Worst Candidates in Modern History

[hcallega]

1960 on is really "modern" i suppose.
1-Al Gore, 2000
2-Walter Mondale, 1984
3-Jimmy Carter, 1980
4-George McGovern, 1972
5-Ross Perot, 1996

HHH actually ran a fantastic campaign, considering at one point it looked like it would be a landslide in Nixon's favor. He really pulled blue-collar whites in the North away from Wallace and back into his side.

[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.

[hcallega]

Obama would have lost in many climates, but so would many other candidates. Winning the Presidency is as much about timing as anything else. Reagan won in 1980 because the country was so fed up with the failures of big government and the economic/inflationary/foreign policy crises. He wouldn't have won in 1968 or 1976 (opinion), because America was not ready for a staunch conservative. Obama wouldn't have won in almost any other year, but then again he wasn't running in any other year. He was a phenomenal candidate, because he is the most liberal president in our nations history and won by a large margin. America is a center-right nation, and the fact that he won cannot be overstated.

As far as McGovern, he was a terrible candidate ideologically, but he was much like Obama in his ability to get the youth vote and energize the left. After all, he was seen as the outsider candidate by most in the party going into 1972. He had to defeat three establishment candidates (Muskie, Humphrey, Scoop) to win the nomination, and he did. That takes a lot. However he was simply the wrong candidate in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[hcallega]

Right candidate in the right place at the right time. You said it pal.

That's American Style Democracy for ya. Thats why despite my interest in foreign politics, I always like our system the best. It's all about timing, and since folks aren't as indentured to a particular party, it works awfully better then the UK or Europe in general.

[hcallega]

and then was actually defeated by Gore

lol

^^^^^^^^^

Despite the irregularities, Bush Jr. won that election (and he would have won it by a much larger margin if it wasn't for the DUI story). I'd rank Gore as the worst candidate ever since he didn't win despite the fact that the economy and foreign affairs were going in his favor and despite the fact that some embarassing last-minute revalations about Bush Jr. were released right before Election Day.

That's not the point. Gore got more votes, so anybody who cares about democracy should consider him the true winner.

Where in the world is there a more democratic system then in the US? Look at Britain where the voters had no say in the creation of the government after the deadlock. Look at Israel where the number 2 party seat wise is the Government leader. I do like France's runoff system, but the reality is that Bush did win that election. Maybe not fair and square, but a win nonetheless.

[hcallega]

Where in the world is there a more democratic system then in the US?

I can name two dozen right away.

Such as?

I love Europe, but many of their government systems are lethally corrupt. I'm part Italian, and have visited there twice. Their entire system is corrupt beyond belief, not to say it's bad, but it's far less democratic than the US. The situation in the UK shows that our system is far more democratic. Look at Thailand and see just how stable and Democratic we are.

P.S.: Al Gore (along with Jimbo Carter) is my least favorite Democrat to win the Democratic nomination in 50 years, and probably the only one that I could never see myself voting for. He is a complete flip-flopper, an opportunist, and a terrible candidate. He has no root values that drive his political convictions. I would have voted for Bradley in 2000, and either Bush or Nader in the general, but not Gore.

[hcallega]

Where in the world is there a more democratic system then in the US?

I can name two dozen right away.

Such as?

I love Europe, but many of their government systems are lethally corrupt. I'm part Italian, and have visited there twice. Their entire system is corrupt beyond belief, not to say it's bad, but it's far less democratic than the US. The situation in the UK shows that our system is far more democratic. Look at Thailand and see just how stable and Democratic we are.

P.S.: Al Gore (along with Jimbo Carter) is my least favorite Democrat to win the Democratic nomination in 50 years, and probably the only one that I could never see myself voting for. He is a complete flip-flopper, an opportunist, and a terrible candidate. He has no root values that drive his political convictions. I would have voted for Bradley in 2000, and either Bush or Nader in the general, but not Gore.

I agree with everything you said about Gore, but he isn't the only politician who flip-flopped on a lot of things. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry flip-flopped on the Iraq War, along with many other Democrats (but not Gore). Also, Bush Sr. did a complete U-turn of most of his policies after 1980. Finally, Reagan flip-flopped on abortion and Medicare. I don't see what makes Gore so bad. As Senator, he catered to a different constituency than as VP and a presidential candidate. I agree with what you said about Carter--he was just too incompetent and indecisive to be President.

A lot of it's just that I don't like Al Gore. He just rubs me the wrong way.