Rank losing campaigns from Best to Worse Since 1972

[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.