Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Differences between 1988 and 2016:


- The country was in better shape in 1988 than in 2016

- Reagan was more popular than Obama

- The 1980s were one of the last polarizing decades ever

[Mr. Smith]

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.

Differences between 1988 and 2016:


- The country was in better shape in 1988 than in 2016

- Reagan was more popular than Obama

- The 1980s were one of the last polarizing decades ever

- Nope, about the same actually, the only difference is that Dukakis wasn't willing to go the MAGA route and point out the troubles in rural areas as Trump did. He should've won West Virginia by Trump's margins, flipped the Dakotas, Montana, California, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Mexico, Illinois, and Maryland given those optics. Even Mondale had more guts on that, which is precisely why the Midwest, Northeast, and even California by a smidge moved left in 1984. Makes it both very depressing and wrenching at the naivety of Miracle Mike for not going hard. Hillary and Gore both did, and were only denied the benefits at the last second by outside Republicans [Comey or the SCOTUS Justices respectively].

- They were about tied towards the end sure you could argue [I often have] that Obama's boost was more artificial...but all the same, neither were as popular as Bill was at the tip end of term. And yet, Bush pushed through, Gore and Hillary didn't. Conversely, LBJ's approvals were in the dumps, but Humphrey almost made it.

- The 80's were obviously a reawakening of the polarizing trend borne of The Civil Rights Movement, which Watergate briefly tamped down. If the decade appears less so, that's just a greater condemnation of the trend afterwards...I mean "liberal" wasn't an acceptable outright insult until the 80's.

[Kodak]

Why are people conflating candidate quality with campaigning?

Hillary Clinton was clearly a worse candidate from the start, simply because she'd been in the public eye for so long and wasn't going to change anyone's minds. All she could do was try to stay out of the headlines and run a good GOTV operation, and she failed to do the former.

Dukakis had a shot, made a terrible first impression and let Bush walk all over him.

As a further point, most voters from 1988 will recall the tank image when they think of Dukakis, which was a huge error on his part. "Basketful of deplorables" was the worst thing to come from the Clinton campaign, and it barely had an effect on the polls.

From the DNC to election day, Dukakis ran the worse campaign.

[uti2]

Why are people conflating candidate quality with campaigning?

Hillary Clinton was clearly a worse candidate from the start, simply because she'd been in the public eye for so long and wasn't going to change anyone's minds. All she could do was try to stay out of the headlines and run a good GOTV operation, and she failed to do the former.

Dukakis had a shot, made a terrible first impression and let Bush walk all over him.

As a further point, most voters from 1988 will recall the tank image when they think of Dukakis, which was a huge error on his part. "Basketful of deplorables" was the worst thing to come from the Clinton campaign, and it barely had an effect on the polls.

From the DNC to election day, Dukakis ran the worse campaign.

Bush was also in the public eye, his associate Ollie North was indicted in the summer of '88.

[Thunderbird is the word]

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.

Obama was more popular then Reagan at that point in his presidency (who had been damaged by Iran-Contra) so that makes Hillary's loss even worse in some ways.

[Izzyeviel]

People forget Hillary had been on the receiving end of the biggest two pronged negative campaign spanning over 8 years, and still won the popular vote by millions.

One of the aims of Negative campaigning isn't necessarily to increase your vote, but depress your rivals turnout by turning people off the target candidate. Trump got fewer votes in Wisconsin then Romney, but still won it.

Without Comey, and the lies about Benghazi, Uranium, rigged primaries, Pizza hut, etc etc, she gets millions more in votes.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

Obama was more popular then Reagan at that point in his presidency (who had been damaged by Iran-Contra) so that makes Hillary's loss even worse in some ways.

Reagan had higher approval’s when he left office than Obama did

[Sumner 1868]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

[JG]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

This. And Hillary never wrote Ohio and Iowa off. She campaigned plenty there.

[Mr. Smith]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

Michael Moore could've told you that actually.

Also, the polls were singing like crazy by the week depending on what Trump did. That isn't a good place to be.

Besides, most of her campaign was "f&*k Trump", rather than reinforcing what makes her different. She could've abandoned the Midwest and possibly had a shot and flipped the Sun Belt, or she could've gone all in on the Midwest and either way have won if she had bothered with that.

Sure there was animus, but Trump had animus too...but Trump kept going and bothered with at least a semblance of a direction.

[junior chįmp]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

[uti2]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Dukakis blew a double digit lead, there can be no excuses for that, none, especially when Bush Sr. was being investigated by the FBI for colluding with Iran.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Dukakis blew a double digit lead, there can be no excuses for that, none, especially when Bush Sr. was being investigated by the FBI for colluding with Iran.

Back in an era when there were huge convention bounces and that double digit lead he had was after a huge convention bounce(Bush SR got one as well)

[uti2]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Dukakis blew a double digit lead, there can be no excuses for that, none, especially when Bush Sr. was being investigated by the FBI for colluding with Iran.

Back in an era when there were huge convention bounces and that double digit lead he had was after a huge convention bounce(Bush SR got one as well)

From May of that year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/05/27/dukakis-takes-early-lead-over-bush/0ed5eed4-7b0e-44e4-8c13-6adff6603e82/

[Mr. Smith]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Those fundamentals work for the popular vote, not the EC.

And even with the whole, EC magnifies PV thing in mind, he still didn't have to lose by 7 points. It could've and should've been close. Clearly something had to go wrong. And Atwater was clearly the guy to ensure that.

[JG]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

So did the fundamentals in 2016. It predicted a Republican victory, a close one but still a victory for the Republicans. And that's what we got.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

Michael Moore could've told you that actually.

Also, the polls were singing like crazy by the week depending on what Trump did. That isn't a good place to be.

Besides, most of her campaign was "f&*k Trump", rather than reinforcing what makes her different. She could've abandoned the Midwest and possibly had a shot and flipped the Sun Belt, or she could've gone all in on the Midwest and either way have won if she had bothered with that.

Sure there was animus, but Trump had animus too...but Trump kept going and bothered with at least a semblance of a direction.

I don’t mean this offensively, but you still haven’t used “real evidence.” Michael Moore, and, indeed, organizers in Michigan, “felt” things were off, but... it wasn’t showing up in the numbers. And I know there’s an argument that campaigns should trust those soft indicators too, but I don’t think it’s the most well-advised decision to start letting those types of anecdotal observations guide a campaign. For every “oh no, there’s something wrong in Michigan,” there were likely eight similar messages coming out of states that turned out to be fine. We just hear about Michigan because of how it went in the end.

I will concede that the polls moved as Trump moved and perhaps that signalled Hillary needed to take control with a more simple message. But, you know... she tried. Policy was not covered. Her rallies were not covered. And while the polls moved with Trump, they also moved with the news, which she could not at all control. Having to spend the last two weeks of the campaign defending over e-mails thanks to an over-important FBI director was ridiculous. Same story goes for the news generated by Russian aggressions against the United States related to the campaign.

These last two things get bandied about as “excuses,” but holy f-ck! In a race where the fundamentals most benefited the GOP and where the news did have an outsized effect on the support given to the candidates, those news stories—and I will come right out and say that I think they were highly unfair news stories for a plethora of reasons—made a huge difference.

What the hell “strategy” could have gotten through this mess?

[terp40hitch]

They both ran terrible campaigns but Hillary was much much worse than Dukakis.  Hillary had an opponent that had an open rebellion against him within his party, an opponent that had offended every minority in this country, an opponent that was a sexual harasser which was found on tape. Hillary won every debate, had the most money, had experience, had most of the parties support except for some support going to Stein because they were former Sander's supporters but mostly they were supporting her. Clinton's opponent also was losing votes to two other candidates (Johnson and McMullin) while Clinton was losing support just to one (Stein).

Just a week or two before election day, Hillary was ahead by 12 points and she still lost, Dukakis was ahead but only before the convection after he fell fast and by a week or two before election day it was basically over for him but if you look, he did outperform polls, unlike Clinton.

Dukakis made some stupid slip ups but nothing as bad as Clinton who was running a campaign like it was 2000 or 2008, not 2016.

Also, Dukakis choose a good choice as his VP (Bentsen who could help him in Texas, Florida and the south) but Clinton chooses Kaine who was in a state that already looks like it was going towards her. Kaine is a boring old white guy and did little to help the ticket and he lost the VP debate.

In the end, Dukakis ran a bad campaign but Clinton ran a terrible campaign which was proven after she lost a double-digit lead in Michigan to Bernie Sanders.

[here2view]

Just a week or two before election day, Hillary was ahead by 12 points and she still lost

This is factually incorrect. In a four way race with Johnson and Stein, RealClearPolitics had her up by 5 points on 10/24/16 and then 2.2 points on 11/1/16. 12 points is pure hyperbole.

The rest I agree 100% with. I don't even know how the poll for this question is that close. She never should have lost.

[uti2]

Just a week or two before election day, Hillary was ahead by 12 points and she still lost

This is factually incorrect. In a four way race with Johnson and Stein, RealClearPolitics had her up by 5 points on 10/24/16 and then 2.2 points on 11/1/16. 12 points is pure hyperbole.

The rest I agree 100% with. I don't even know how the poll for this question is that close. She never should have lost.

Obama only beat  McCain by 7 in the middle of an economic collapse w/ the opposition party approval at 20%, those numbers were in line with that context.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Hillary Clinton.

[Zaybay]

I would say Hillary.

Dukakis had to go against the popular VP of Reagan, and even though his ideology of New Dealism had died out, he still was not crushed into a pulp like Mondale.

Some people say that he screwed up by that death penalty comment, but I think thats just hindsight applying reasoning, like with people saying the SC seat gave Trump the win.

Hillary, however, had a lot going for her, and she still messed up. Sure, the warning signs were not there for most of the campaign, but she still was able to blow a rather large lead and give Trump the technicality needed to win the presidency.

Dukakis started with no chance, and didnt win. Hillary had the race in the bag, and then squandered it. I see that as a bigger loss.

[ON Progressive]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

Literally zero people were ever talking about this.