Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis

[Da2017]

Touch choice for me. Dukasis lost to a seasoned politician. Hillary lost to a buffoon.  

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

America likes buffoons though. It was obviously Dukakis, who employed a strategy of ignoring his opponents attacks on the assumption that the American people would realize they aren't true on their own.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't know who Dukes is.  Is he related to Jason Sudeikis?

[wxtransit]

I don't know who Dukes is.  Is he related to Jason Sudeikis?

Yes. Yes he is.

[TPIG]

Obviously Hillary. Dukakis lost to an opponent running on the continuation of the policies of a very popular president. Hillary WAS the continuation of the policies of a (semi) popular president and still lost to a man who offended nearly every group in America with his rhetoric.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Dukesis ran an atrocious campaign, it was almost like he didn't even exist his campaign was so nonexistent.

[wxtransit]

Question: who is this Dukesis guy? I know of Michael Dukakis, who lost in a landslide in 1988, but I've never heard of this Dukesis person. But I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick Dukesis because he lost so bad that I've never heard of him.

[Dr. MB]

Bush was expected to win. Dukakis went from a decent chance of winning to a very low chance. With Clinton, Trump was expected to lose in basically every form, he did just about everything he could to make himself unpopular, but still managed to win. Clinton ran a terrible campaign because just about anyone should've been able to beat Donald Trump.

[Pericles]

Bush was expected to win. Dukakis went from a decent chance of winning to a very low chance. With Clinton, Trump was expected to lose in basically every form, he did just about everything he could to make himself unpopular, but still managed to win. Clinton ran a terrible campaign because just about anyone should've been able to beat Donald Trump.

Bush was 17 points behind in the polls before the RNC.

[History505]

Dukakis. It's funny to me people voted Clinton who ran the worst campaign. Yes, her campaign was not the prettiest with the email scandal, Benghazi, and unbility to really connect with voters, but Dukasis basically let Bush knock him the hell out. He never wanted to counterattack, something Bill Clinton did in 1992.

[dw93]

Hillary. Dukakis ran against Peace, prosperity, and a Candidate who had a political hatchet man by the name of Lee Atwater on his side. Even if Dukakis played all of his cards right (responding to the attacks against him and repeatedly hitting Reagan/Bush over the head with Iran Contra), he still would've only won narrowly. Sure he was leading by double digits in the summer of that year, which showed the election to be winnable for the Democrats, but that lead still would've evaporated once the general election campaign really began. Something similar happened in 2000 with Bush and Gore.

With 2016, Hillary ran against an honest to God buffoon that even many Republicans thought was gonna lose and lose big, and because she had the worst traits of Dukakis and Thomas Dewey, she still managed to lose and lost by losing states that haven't voted Republican since 1988 and in Wisconsin's case since 1984. She even made Minnesota (which hasn't voted Republican since 1972) and New Hampshire dangerously close.  The fact that she managed to lose with a huge financial advantage against Trump and managed to lose despite the fact that Trump's campaign was run by a bunch of fringe incompetents is also very telling.

[uti2]

Hillary. Dukakis ran against Peace, prosperity, and a Candidate who had a political hatchet man by the name of Lee Atwater on his side. Even if Dukakis played all of his cards right (responding to the attacks against him and repeatedly hitting Reagan/Bush over the head with Iran Contra), he still would've only won narrowly. Sure he was leading by double digits in the summer of that year, which showed the election to be winnable for the Democrats, but that lead still would've evaporated once the general election campaign really began. Something similar happened in 2000 with Bush and Gore.

With 2016, Hillary ran against an honest to God buffoon that even many Republicans thought was gonna lose and lose big, and because she had the worst traits of Dukakis and Thomas Dewey, she still managed to lose and lost by losing states that haven't voted Republican since 1988 and in Wisconsin's case since 1984. She even made Minnesota (which hasn't voted Republican since 1972) and New Hampshire dangerously close.  The fact that she managed to lose with a huge financial advantage against Trump and managed to lose despite the fact that Trump's campaign was run by a bunch of fringe incompetents is also very telling.

Trump had Atwater's bosses working for him:

[uti2]

^ Trump also had Reagan's 1984 campaign manager working for him - Ed Rollins.

[dw93]

Hillary. Dukakis ran against Peace, prosperity, and a Candidate who had a political hatchet man by the name of Lee Atwater on his side. Even if Dukakis played all of his cards right (responding to the attacks against him and repeatedly hitting Reagan/Bush over the head with Iran Contra), he still would've only won narrowly. Sure he was leading by double digits in the summer of that year, which showed the election to be winnable for the Democrats, but that lead still would've evaporated once the general election campaign really began. Something similar happened in 2000 with Bush and Gore.

With 2016, Hillary ran against an honest to God buffoon that even many Republicans thought was gonna lose and lose big, and because she had the worst traits of Dukakis and Thomas Dewey, she still managed to lose and lost by losing states that haven't voted Republican since 1988 and in Wisconsin's case since 1984. She even made Minnesota (which hasn't voted Republican since 1972) and New Hampshire dangerously close.  The fact that she managed to lose with a huge financial advantage against Trump and managed to lose despite the fact that Trump's campaign was run by a bunch of fringe incompetents is also very telling.

Trump had Atwater's bosses working for him:

I know they worked for him, but were they the ones actually running the campaign?

[uti2]

Hillary. Dukakis ran against Peace, prosperity, and a Candidate who had a political hatchet man by the name of Lee Atwater on his side. Even if Dukakis played all of his cards right (responding to the attacks against him and repeatedly hitting Reagan/Bush over the head with Iran Contra), he still would've only won narrowly. Sure he was leading by double digits in the summer of that year, which showed the election to be winnable for the Democrats, but that lead still would've evaporated once the general election campaign really began. Something similar happened in 2000 with Bush and Gore.

With 2016, Hillary ran against an honest to God buffoon that even many Republicans thought was gonna lose and lose big, and because she had the worst traits of Dukakis and Thomas Dewey, she still managed to lose and lost by losing states that haven't voted Republican since 1988 and in Wisconsin's case since 1984. She even made Minnesota (which hasn't voted Republican since 1972) and New Hampshire dangerously close.  The fact that she managed to lose with a huge financial advantage against Trump and managed to lose despite the fact that Trump's campaign was run by a bunch of fringe incompetents is also very telling.

Trump had Atwater's bosses working for him:

I know they worked for him, but were they the ones actually running the campaign?

Stone launched Trump's campaign.

Manafort reportedly advised Trump to visit MI in late October, he also made Pence VP w/ the plane malfunction story.

[Liberalrocks]

Dukakis, he lost a 17 point lead before the RNC. He refused to reply to Bush/Atwater's negative campaign advertising against him despite his campaign manager pleading for him to hit back hard.

[Mr. Smith]

Dukakis had the superior strategy [and despite a massive popular loss, a few more points would've given him a win with only 18 states], Hillary had the superior tactics [aka attacking Trump and consistently baiting him into shooting himself in the foot, without Comey it probably would've completely paid off...but she still won the popular vote]

[here2view]

Hillary lost to a clown, Dukakis lost to the VP of a popular President.

[Stranger in a strange land]

America likes buffoons though. It was obviously Dukakis, who employed a strategy of ignoring his opponents attacks on the assumption that the American people would realize they aren't true on their own.

Depends though. Dubya, for example, was a well-meaning buffoon, while Trump was a malevolent one.  And also, let's not forget, A TAPE OF TRUMP SAYING THAT HE LIKED TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT WOMEN WAS RELEASED A MONTH BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND TRUMP STILL WON. In addition, he mocked the disabled, insulted POWs and Gold Star Families, and hedged on accepting David Duke's endorsement. Hillary should have won by 20 points.

[fluffypanther19]

Hillary lost to a clown, Dukakis lost to the VP of a popular President.

Seriously, its unquestionably Hillary. That election wouldn't had even been close if Hillary didn't come off as corrupt, fake, mediocre, etc, etc. Even if Hillary supporters want to talk about racism, sexism and Russia, she sucked; I saw her in person and large portions of the crowd didn't even seem interested in her or what she saying, they were there to say that they had seen the future president. Honestly, if trump wasn't a raging, incompetent, racist a-hole, I fully believe that trump would had won in an landslide or close to it.

[killertahu22]

Hillary expected the rust belt and the midwest to fall for her, and chose to focus on relatively unimportant states

Clinton by a mile

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dukakis made a poor choice in Bentsen as his VP.  He wanted a moderate Southerner, but he got one who could not deliver his home state.  There were a number of Southern Senators Dukakis could have picked that would have worked better, as well as some Southern Governors.

That being said, Poppy Bush was the VP of the popular Reagan, and the realignment into the Red and Blue states that pretty much still remains today hadn't fully hardened yet.  Dukakis gained greatly in ME, VT, CT, NH, PA, NJ, IL, MI, OH, and CA, but he lost them all.  This was due to the fact that the nation, in Presidential politics, was FAR more Republican in 1988 than in 2016.  Hillary's loss in WI and MI (but especially WI, a Dukakis state) undid the 1988-1992 realignment.

People forget how bleak the state of the Democratic Party was in Presidential politics in 1988.  Pat Caddell had put out a report stating that the Democratic Party's Presidential base was lower than at any time since the Civil War, and indicated that MN,and DC were all the Democrats could count on, and that was in NORMAL elections; even MA had went for Reagan twice.  Carrying multiple states was considered a major victory for Dukakis; his 45% of the vote was higher than what Bill Clinton polled in winning a 3 way race in 1992.  Hillary snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, period.  Any other Democrat of stature would have beaten Trump.

[😥]

Against Michael Dukakis was an experienced politician, and against Hillary Clinton, a man who did not have experience

[😥]

in 1988 there was a mistake in choosing a vice-presidential nominee (Lloyd Bensten); in 2016, the mistake was in choosing a presidential nominee (Hillary Clinton)

[Progressive Pessimist]

Dukakis. I know it's the unpopular answer, but Dukakis had a much better environment to win in than she did. The eight year curse should have prevented Bush from winning just as it prevented Clinton in 2016.