Worst-run Presidential Campaign

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

This is a tough one, in my mind.  All I can think of is Dukakis popping out of that tank like a little prairie dog.

[Sam Spade]

Dukakis was pretty terrible.

You forgot to include McGovern in the list (another top contender).

[Speed of Sound]

its gotta be dukakis

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Democrat]

Tie between Carter in 1980 and McGovern in 1972, but I went with McGovern.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Dukakis was pretty terrible.

You forgot to include McGovern in the list (another top contender).

McGovern was too liberal to be relevant anyway.  It's more the fault of his positions than of the campaign.  Although I agree there's no excuse for losing the way he did.  He should have picked up at least 5 states.

[tinman64]

The difference between McGovern and Dukakis was McGovern didn't stand a chance of winning, no matter how smoothly his campaign ran.  Dukakis had a chance, and squandered a healthy lead in the polls.  Everyone remembers the tank, but how about when he went to Yellowstone to look at the late summer fire damage?  A reporter asked him to comment about Bush's stabs at his platform; Dukakis said he wouldn't comment, that he was there to look at the fire damage.

Missed opportunity after missed opportunity.  And let's not forget Bernard Shaw's softball question during the debates; Dukakis had a golden opportunity to turn that to his advantage, and failed again.

I vote that Dukakis ran the most inept campaign in modern history.

[skybridge]

Dukakis was pretty terrible.

You forgot to include McGovern in the list (another top contender).

McGovern was too liberal to be relevant anyway.  It's more the fault of his positions than of the campaign.  Although I agree there's no excuse for losing the way he did.  He should have picked up at least 5 states.

That's just wrong.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The difference between McGovern and Dukakis was McGovern didn't stand a chance of winning, no matter how smoothly his campaign ran.  Dukakis had a chance, and squandered a healthy lead in the polls. 

I think too much is made of that poll lead.  It was a convention bounce, if I remember it correctly.  I honestly don't see any way for Dukakis to win in 1988.

That said, it was still a horribly run campaign.  Dukakis looked like a elite northeasterner who did not understand the electorate.  He was cerebral and thoughtful, when the people wanted passionate and resolute.  I mean, let's be frank here: Reagan did not win two landslides because of his thoughtfulness.

That election really depressed me.  I really liked Dukakis, and at the time I thought he would have made a great President.  Then again, I was only in the 6th grade .

[nini2287]

Other Walter "I will raise your taxes" Mondale

[dazzleman]

I'd say Dukakis in 1988, but Bush in 1992 was also pretty pathetic.

Carter's 1980 campaign produced dismal results, but I think the external realities that year would have made even the best campaign unsuccessful.

McGovern in 1972 was also terrible.

[© tweed]

McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Bush ran varying levels of bad campaigns, but they would have lost anyway.  The second Bush41 raised taxes he was toast, especially against a great candidate like Clinton.

Because of that, I'll vote for Dukakis.  While his resume in Massachusetts might have done him in anyway, the tank fiasco and his poor debates were pathetic.  He may have won had he run a better campaign, and he was up by 15% at midsummer.

Gore didn't run a bad campaign, but his mistake was telling Clinton to remain on the sidelines.  Clinton was quite popular towards the end of his second term, with approval ratings up in the 60's, and could have helped Gore bigtime.  Gore closed strong, however, and really came much closer any pre-election polls would have led you to believe.

[dazzleman]

McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Bush ran varying levels of bad campaigns, but they would have lost anyway.  The second Bush41 raised taxes he was toast, especially against a great candidate like Clinton.

Because of that, I'll vote for Dukakis.  While his resume in Massachusetts might have done him in anyway, the tank fiasco and his poor debates were pathetic.  He may have won had he run a better campaign, and he was up by 15% at midsummer.

Gore didn't run a bad campaign, but his mistake was telling Clinton to remain on the sidelines.  Clinton was quite popular towards the end of his second term, with approval ratings up in the 60's, and could have helped Gore bigtime.  Gore closed strong, however, and really came much closer any pre-election polls would have led you to believe.

I'm not sure telling Clinton to remain on the sidelines was a mistake.  Clinton is a person who sucks all the oxygen out of a room.  With Clinton, everything is about him.  Gore couldn't afford to have Clinton commandeer his campaign when he needed to prove that he was his own man.  This is the problem always faced by sitting vice presidents seeking the presidency, and it was magnified because of the tawdry circumstances of the Clinton presidency.

While Clinton's approval ratings as president were high at the end of his second term, due to peace and prosperity (the bubble hadn't burst just yet, and the country was blissfully unaware that the Sept. 11th attacks were already planned), his personal approval ratings were dismal.

Since leaving office, Clinton has not been very effective at helping those he supports get elected.  He campaigned hard against Jeb Bush in Florida, only to meet stinging defeat.  He couldn't even help a Democrat get elected governor in Connecticut.  I think his support is a double-edged sword at best, and he is helpful really only with minority voters.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't see how Nixon 1960 would be considered a possible "worst run" campaign.

Bush '92 and Dole '96 are probably tied for worst run, in my opinion.

[dazzleman]

I don't see how Nixon 1960 would be considered a possible "worst run" campaign.

Bush '92 and Dole '96 are probably tied for worst run, in my opinion.

Nixon in 1960 was definitely not the worst run campaign, though he did make some critical mistakes that tipped the balance against him in a close election.

Dole '96 was also very poorly run, but I didn't list it because he didn't have much of a chance of victory even with a well-run campaign.  As a sitting president, Bush could have done a lot better in 1992 if he'd been able to think up a rationale for his presidency beyond wanting to keep a draft-dodging adulterer with a foul wife out of the White House.

[© tweed]

Bush '92 and Dole '96 are probably tied for worst run, in my opinion.

Neither had too much of a chance, especially Dole.  Bush was done when he raised taxes, and Clinton was too popular to lose.  There isn't much Dole could have done, he was the classic sacrifical lamb.

[dazzleman]

Bush '92 and Dole '96 are probably tied for worst run, in my opinion.

Neither had too much of a chance, especially Dole.  Bush was done when he raised taxes, and Clinton was too popular to lose.  There isn't much Dole could have done, he was the classic sacrifical lamb.

Clinton wasn't necessarily that popular at the time in 1992.  I don't think Bush really wanted to win.  But at the time, there were many doubts about Clinton.  He didn't really become popular until the end of his first term.  And in 1992, he only got 43% of the vote, so that's not a measure of strong popularity.  I think you are creating something in retrospect that didn't exist at the time.

[Keystone Phil]

  I don't think Bush really wanted to win. 

My dad always says that but still...that big of a loss?

[dazzleman]

  I don't think Bush really wanted to win. 

My dad always says that but still...that big of a loss?

His heart just wasn't in it.  I think he was repulsed by the ugliness of Washington, and he really had little idea about why he wanted to be president.  Unlike Clinton, his ego wasn't big enough to want to be president just for the sake of being president.

He ran out of ideas and steam.  Bush did some very good things as president, responding to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and managing the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.  But after that, he had nothing left.  I voted for him in '92 without much enthusiasm because I didn't think Clinton and his wife were trustworthy, and I just couldn't bring myself to trust the Democratic party on critical issues like national security.

But when the base has no enthusiasm for the candidate, he is done.  I'm sure Bush didn't want to lose on a conscious level, and he clearly wasn't willing to walk away from the office, but he also wasn't willing to do much to avoid losing.

[PBrunsel]

Clay, 1844.

The Whig Platform was but 100 words long. Their campaign slogan was "Hooray for Clay."

[J. J.]

McGovern, 1972.  Gary Hart was his campaign manager.

[zorkpolitics]

Gore 2000. 
What other incumbant has lost with peace and prosperity as his platform?

[RJ]

Gore 2000. 
What other incumbant has lost with peace and prosperity as his platform?

Nixon.

I'm not sure telling Clinton to remain on the sidelines was a mistake. Clinton is a person who sucks all the oxygen out of a room. With Clinton, everything is about him. Gore couldn't afford to have Clinton commandeer his campaign when he needed to prove that he was his own man. This is the problem always faced by sitting vice presidents seeking the presidency, and it was magnified because of the tawdry circumstances of the Clinton presidency.

Clinton volunteered to campaign for Gore in Arkansas in 2000. I think this could have flipped Arkansas. Gore wins Arkansas, he wins the election. I also don't think I would define Clinton as someone who appears self serving. Listen to his speech at the Democratic convention on Kerry's behalf. Listen to his speech at the dedication of his library in Arkansas after the election last year. Experts on speaking skills whether they're partisan or not agree he had an excellent knack for giving speeches. Any president with approval ratings in the 60's must appeal to some people and must unite them on some issues. The "tawdry" circumstances at the end of his presidency were similar to Reagan's in 1988 and look at what happened there.

In any event, I'd give my vote to Dukakis. How anyone can have a big lead and virtually have the election wrapped up and just self destruct is beyond me. What's he doing these days?

I notice no one said anything about Taft in 1912. I realize Roosevelt sabatoged him, but there was no way he could get with old Teddy and come to some kind of agreement when that bad a potential disaster was on the horizon for Taft?

[Akno21]

Other Walter "I will raise your taxes" Mondale

Yeah, that might be the stupidest thing a candidate can say, though I greatly applaud him coming out and saying he would do it, compared with most other candidates who say they will lower them, and end up raising them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

McGovern

[Michael Z]

Dukakis didn't exactly do a great job (it could be argued that negative campaigning by the Bush team did him in, but he opened himself up to a lot of attacks with some extremely clumsy gestures).

However, I personally think Gore in 2000 did the worst job. His performance in the debates was abysmal (he came across like a snotty headmaster) and by distancing himself from Clinton he deprived himself of a major asset (in spite of the fact that Clinton was marred by the Lewsinki affair). Besides, the US economy wasn't doing too badly and there was still something of a feelgood factor from the Clinton era. It's almost as if Bush had lost in '88.

Other Walter "I will raise your taxes" Mondale

Yeah, that might be the stupidest thing a candidate can say, though I greatly applaud him coming out and saying he would do it, compared with most other candidates who say they will lower them, and end up raising them.

That was actually part of a statement intended to underline Reagan's supposed hypocrisy which totally blew up in Mondale's face. Mondale basically said "Reagan said he won't put up taxes, but he will. I say I will put taxes, and I will." Something like that. It was sort of meant to convey a message of "You can't believe a word the other guy says, but you can believe me", but thanks to the benefit of hindsight we know that it didn't exactly have the desired effect.