Rank losing campaigns from Best to Worse Since 1972

[SingingAnalyst]

Ran good campaigns:
Mitt Romney (2012)
John Kerry (2004)

Ran average campaigns:
John McCain (2008)
George H.W. Bush (1992)
Bob Dole (1996)
George McGovern (1972)
Gerald Ford (1976)

Ran bad campaigns:
Al Gore (2000)
Walter Mondale (1984)
Hillary Clinton (2016)

Living disasters:
Jimmy Carter (1984)
Ross Perot (1996)
John Anderson (1980)
Mike Dukakis (1988)

Literally dropped out while leading in the polls:
Ross Perot (1992)

Interesting and unique list. I have to ask, why is McGovern's campaign rated above Gore's?

[pops]

Ran good campaigns:
Mitt Romney (2012)
John Kerry (2004)

Ran average campaigns:
John McCain (2008)
George H.W. Bush (1992)
Bob Dole (1996)
George McGovern (1972)
Gerald Ford (1976)

Ran bad campaigns:
Al Gore (2000)
Walter Mondale (1984)
Hillary Clinton (2016)

Living disasters:
Jimmy Carter (1984)
Ross Perot (1996)
John Anderson (1980)
Mike Dukakis (1988)

Literally dropped out while leading in the polls:
Ross Perot (1992)

Interesting and unique list. I have to ask, why is McGovern's campaign rated above Gore's?

McGovern lost because of policy and not really because of some huge campaign misstep. Gore overestimated the public's negative reaction to Lewinsky and chose not to campaign with a popular President by his side, which lost him a lot of moderate voters. In addition, his VP pick, Joe Lieberman, reinforced left-liberal dislike of Gore, hence adding fire to the flames of the Nader campaign.

[SingingAnalyst]

Dukakis 1988: His technocratic, unfeeling answer to Brit Hume's pointed death penalty question, and of course, his famous tank ride, helped Bush become the first sitting VP to be elected President since 1836 (not that Bush's campaign was much better).

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Upon further reflection, I have decided to switch these two.

While Clinton did lose an election she was, by almost all accounts, favored to win, she did win the PV by 2.9 million votes. She also helped to either cement the Dems as the Presidential majority party (VA; Orange County, FL) or get many people to vote Dem for the first time (Orange County, CA); thus, helping making the GOP uncompetitive in these areas in the short term.

[Proudconnh]

From Worst to Best
12.Dukakis- Bensten was a good VP choice. That's really all Dukakis got right in 1988. It was looking like a competitive race with a slight Democratic lean, but Dukakis refused to meet the GOP attacks and more often than not failed to define himself. He let the Republicans define him, and he got crushed by the Atwater machine.

11.Clinton- The party was put through a contentions primary, and headed into Election Day with an inflated sense of confidence. The whole campaign was a bit of a mess, marred by scandals and personal attacks. What should have been an easy win was shaken by a candidate with baggage, who did noting to break from the light she was cast in. Clinton also made the classic Dewey mistake, and simply sought to run a campaign to win by keeping the lead. The campaign was aggressive, but maybe in the wrong way.

10. Mondale- Mondale stood next to no chance come Election Day, but it's wasn't always that way. Reagan had some weak points, and Mondale had some weapons in his arsenal to take him on. Granted, of course, there was little hope that Mondale stood a chance, but he ran a lackluster campaign to start with. He simply wasn't the man who could make 1984 even competitive. He may have been of a moderate background in Minnesota, but he came off as too left for many, another case of being defined by the other campaign.

9. McGovern- On the positive side, the McGovern campaign did succeed in replacing their VP pick, on the other side of that they did put Eagleton on the ticket in the first place, so it's points for dealing with it as best they could in the campaign and they take a hit from the selection. Beyond that the whole race was a mess, from an insane convention, to a midnight acceptance speech, and further by a party racked with divisions. All things considered though, McGovern did only slightly worse than most other Democarts would have. Nixon was unlikely to be defeated in '72, and McGovern did the best he could. Not a great campaign, but it could have been worse.

8. Bush- Mess of a campaign, but at the same time he did manage to make things competitive in '92. That said, it could have been a much better managed campaign, maybe if Atwater had lived it would have been a different story. Bush hit most the right notes, but all things considered, 1992 was more people voting for Bill Clinton than against George Bush. He did leave office with approval ratings above water.

7. Dole- Dole made a lot of gaffes in 96, and in general he sort of ran a big of a rough show for most the race, but he managed to improve the GOP vote share. He was running against a President who had few policy weaknesses, who steered toward the center, so Dole had to work even harder to paint him as a liberal. Dole lost, but he did better than lots of the other potential candidates would have. Dole may very well have been the best option for the GOP in 1996.

6.Gore- Clinton had approval ratings in the 60%+ range, and Gore still ran as far away from Clinton as he could. Furthermore, the left sent quiet a few votes to Nader, which Gore did next to nothing about, and he was largely helpless as Bush drastically increased the GOP's Hispanic vote and got out in front of the issues. Of course, Gore also nearly became the third sitting Vice President to be elected to the presidency, and that does count for something. It was a rough run, but he could have done a lot worse.

5.Romney- Romney ran a competent campaign, for the most part. That being said, Romney poorly managed his message and image. He was easy to paint as out of touch, and he had little to respond with. He did however succeed in increasing the Republican vote from 2008, and he did a lot to unify the party for the general, which was far from guaranteed. His ability to build bridges is a point winner, but his failure to control the message costs him.

4.Carter- Carter ran an up and down campaign, and though he did loose a major lead from earlier in the year by Election Day, he had also climbed way back from a low after the GOP convention. Further, it was a very well organized camping, very competent, and while not the most memorable, well organized. Though he faced a primary challenge, he saw it off fairly comfortably, and at any rate he was able to stay in the race in the face of a very negative national environment.

3.McCain- Consider what McCain was up against. The Democarts were energized, well organized, and had nominated a charismatic young black man who had broad appeal. On the Republican side, the Presidents approval ratings floundered in the 20s, and the party was lacking in energy and funds. He was tied to two unpopular wars, and the party was scarred by the swampy environment in DC. This is even taking into account the worse financial crisis in recent memory, and a general shaking of Americans trust in their institutions of finance and leadership. Yet, in the face of all this, McCain still managed to lead in a poll or two and he broke 45% of the popular vote. It was quiet the campaign.

2.Kerry- He ran against an incumbent who at one point had 90 something percent approval, and still nearly won. Granted, by the time of the election, Bush had much lower approval, but he still had an extensive war chest and launched many negative adds against Kerry, who was assailed from day one in the most negative reelection campaign in years. He still managed to overcome the GOP attacks to come within a few percentage points of victory. His campaign was competent, and his staff well organized and led.

1.Ford- Ford was supposed to be politically dead, but by 1976 he had climbed back and not only gave Carter a run for his money but nearly won the whole race. Ford ran a smooth campaign, and hit the right notes at almost every turn. He may not have beaten Carter, but he did come a lot closer than people expected.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Best campaigns:

1.) Got to give Kerry credit. Edwards was weak on Foreign policy and he came closest to beating an incumbent president.  Had Kerry picked Gephardt instead of Edwards, then Kerry would have been president, which Gephardt would have drove out the Union vote to get the extra 50K votes, in OH as well as win NM

2.) HILLARY CLINTON, had it not been for the Comey memo that sealed the deal for Donald Trump, she would have won PA,WI, and MI. Hillary was still in the game, until Pat Toomey was declared the winner

3.) VEEP GORE-Monicagate probably crushed his ambitions to be president. But, if Graham would have been selected Veep, the state would have been kinder to him, for asking for a recount, never know.

Mediocre:

4.) Romney in the summer of 2012, was clearly gaining on Prez Obama, until he made the 47% comment. However, with a 2006 senate map, maybe his campaign was doomed from the start. Due, to Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey Jr, carrying the day for Obama-Biden in OH and PA

5.) John McCain: Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin and the Larry Craig fiasco, and the convention in MN ruined the day for Sarah Palin and John McCain. Just having the convention in MN, had Huckabee been selected, still would have hurt McCain's chances.

6.) Gerald Ford: Was a close election, and he made the mistake of saying Eastern Slavic Bloc wasn't under Soviet domination.

Honorable Mention

7.) GHW Bush: Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, just like Monica Gate hurt Bush's chances, just like it did Al Gore's chances, and Ross Perot did Bush no favors, either

8.) Jimmy Carter 1980: couldn't stand up well to Reagan's performance, and had the Oil Crisis.

9.) Bob Dole 1996: Lost due to Gingrich unpopularity and the good economy

10.) Michael Dukakis 1988, strong economy helped GHW Bush get elected.

[Mr. Smith]

Ran good campaigns:
Mitt Romney (2012)
John Kerry (2004)

Ran average campaigns:
John McCain (2008)
George H.W. Bush (1992)
Bob Dole (1996)
George McGovern (1972)
Gerald Ford (1976)

Ran bad campaigns:
Al Gore (2000)
Walter Mondale (1984)
Hillary Clinton (2016)

Living disasters:
Jimmy Carter (1984)
Ross Perot (1996)
John Anderson (1980)
Mike Dukakis (1988)

Literally dropped out while leading in the polls:
Ross Perot (1992)

Interesting and unique list. I have to ask, why is McGovern's campaign rated above Gore's?

McGovern lost because of policy and not really because of some huge campaign misstep. Gore overestimated the public's negative reaction to Lewinsky and chose not to campaign with a popular President by his side, which lost him a lot of moderate voters. In addition, his VP pick, Joe Lieberman, reinforced left-liberal dislike of Gore, hence adding fire to the flames of the Nader campaign.

I think you're forgetting about the whole Eagleton thing. That was not well handled. Also Nixon guttd every campaign but his for a reason.

[pops]

2.) HILLARY CLINTON, had it not been for the Comey memo that sealed the deal for Donald Trump, she would have won PA,WI, and MI. Hillary was still in the game, until Pat Toomey was declared the winner

Book recommendation: "Shattered: Inside Hillary's Doomed Campaign". A quick read of that will drop this like a rock on your list, the election never should've been close.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

George HW Bush ran a horrible campaign due to the Anita Hill controversy and Clarence Thomas and looking at his watch at the debate. 

[CookieDamage]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

[CookieDamage]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.

[SingingAnalyst]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.

Disingenuous:
1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.
2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.

I do not believe definitions (1) or (2) apply to my comment. As for definition (3), if you believe I am being deliberately deceptive, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

To reiterate a point I made earlier: I find posting on this Forum, and reading the posts of others, to be a learning experience for me. If I am wrong about a point of fact, please simply inform me of this and I will not repeat my mistake. No need to question my motives.

Again, I hope this helps. If you feel you must respond to my response to your response to my original comment, by all means do so. If I do not respond to your response, it is probably because (a) I see little point in continuing the back-and-forth nature of these responses and (b) I am very busy right now: my academic year starts tomorrow.

For what it is worth, I find your posts interesting and I enjoy most of our interactions on this Forum, and I look forward to continued positive interactions.

Happy posting.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Am I the only one who think the Palin pick was savvy? It boosted McCain to draw ahead of Obama in the polls before Lehman Brothers and the financial crash changed the race.

[SingingAnalyst]

Am I the only one who think the Palin pick was savvy? It boosted McCain to draw ahead of Obama in the polls before Lehman Brothers and the financial crash changed the race.

You're probably not the only one, but I for one did not. I was expecting/hoping McCain would pick Tim Pawlenty. IIRC, Sarah Palin became a walking joke almost from the day she was nominated.

[twenty42]

Am I the only one who think the Palin pick was savvy? It boosted McCain to draw ahead of Obama in the polls before Lehman Brothers and the financial crash changed the race.

You're probably not the only one, but I for one did not. I was expecting/hoping McCain would pick Tim Pawlenty. IIRC, Sarah Palin became a walking joke almost from the day she was nominated.

Palin was hailed as a perfect pick even by CNN until it was revealed that she had an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. That was when everything went to $hit.

The party of #metoo had no problems with unabashed slut-shaming just 10 short years ago.

[Calthrina950]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.

Disingenuous:
1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.
2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.

I do not believe definitions (1) or (2) apply to my comment. As for definition (3), if you believe I am being deliberately deceptive, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

To reiterate a point I made earlier: I find posting on this Forum, and reading the posts of others, to be a learning experience for me. If I am wrong about a point of fact, please simply inform me of this and I will not repeat my mistake. No need to question my motives.

Again, I hope this helps. If you feel you must respond to my response to your response to my original comment, by all means do so. If I do not respond to your response, it is probably because (a) I see little point in continuing the back-and-forth nature of these responses and (b) I am very busy right now: my academic year starts tomorrow.

For what it is worth, I find your posts interesting and I enjoy most of our interactions on this Forum, and I look forward to continued positive interactions.

Happy posting.

I wouldn't even bother conversing with cookiedamage. They seem to have no interest in having an intellectual debate.

At any rate, I would rank the losing campaigns as follows (from Best to Worse):

1. Ford 1976
2. Gore 2000
3. Kerry 2004
4. McCain 2008
5. Dole 1996
6. Romney 2012
7. Bush 1992
8. Mondale 1984
9. McGovern 1972
10. Carter 1980
11. Dukakis 1988

[SingingAnalyst]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.

Disingenuous:
1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.
2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.

I do not believe definitions (1) or (2) apply to my comment. As for definition (3), if you believe I am being deliberately deceptive, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

To reiterate a point I made earlier: I find posting on this Forum, and reading the posts of others, to be a learning experience for me. If I am wrong about a point of fact, please simply inform me of this and I will not repeat my mistake. No need to question my motives.

Again, I hope this helps. If you feel you must respond to my response to your response to my original comment, by all means do so. If I do not respond to your response, it is probably because (a) I see little point in continuing the back-and-forth nature of these responses and (b) I am very busy right now: my academic year starts tomorrow.

For what it is worth, I find your posts interesting and I enjoy most of our interactions on this Forum, and I look forward to continued positive interactions.

Happy posting.

I wouldn't even bother conversing with cookiedamage. They seem to have no interest in having an intellectual debate.

At any rate, I would rank the losing campaigns as follows (from Best to Worse):

1. Ford 1976
2. Gore 2000
3. Kerry 2004
4. McCain 2008
5. Dole 1996
6. Romney 2012
7. Bush 1992
8. Mondale 1984
9. McGovern 1972
10. Carter 1980
11. Dukakis 1988

Cookiedamage and I have had pleasant exchanges in other threads.

I'm curious, where would you rank Clinton's 2016 campaign? I realize we don't have as much benefit of hindsight as with the others; we do not know, for instance, what effect the Clinton nomination, convention, campaign, and (ultimately losing) election will have on Democrats in 2020 and beyond.

[Calthrina950]

Clinton 2016: We all know the story. Her nomination was inevitable and she almost lost it. Her election was inevitable too, until it wasn't.

Serious question: Why do y'all peddle this borderline lie?

Cookiedamage, did you catch my question to your comment under the "Which likely Democratic nominees would do the worst+best against Trump?" thread? (about Harris/Brown vs. Brown/Harris).

Since your question is serious, I will attempt to answer it, even as I address what I believe to be false assumptions in the question. First of all, your question is addressed to "y'all" (plural). I am one person; I make up my own mind based on the facts I have available, to the best of my ability. Second, I am not "peddling" (or selling) anything (though I cannot speak for anyone else who might be included in "y'all"). I see Atlas as nothing if not an intellectual challenge; when I reply to a post, it is not as someone who is all-knowing or infallible, but rather as a reasonably informed citizen seeking to become more informed. My opinions are my opinions; nothing more. And, with the exception of a few core values, they are malleable.

Finally, and most seriously, I do not consider the statement that Clinton's nomination "was inevitable" and she "almost lost it" to be a "borderline lie". A false statement is not necessarily a lie; it could result simply from incomplete information (in which case kindly informing me of where I am wrong is the approach I would appreciate; "lie", to me, implies intent to deceive). Even so, I would push back against the idea that the assertions are false. I heard the phrase "aura of inevitability" more than once applied to Clinton (I don't recall from which sources; perhaps I should have rejected these sources as unreliable). Sanders was considered in 2015 to be a socialist crank who would crash and burn, not someone who would win states as diverse as Vermont, Minnesota, Michigan, and West Virginia. If not for superdelegates, the race would have truly been down-to-the wire, and indeed it nearly was until June 7 when California voted.

I hope this helps.

I didn't read the majority of what you wrote but this line TOOK ME OUT!!!! LMAO

Also she was most definitely leading in the pledged delegate count without super delegates to such a degree it was not in any world considered down-to-the-wire. You're being disingenuous.

Disingenuous:
1. Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.
2. Not ingenuous; not frank or open; uncandid; unworthily or meanly artful.
3. Assuming a pose of naïveté to make a point or for deception.

I do not believe definitions (1) or (2) apply to my comment. As for definition (3), if you believe I am being deliberately deceptive, then I'm sorry you feel that way.

To reiterate a point I made earlier: I find posting on this Forum, and reading the posts of others, to be a learning experience for me. If I am wrong about a point of fact, please simply inform me of this and I will not repeat my mistake. No need to question my motives.

Again, I hope this helps. If you feel you must respond to my response to your response to my original comment, by all means do so. If I do not respond to your response, it is probably because (a) I see little point in continuing the back-and-forth nature of these responses and (b) I am very busy right now: my academic year starts tomorrow.

For what it is worth, I find your posts interesting and I enjoy most of our interactions on this Forum, and I look forward to continued positive interactions.

Happy posting.

I wouldn't even bother conversing with cookiedamage. They seem to have no interest in having an intellectual debate.

At any rate, I would rank the losing campaigns as follows (from Best to Worse):

1. Ford 1976
2. Gore 2000
3. Kerry 2004
4. McCain 2008
5. Dole 1996
6. Romney 2012
7. Bush 1992
8. Mondale 1984
9. McGovern 1972
10. Carter 1980
11. Dukakis 1988

Cookiedamage and I have had pleasant exchanges in other threads.

I'm curious, where would you rank Clinton's 2016 campaign? I realize we don't have as much benefit of hindsight as with the others; we do not know, for instance, what effect the Clinton nomination, convention, campaign, and (ultimately losing) election will have on Democrats in 2020 and beyond.

I forgot to list Clinton's campaign, but re-evaluating things, I would probably place hers somewhere near the bottom, with Dukakis's. She neglected the Midwest, went after states (and voters) whom she had no chance of winning, failed to articulate a solid policy platform, and could not escape from the baggage she had from her time as Secretary of State and as First Lady. Moreover, she came off as insincere and elitist to many, and she did not treat Trump as seriously as she should have.