifical lamb wasn't poor.

Kerry - Good performance.

McCain - As Dole, his time passed. He's crush Gore in 2000, had he won nomination back then.

[Tuck!]

I think Gary Hart, who was the runner-up, could have gave Reagan a much better run for his money than Walter Mondale.

[Bo]

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

Who else could blow a twenty point lead and not steal the election?

Carter in 1980 (and almost in 1976).

Also, wasn't Nixon up quite a bit atone point in 1960 (prior to the debates)?

There are peridos when Nixon was leading, but it was never by double digits. The race was always close that year.

[Bo]

I think Gary Hart, who was the runner-up, could have gave Reagan a much better run for his money than Walter Mondale.

Possibly, but Reagan would have likely defeated him in a landslide as well due to the good economy and lack of foreign wars.

[President Mitt]

The answer is Dewey, obviously.

[Bo]

The answer is Dewey, obviously.

I wouldn't blame him too much. The polls showed him leading until September/October, when most or all pollsters stopped polling the race. Thus, Dewey thought he would win and did not make any risky moves (or did not campaign energetically, for that matter). Truman's surge came too late to be detected by the pollsters, and thus I wouldn't compeltely blame Dewey for losing an election everyone thought he was going to win. Since Dewey (or anyone else) didn't know his lead was in jeopardy in October, it is unfair to assign all the blame for Dewey's loss squarely on him.

[live free or die]

Mondale got crushed haha.

[Bo]

Mondale got crushed haha.

That wasn't his fault, for the most part. The situation in the country in 1984 was not to his favor.

[Derek]

Mondale was pretty bad and I don't think I've ever seen a worse speaker run for the White House. McCain would have even blown him out of the water. Remember Dewey gave Roosevelt a run for his money more than any other candidate had for the GOP and in 1948 he almost beat Truman. Yes, a candidate and a campaign go hand in hand. I didn't intend to debate policies as much on this forum as I did campaigns and candidates.

[cpeeks]

Dukakis worse candidate ever. Mondale probably wasnt as bad a pick as some people think, he just didnt have a chance against Reagan. Im not sure if anyone could have done better against Reagan in 1984.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Probably Dukakis and McCain.

[Derek]

John McCain will be remembered as a veteran who withstood torture from the enemy and who stood up for our country. Losing an election the GOP was pretty much guaranteed to lose isn't the mark of a bad candidate. It's great that he made it as close as he did. Actually, if you look at the elections that I'm dating back to which is 1952 he was somewhat close.

[cpeeks]

Mccain was a horrible candidate, from febuary on, while Clinton and Obama slugged it out he had the chance to identify his candidcy, create the image he wanted, and define the election, and he blew it.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

George McGovern easily takes the cake. He was one of the biggest losers in history and a horrible candidate.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

George McGovern easily takes the cake. He was one of the biggest losers in history and a horrible candidate.

That's why Nixon needed to cheat?

[Derek]

Nixon did that for the good of our nation.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Nixon did that for the good of our nation.

Richard Nixon never did one damn thing in his life that wasn't for the good of Richard Nixon.

[HappyWarrior]

George McGovern easily takes the cake. He was one of the biggest losers in history and a horrible candidate.

That's why Nixon needed to cheat?

He didn't need to and to suggest he did is simply disingenuous, he did it because he wanted to screw over the Dems as massivly as possible.