Worst Candidates in Modern History

[Bo]

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. Ross Perot
4. McGovern
5. Dukakis
6. Mondale
7. Carter (in 1980)

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

[Bo]

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

Are you talking to me?

[Bo]

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.

Even though Mondale and McGovern lost in landslide, both 1972 and 1984 were bad years for any candidate from their party (due to the good economy and stable world stage). In contrast, due to the good economy, lack of foreign threats, and Clinton's high approval ratings, Gore should have won in 2000 by a large margin, but he ended up narrowly losing. Thus, I think Gore is a worse candidate than either McGovern or 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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Bo]

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.

He could've still done that by attacking McGovern as a liberal pussy who will allow the U.S.S.R. to conquer American allies and who will raise your taxes and give your money to hobos and welfare bums. There was no need for Nixon to cheat to get a massive landslide.

[Bo]

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.

I'm not an Obama fan, but he was hardly the worst candidate. Kerry was likely a worse candidate, but would have made a better President.

What makes you say Kerry would ahve been a better President? He would have been unable to pass any legislation with a GOP Congress, and also he would have been blamed for the financial crisis instead of Bush Jr.

[Bo]

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.

[Bo]

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.

As a Republican, I honestly prefer winning in 2004 and losing in 2008, than the opposite.

Strategically speaking, the GOP would be in a better position though, as a likely Kerry victory wouldn't have significant coattails.

Also, the GOP would have kept Congress in 2006 and recaptured the Presidency (as well as increaed their Congressional majorities) in 2008. As a Democat, I would have prefered my party to win in 2000 (to escape Bush Jr.), lose in 20004, and win in 2008.

[Bo]

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.

Keep in mind that the issues (the economy, lack of foreign wars, and Reagan's popularity) favored Bush Sr. in 1988. Thus, it wasn't that surprising that he won at the end. Many people also don't pay attention to the election until after Labor Day, so taht is why Dukakis intiailly had a large lead. Once people began to pay attention to the race (and the issues), Bush Sr. created a solid lead for himself.

[Bo]

I say Mondale. He was sure as hell dealt a bad hand having to go up against Reagan '84, but independent of that, he was uncharismatic and had terrible instincts. I mean, openly calling for a tax increase? Gutsy, but dumb as hell.

Mondale thought voters would admire him for his honesty on the issue and his detailed solutions. If Hart would have lost the PV to Reagan by 13 pts. instead of 18, would that have made him a good candidate?

[Bo]

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.

[Bo]

that's not how I remember it

Were you talking to Antonio?

[Bo]

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.

The goal of the election was to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. If the goal was to win the popular vote, both candidates would have ran much different campaigns than they did in RL, and who's to say that Bush Jr. wouldn't have won the election anyway? Believe me, if Bush Jr. would have won the PV and Gore would have won the EV, all the Demcorats would be saying how the Electoral College is so great while all the Republicans would be denouncing it.

Also, if you care so much about democracy, does that mean Hillary Clinton should have been the Democratic nominee in 2008? She did get more votes than Barack Obama, after all.

[Bo]

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.

[Bo]

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?

How about Greece about...2500 years ago? 

lol. Only wealthy men who had served in the army could vote in ancient Greece.

[Bo]

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?

How about Greece about...2500 years ago? 

lol. Only wealthy men who had served in the army could vote in ancient Greece.

It was only half way sarcasm.  I think it still says something that the Ancient Greeks had a direct democracy (even if it was not universal suffrage) and we don't.

I would rather live in an indirect democracy where every non-felon over 18 is able to vote than live in a direct democracy where only a small minority of the adult population is able to vote.

[Bo]

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

Nixon was unbeatable in 1972. And Bush did beat Gore.

[Bo]

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.

[Bo]

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. John Kerry
4. Perot
5. Dukakis
6. McGovern
7. Barry Goldwater
8. Mondale
9. Carter (in 1980)
10. Thomas Dewey
11. Bob Dole
12. Charles Hughes
13. Gerald Ford
14. John McCain

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

I updated and modified my list.

How on earth was Gerald Ford one of the "worst candidates in modern history"?

He overcame a thirty-point deficit to practically tie the election with Carter!

 I suppose you could argue that the Poland gaffe cost him the election, but surely the fact that it took a gaffe like that to cost the Republican the election after Watergate shows that Ford was a pretty good candidate, no?

First of all, Ford is number 13 on the last, pretty low down there. I would call Ford one of the worst candidates in modern history because of that Poland gaffe and the fact that he didn't make a better VP choice than Dole, who was uncharismatic and made some gaffes of his own (such as saying "more people were killed in all the Democrat wars in the 20th century then the total population of Detroit", or something like that). I mean, Ford only needed a few thousand extra votes in OH and HI to swing the election to him. He could have done it, even though I agree that Watergate and the poor economy greatly hurt his chances. BTW, early polls are essentially meaningless--most people typically only begin to pay attention to the race after Labor Day, and after Labor Day, Ford and Carter were pretty close in the polls. Even though, now that I think about it, I probably should have placed McCain above Ford, but the financial crisis pretty much screwed him over regardless of what he did afterwards or whom he would have picked as VP.

[Bo]

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?

Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?

You clearly only have a perception of U.S. history that goes back to 2000. I'll do that after you find me where the national news media is responsible for calling an election. You don't know this but you will now. The candidates get their information LONG BEFORE the news networks do. That's why you see concession speeches immediately after the news reportings because if the candidates waited for the news to call a race, then it would be an hour later that you heard concession and victory speeches. Do you really think George Washington waited for 11:00 news to find out how he did? Come on you're making this too easy for me. Once you concede it's over. No looking at our constitution is necessary unless of course you think that Bob Dole should be allowed to contract his concession from 1996? Now you're telling me that 1996 wasn't close or close enough. Well what is close enough? Oh I guess close enough is whatever you say it is? Right, such a great argument.

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes conceded the election to Samuel Tilden in 1876, then took back his concession once the national GOP told him that there is a chance he will be able to dispute the results in LA, SC, and FL and win the election. In the end, Hayes ended up winning after his challenges to those states' EVs were successful. If there is a difference of several hundred votes, and the media makes a mistake and calls a state for your opponent, if the media corrects it's mistake later then I don't see why the candidate shouldn't be able to take back his concession if he didn't realize the race would be so close in the end?

[Bo]

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

No. If Tilden had won, it would only have been because of massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South.

Agreed. In a free and fair election hayes would have won LA, SC, and MS (due to their balck majority populations), thus giving him 189 EVs, more than enough to win.