Worst Candidates in Modern History

[Derek]

Ok, let's take a look at who the worst presidential candidates were considering the following things in combination: performance in the election, charisma, experience, credentials, and political base of followers. I've really narrowed it down in my view.

Adalai Stevenson- ran against extremely popular Eisenhower both times
Richard Nixon- almost won in 1960 and was one of the best candidates a few elections later
Barry Goldwater- clearly had a large base and the GOP today is much more like him as a result
Hubert Humphrey- too close to winning
George Wallace- too big a base
George McGovern- large base helping the Dems today becomeverything he would ever want
Gerald Ford- lost by Ohio I believe and was close to winning
Jimmy Carter- won a term in 1976
Walter Mondale- boring
Michael Dukakis- putts
George H.W. Bush- won a term in 1988 and really didn't do THAT bad in 1992
Bob Dole- always remembered for his military service and senate career over losing
Al Gore- dangerously close to being president
John Kerry- 87 billion dollars cost him the election (in case you didn't know he was in Vietnam)
John McCain- Vietnam hero who spent years reaching across the aisle and didn't do THAT bad

Having said that I can narrow it down to:

A. Walter Mondale
B. Michael Dukakis
C. John Kerry

I'm leaning toward Mondale even though he ran against a popular Reagan let's face it. He had no base, no charisma, no military heroics, and would have lost his home state if Reagan campaigned there even once. Dukakis was bad too. He ran against a mediocre candidate and lost some states that Democrats should have had no problem winning like Maryland and California. I've never heard of any political groups who went in herds to support this guy either. He also needed an army tank to show his toughness lol ok I'll stop on him. John Kerry who in case you didn't know was in Vietnam, had a record of treason after returning, was dull, unattractive, and his senate record was full of inconsistencies.

You decide and have fun. Remember to focus on candidates since 1952 who represented their party in the national election.

[Derek]

He is on it by the year 1968. His base was huge in the south though. That would clearly disqualify him from what I would consider a terrible candidate. He also had experience governing a state which helps as well.

[Derek]

oh all the losing candidates are on the list. Who do you think was the worst candidate considering a combination of all of those things?

[Derek]

I was only going back to 1952! I agree that Landon would've been worse he got about what 3 states? As for Wallace, if you think he is the worst candidate then I respect your view. I'm considering attributes and performance over policies because I'm referring to candidates who weren't elected to office.

[Derek]

That's a good point ^^. I like this discussion.

[Derek]

Yes, you had a good point about the nature of the times. I'm not including that on here but that's an interesting way to look at things.

[Derek]

I see what you mean. I over looked him. Come to think of it he really doesn't seem that enthusiastic or base built. In fact I think he way over performed on election night anyhow. I thought Bush would go over 300 based on polls. You have some good points on here my friend.

[Derek]

Goldwater started a movement that evolved into modern day conservatism. Reagan's revolution began with him. He may have done poorly but the GOP has been more conservative ever since. Say what you want about that but the bottom line is the started a movement. As for Ross Perot, remember he was a 3rd party candidate and that's why I didn't include Ralph Nader and several others. Let's focus on Ds and Rs.

[Derek]

So...by this logic, McGovern's campaign would also be considered a success, having started a movement that thoroughily transormed the party?

not a success, just not the worst ever

[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.

[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.

[Derek]

Nixon did that for the good of our nation.

[Derek]

Alright so who do you all think was the worst presidential candidate since 1952?

[Derek]

that's true too the last month was hell for McCain

[Derek]

Obama was not the worst in modern history. He had a great support base and charisma. However, he may have lost without the collapse of the housing market. Before that he was viewed as a liberal with no experience.

[Derek]

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

[Derek]

We do have the perfect government. As long as we have 3 branches and free elections. I'll agree with you on that.

[Derek]

Honestly, I would rather have Obama than Kerry and ppl would be hard pressed to find someone to the right of me on this forum. More to the point though yes Kerry was a horrible candidate and was only close because of Iraq and Bush's falling numbers.

[Derek]

We do have the perfect government. As long as we have 3 branches and free elections. I'll agree with you on that.

The presidency is the worst branch IMHO. If I was a framer I probably would have opposed the idea or at least had it in a very weakened state.

Oh I would have been all about states' rights back then. We do need a presidency, but that along with the entire federal government is way too big now.

[Derek]

And the dems would've never won congress at all. The GOP would still be in control and I am somewhat confident that Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell would have been running the show until he was voted out with 44% of the vote in 2008.

[Derek]

And the dems would've never won congress at all. The GOP would still be in control and I am somewhat confident that Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell would have been running the show until he was voted out with 44% of the vote in 2008.

Who would have been voted out? Kerry, Delay, or McConnell? Even tough I agree that the GOP would have been in a much better position right now if Kerry won in 2004.

Kerry would've been voted out in 2008. Maybe not 44% but 46% at best.

[Derek]

I'm liking this discussion very much! I am also officially endorsing Dukakis as the worst candidate since 1952. He ran against a mediocre Republican after 8 years of that party being in the White House, he picked a great running mate, and blew a 17 point lead.

[Derek]

that's true it's very difficult to say with an alternative time line.

[Derek]

No the voters were never in love with the democrats. They voted for conservative democrats in 2006 who were pro guns, pro life, and strong on defense. Voters were unhappy that year with the out of control spending that the GOP had going. The Republicans abandoned their principles and base and it cost them the 2006 midterms. Had Kerry been in office spending like Bush and Obama, the GOP would've gone back to their roots in order to score political points against a tax and spend liberal and would've picked up seats in 2006 like any party does who doesn't have the white house at a mid term.

[Derek]

Kerry was a dork and wouldn't have proven anything.