Talk Elections

Ok, let's take a look at who the worst presidential candidates were considering the following things in combination: performance in the election, charisma, experience, credentials, and political base of followers. I've really narrowed it down in my view.

Adalai Stevenson- ran against extremely popular Eisenhower both times
Richard Nixon- almost won in 1960 and was one of the best candidates a few elections later
Barry Goldwater- clearly had a large base and the GOP today is much more like him as a result
Hubert Humphrey- too close to winning
George Wallace- too big a base
George McGovern- large base helping the Dems today becomeverything he would ever want
Gerald Ford- lost by Ohio I believe and was close to winning
Jimmy Carter- won a term in 1976
Walter Mondale- boring
Michael Dukakis- putts
George H.W. Bush- won a term in 1988 and really didn't do THAT bad in 1992
Bob Dole- always remembered for his military service and senate career over losing
Al Gore- dangerously close to being president
John Kerry- 87 billion dollars cost him the election (in case you didn't know he was in Vietnam)
John McCain- Vietnam hero who spent years reaching across the aisle and didn't do THAT bad

Having said that I can narrow it down to:

A. Walter Mondale
B. Michael Dukakis
C. John Kerry

I'm leaning toward Mondale even though he ran against a popular Reagan let's face it. He had no base, no charisma, no military heroics, and would have lost his home state if Reagan campaigned there even once. Dukakis was bad too. He ran against a mediocre candidate and lost some states that Democrats should have had no problem winning like Maryland and California. I've never heard of any political groups who went in herds to support this guy either. He also needed an army tank to show his toughness lol ok I'll stop on him. John Kerry who in case you didn't know was in Vietnam, had a record of treason after returning, was dull, unattractive, and his senate record was full of inconsistencies.

You decide and have fun. Remember to focus on candidates since 1952 who represented their party in the national election.

George Wallace didn't make your list for what reason?

He is on it by the year 1968. His base was huge in the south though. That would clearly disqualify him from what I would consider a terrible candidate. He also had experience governing a state which helps as well.

oh all the losing candidates are on the list. Who do you think was the worst candidate considering a combination of all of those things?

I don't see how blatant discrimination based on colour makes a good policy or candidate. Segregation now and forever should be instant grounds for worst, end of story.

wow, what a surprise you picked three democrats. I think bad candidates come equally from both parties, but I can just as easily pick three republicans.

3. Thomas Dewey- lost the election after the media practically gave it to him before the polls closed
2. Alf Landon- only got 36% of the vote against Roosevelt.
the big number 1. BARRY GOLDWATER! "...sometimes I wish I could just saw off the entire eastern seaboard." (2 states on the eastern seaboard voted for him out of 6 total)

I was only going back to 1952! I agree that Landon would've been worse he got about what 3 states? As for Wallace, if you think he is the worst candidate then I respect your view. I'm considering attributes and performance over policies because I'm referring to candidates who weren't elected to office.

You might as well stick Perot on there.  As the saying goes, "He coulda been a contendah."  His antics shoved him back into a distant third.

1. Al Gore
2. Richard Nixon (in 1960)
3. Ross Perot
4. McGovern
5. Dukakis
6. Mondale
7. Carter (in 1980)

Based on what the results should have been under the cirumstances.

That's a good point ^^. I like this discussion.

Are you talking to me?

Yes, you had a good point about the nature of the times. I'm not including that on here but that's an interesting way to look at things.

Even though Mondale and McGovern lost in landslide, both 1972 and 1984 were bad years for any candidate from their party (due to the good economy and stable world stage). In contrast, due to the good economy, lack of foreign threats, and Clinton's high approval ratings, Gore should have won in 2000 by a large margin, but he ended up narrowly losing. Thus, I think Gore is a worse candidate than either McGovern or Mondale.

I see what you mean. I over looked him. Come to think of it he really doesn't seem that enthusiastic or base built. In fact I think he way over performed on election night anyhow. I thought Bush would go over 300 based on polls. You have some good points on here my friend.

lol

This is weird.

1. Mondale
2. Landon
3. McGovern

Al Gore, Ford, H. Bush, Dole, and McCain.

1960 on is really "modern" i suppose.
1-Al Gore, 2000
2-Walter Mondale, 1984
3-Jimmy Carter, 1980
4-George McGovern, 1972
5-Ross Perot, 1996

HHH actually ran a fantastic campaign, considering at one point it looked like it would be a landslide in Nixon's favor. He really pulled blue-collar whites in the North away from Wallace and back into his side.

Barack Obama

I am literally shocked that no one besides me has mentioned Goldwater.

Goldwater started a movement that evolved into modern day conservatism. Reagan's revolution began with him. He may have done poorly but the GOP has been more conservative ever since. Say what you want about that but the bottom line is the started a movement. As for Ross Perot, remember he was a 3rd party candidate and that's why I didn't include Ralph Nader and several others. Let's focus on Ds and Rs.

So...by this logic, McGovern's campaign would also be considered a success, having started a movement that thoroughily transormed the party?

not a success, just not the worst ever

McGovern and Mondale are clearly the worst; Barry Goldwater wasn't a particular good nominee either.

Dukakis.  Who else could blow a twenty point lead?

George W. Bush in 2000.

Who else could blow a twenty point lead and not steal the election?

It's worth asking whether we mean candidates or campaigns. The Dukakis campaign was terrible, but he was a half-decent candidate. His campaign made a lot of bad choices, but if we're talking candidates here Mondale and McGovern have to be at the top.

I would consider a candidate's ability to campaign well as a factor to determine whether or not the candidate was good or not. A candidate who can't campaign is not a good candidate.

Carter in 1980 (and almost in 1976).

Also, wasn't Nixon up quite a bit atone point in 1960 (prior to the debates)?

Top four:

Dukakis - a man who simply blowed up double-digits lead against uncharismatic candidate, after 8 years of GOP in power.

Dewey - lazy man, who took all for granted and never moved his ass. It had been said that he asked his wife shorthy before an election how it would be sleeping with the President of the United States. Mrs. Dewey asked after election: "so Harry is coming to me or I have to go to the White House?".

Bush Sr. - never was good in campaigns. Won in 1988 only thanks to the fact his rival was even worse candidate. Royally screwed up in 1992.

Gore: Won pv and only needed to put more energy to win, but screwed up that.

Not bad:

Dole - his time just passed out. He'd be a great candidate in 1980s, however.

Ford - comes very close despite being rather a poor campaigner, being weakened by Reagan challenge and own misteps.

Mondale - no one could beat Reagan in 1984 and I can't see other Democrats doing better.

Remember: Mondale pv share was better than McGovern's, Goldwater's or Bush Sr. in 92.

Stevenson - the same. No one could possibly beat Einsenhower and his performance as volunteering sacrifical lamb wasn't poor.

Kerry - Good performance.

McCain - As Dole, his time passed. He's crush Gore in 2000, had he won nomination back then.

I think Gary Hart, who was the runner-up, could have gave Reagan a much better run for his money than Walter Mondale.

()

There are peridos when Nixon was leading, but it was never by double digits. The race was always close that year.

Possibly, but Reagan would have likely defeated him in a landslide as well due to the good economy and lack of foreign wars.

The answer is Dewey, obviously.

I wouldn't blame him too much. The polls showed him leading until September/October, when most or all pollsters stopped polling the race. Thus, Dewey thought he would win and did not make any risky moves (or did not campaign energetically, for that matter). Truman's surge came too late to be detected by the pollsters, and thus I wouldn't compeltely blame Dewey for losing an election everyone thought he was going to win. Since Dewey (or anyone else) didn't know his lead was in jeopardy in October, it is unfair to assign all the blame for Dewey's loss squarely on him.

Mondale got crushed haha.

That wasn't his fault, for the most part. The situation in the country in 1984 was not to his favor.

Mondale was pretty bad and I don't think I've ever seen a worse speaker run for the White House. McCain would have even blown him out of the water. Remember Dewey gave Roosevelt a run for his money more than any other candidate had for the GOP and in 1948 he almost beat Truman. Yes, a candidate and a campaign go hand in hand. I didn't intend to debate policies as much on this forum as I did campaigns and candidates.

Dukakis worse candidate ever. Mondale probably wasnt as bad a pick as some people think, he just didnt have a chance against Reagan. Im not sure if anyone could have done better against Reagan in 1984.

Probably Dukakis and McCain.

John McCain will be remembered as a veteran who withstood torture from the enemy and who stood up for our country. Losing an election the GOP was pretty much guaranteed to lose isn't the mark of a bad candidate. It's great that he made it as close as he did. Actually, if you look at the elections that I'm dating back to which is 1952 he was somewhat close.

Mccain was a horrible candidate, from febuary on, while Clinton and Obama slugged it out he had the chance to identify his candidcy, create the image he wanted, and define the election, and he blew it.

George McGovern easily takes the cake. He was one of the biggest losers in history and a horrible candidate.

That's why Nixon needed to cheat?

Nixon did that for the good of our nation.

Richard Nixon never did one damn thing in his life that wasn't for the good of Richard Nixon.

He didn't need to and to suggest he did is simply disingenuous, he did it because he wanted to screw over the Dems as massivly as possible.

He could've still done that by attacking McGovern as a liberal pussy who will allow the U.S.S.R. to conquer American allies and who will raise your taxes and give your money to hobos and welfare bums. There was no need for Nixon to cheat to get a massive landslide.

LOL.

Alright so who do you all think was the worst presidential candidate since 1952?

Barack H. Obama

He will be remembered as an excellent American, but a horrible candidate.

McCain had a bad hand and played it badly. There was no need for him to call Scranton his home for the last month of the campaign while Obama gained ground in North Carolina, Indiana, and several other states that McCain had no business losing.

that's true too the last month was hell for McCain

He only "cheated" as much as LBJ did in 1964 when he bugged Goldwaters campaign plane.

Nixon and LBJ were both scum of the earth, so no surprise that they share many similarities. Another example is that they're probably both burning in Hell right now.

Creepy post.


Winning in a borderline landslide = worst candidate in modern history? ???

The Democratic Party won in a borderline landslide because of the financial crisis associated with Bush and the GOP. Obama was a sh**tty candidate who would have otherwise lost despite the extremely favorable conditions for Democrats nationally.

Obama was not the worst in modern history. He had a great support base and charisma. However, he may have lost without the collapse of the housing market. Before that he was viewed as a liberal with no experience.

Obama would have lost in many climates, but so would many other candidates. Winning the Presidency is as much about timing as anything else. Reagan won in 1980 because the country was so fed up with the failures of big government and the economic/inflationary/foreign policy crises. He wouldn't have won in 1968 or 1976 (opinion), because America was not ready for a staunch conservative. Obama wouldn't have won in almost any other year, but then again he wasn't running in any other year. He was a phenomenal candidate, because he is the most liberal president in our nations history and won by a large margin. America is a center-right nation, and the fact that he won cannot be overstated.

As far as McGovern, he was a terrible candidate ideologically, but he was much like Obama in his ability to get the youth vote and energize the left. After all, he was seen as the outsider candidate by most in the party going into 1972. He had to defeat three establishment candidates (Muskie, Humphrey, Scoop) to win the nomination, and he did. That takes a lot. However he was simply the wrong candidate in the wrong place at the wrong time.

McGovern actually was an outsider candidate, unlike Obama.

Obama losing to McCain in 2008 would have been like Reagan losing to Carter in 1980, and Obama was well on his way to doing so.

Right candidate in the right place at the right time. You said it pal.

That's American Style Democracy for ya. Thats why despite my interest in foreign politics, I always like our system the best. It's all about timing, and since folks aren't as indentured to a particular party, it works awfully better then the UK or Europe in general.

We do have the perfect government. As long as we have 3 branches and free elections. I'll agree with you on that.

The presidency is the worst branch IMHO. If I was a framer I probably would have opposed the idea or at least had it in a very weakened state.

I'm not an Obama fan, but he was hardly the worst candidate. Kerry was likely a worse candidate, but would have made a better President.

Honestly, I would rather have Obama than Kerry and ppl would be hard pressed to find someone to the right of me on this forum. More to the point though yes Kerry was a horrible candidate and was only close because of Iraq and Bush's falling numbers.

Oh I would have been all about states' rights back then. We do need a presidency, but that along with the entire federal government is way too big now.

What makes you say Kerry would ahve been a better President? He would have been unable to pass any legislation with a GOP Congress, and also he would have been blamed for the financial crisis instead of Bush Jr.

And the dems would've never won congress at all. The GOP would still be in control and I am somewhat confident that Tom Delay and Mitch McConnell would have been running the show until he was voted out with 44% of the vote in 2008.

Who would have been voted out? Kerry, Delay, or McConnell? Even tough I agree that the GOP would have been in a much better position right now if Kerry won in 2004.

As a Republican, I honestly prefer winning in 2004 and losing in 2008, than the opposite.

Strategically speaking, the GOP would be in a better position though, as a likely Kerry victory wouldn't have significant coattails.

Also, the GOP would have kept Congress in 2006 and recaptured the Presidency (as well as increaed their Congressional majorities) in 2008. As a Democat, I would have prefered my party to win in 2000 (to escape Bush Jr.), lose in 20004, and win in 2008.

Kerry would've been voted out in 2008. Maybe not 44% but 46% at best.

I'm liking this discussion very much! I am also officially endorsing Dukakis as the worst candidate since 1952. He ran against a mediocre Republican after 8 years of that party being in the White House, he picked a great running mate, and blew a 17 point lead.

Keep in mind that the issues (the economy, lack of foreign wars, and Reagan's popularity) favored Bush Sr. in 1988. Thus, it wasn't that surprising that he won at the end. Many people also don't pay attention to the election until after Labor Day, so taht is why Dukakis intiailly had a large lead. Once people began to pay attention to the race (and the issues), Bush Sr. created a solid lead for himself.

I am not sure if Kerry would have been voted out, I dont think we have ever had two consecutive one termers, I know we havent in modern history.

that's true it's very difficult to say with an alternative time line.

I think it would depend on number of factors, the most important how Kerry and the democratic congress worked together.

The Democrats would not have taken over Congress in 2006 if Kerry had won.

Oh I think they could have even won a larger margin with a democratic president.

No the voters were never in love with the democrats. They voted for conservative democrats in 2006 who were pro guns, pro life, and strong on defense. Voters were unhappy that year with the out of control spending that the GOP had going. The Republicans abandoned their principles and base and it cost them the 2006 midterms. Had Kerry been in office spending like Bush and Obama, the GOP would've gone back to their roots in order to score political points against a tax and spend liberal and would've picked up seats in 2006 like any party does who doesn't have the white house at a mid term.

it wasnt so much them being in love with democrats that they sick of republicans and if Kerry could prove they were tying his hands they would have won by larger margins, people were so sick of the republicans then.

Kerry was a dork and wouldn't have proven anything.

Out of control spending cost the GOP Congress in 2006? I'm pretty sure it was the war. I'm not a firm believer in polls or exit polls but they were pretty consistent on that.

Iraq was a big part of it too but Kerry wouldn't have been able to blame the GOP congress for it in 2006.

It was Iraq and the Republicans moving too far to the right.  In 2006, it was mostly moderate Republicans in swing/Dem states who lost.  Republicans lost 3 seats in NY, 2 in CT, 4 in PA, 2 in NH, 2 in FL, 2 in IA, and 1 in CO.  None of these are conservative states - nor were the districts patricularly conservative or Republican.  A couple of conservative Dems unseated Republicans, but they were the exception, not the rule.  The conservative base turned out, and Republicans actually did well in conservative states like GA, AL, and OK; they were just overwhelmed by the anti-GOP vote of independents and Democrats.

As for worst Pres candidate, it's Goldwater.  What happened with conservatives later didn't matter; he was a terrible candidate for 1964, and was on the wrong side of several major issues that year.  Even with the Deep South backlash against civil rights, he still managed to do worse than Mondale or McGovern.  He didn't win a single county north or east of Pennsylvania.

I say Mondale. He was sure as hell dealt a bad hand having to go up against Reagan '84, but independent of that, he was uncharismatic and had terrible instincts. I mean, openly calling for a tax increase? Gutsy, but dumb as hell.

In his concession speech he mentioned how he wasn't a TV person and doesn't even own a TV. In fact he doesn't even watch that much of it. Then followed up with how he gave it his best shot. I'll tell you what Walter, I'll tell you what.

Mondale thought voters would admire him for his honesty on the issue and his detailed solutions. If Hart would have lost the PV to Reagan by 13 pts. instead of 18, would that have made him a good candidate?

Well, Dukakis was certainly an epic loser. In term of vote share, Goldwater and Landon were far bigger fails than Mondale. Kerry was a rather poor candidate too, considering 2004 was an easy occasion for democrats.
However, there is a very bad candidate who isn't mentioned, that is George W. Bush. Of course he was elected two times, but look a bit further. The first time, he was almost beaten by McCain in the primaries and then was actually defeated by Gore (despite him being quite a poor candidate too). Then in 2004, he realized one of the most pathetic showings for an incumbent President, and in wartime. Any other democrat would easily have beaten him.

No one else would've done better against Bush. If that was the case the democrats would've nominated them. The only thing on their minds was beating Bush and Kerry was the best of those 9. He was still a top 3 worst candidate since 1952 though. LOL.

lol

that's not how I remember it

^^^^^^^^^

Despite the irregularities, Bush Jr. won that election (and he would have won it by a much larger margin if it wasn't for the DUI story). I'd rank Gore as the worst candidate ever since he didn't win despite the fact that the economy and foreign affairs were going in his favor and despite the fact that some embarassing last-minute revalations about Bush Jr. were released right before Election Day.

Were you talking to Antonio?

That's not the point. Gore got more votes, so anybody who cares about democracy should consider him the true winner.

Where in the world is there a more democratic system then in the US? Look at Britain where the voters had no say in the creation of the government after the deadlock. Look at Israel where the number 2 party seat wise is the Government leader. I do like France's runoff system, but the reality is that Bush did win that election. Maybe not fair and square, but a win nonetheless.

Welcome to America buddy! Our presidents are elected by a majority of people in the majority of states. Anything else is unAmerican!

Whoever said that Bush was defeated by Gore is who I was talking to. I believe that if the western panhandle of FL actually would've been allowed to vote until 7pm their time that Bush would've easily won the PV too. Then all of a sudden you'd see the democrats whining about how it's based on EV not PV. That part of the panhandle is 80-20 GOP.

Yes I agree with the Mass Dem lol.

I can name two dozen right away.

Cameron in 2010

The goal of the election was to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. If the goal was to win the popular vote, both candidates would have ran much different campaigns than they did in RL, and who's to say that Bush Jr. wouldn't have won the election anyway? Believe me, if Bush Jr. would have won the PV and Gore would have won the EV, all the Demcorats would be saying how the Electoral College is so great while all the Republicans would be denouncing it.

Also, if you care so much about democracy, does that mean Hillary Clinton should have been the Democratic nominee in 2008? She did get more votes than Barack Obama, after all.

Such as?

I love Europe, but many of their government systems are lethally corrupt. I'm part Italian, and have visited there twice. Their entire system is corrupt beyond belief, not to say it's bad, but it's far less democratic than the US. The situation in the UK shows that our system is far more democratic. Look at Thailand and see just how stable and Democratic we are.

P.S.: Al Gore (along with Jimbo Carter) is my least favorite Democrat to win the Democratic nomination in 50 years, and probably the only one that I could never see myself voting for. He is a complete flip-flopper, an opportunist, and a terrible candidate. He has no root values that drive his political convictions. I would have voted for Bradley in 2000, and either Bush or Nader in the general, but not Gore.

I agree with everything you said about Gore, but he isn't the only politician who flip-flopped on a lot of things. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry flip-flopped on the Iraq War, along with many other Democrats (but not Gore). Also, Bush Sr. did a complete U-turn of most of his policies after 1980. Finally, Reagan flip-flopped on abortion and Medicare. I don't see what makes Gore so bad. As Senator, he catered to a different constituency than as VP and a presidential candidate. I agree with what you said about Carter--he was just too incompetent and indecisive to be President.

A lot of it's just that I don't like Al Gore. He just rubs me the wrong way.

Well said. The dems would've been all about the EV and not the PV had it been the other way around.

Me too and I'm glad because we live in a Representative Republic. It's to the Republic for which it stands, not the democracy.

How about Greece about...2500 years ago? 

lol. Only wealthy men who had served in the army could vote in ancient Greece.

Most anywhere!

I don't love Europe (quite the contrary), but I know a crooked system when I see one. The method of electing the President, a position with huge power, does not purport to be democratic. The Senate is nearly anti-democratic.

I like how you say "many" and then refer only to Italy. Italy's one of the worst cases on the continent, but even fake-PR in both houses is better than what America has with its Congress. Italy certainly isn't corrupt beyond beliefe, either: I hail from Bangladesh, a fake democracy, and what goes on in Italy is nothing. Thailand is another fake democracy. I never claimed it was more democratic than the United States.

As for the United Kingdom, 10 parties had candidates elected in the last election. I believe Vito Marcantonio was the last third-party candidate elected to Congress. It's hard to really have democracy when the only competitors for votes are two organizations that aren't really even parties, but rather extensions of the state.

You're right there. Ancient Greece was not the democracy that we know democracy to be today. Plato calls it the second most perverted form of the 5 governments in "The Repubic."

It was only half way sarcasm.  I think it still says something that the Ancient Greeks had a direct democracy (even if it was not universal suffrage) and we don't.

I would rather live in an indirect democracy where every non-felon over 18 is able to vote than live in a direct democracy where only a small minority of the adult population is able to vote.

Explain yourself. We have a representative republic. A direct democracy would lead to a mob where the majority could make the minority slaves. Yes, the constitution of our republic prevents such acts from happening. With that we aren't true democracy. Somehow I doubt this is what you were getting at though.

Of course neo-cons such as yourself oppose full democracy.  We don't want the citizens with too much power; it's the government's job to decide what's best.

I support direct democracy.  Whoever gets more votes wins the election.

I'm sorry to hear that. I support a system of checks and balances. That way no citizens has too much power which leads to a mobs. Also, the government can't have too much power or they'll be voted out of office or in some cases violating the constitution. This country protects the minority from the majority.

Anyone else?

Just to think of it, if we had a direct democracy, the House would be our parliament.

That would mean Nancy Pelosi as PM. (Yeah, that would really make the neocons happy)

and it wouldn't last a day

1. John Kerry (Couldn't beat George W. Bush)
2. Jimmy Carter (Couldn't beat Ronald Reagan)
3. George McGovern (Couldn't beat Richard Nixon)

Gore beat Bush

And, Wallace did as well as he should have. He was a racist. He won the South. That makes sense.

Again?

lol

hmm Dukakis still gets my award

Nixon was unbeatable in 1972. And Bush did beat Gore.

I updated and modified my list.

How on earth was Gerald Ford one of the "worst candidates in modern history"?

He overcame a thirty-point deficit to practically tie the election with Carter!

 I suppose you could argue that the Poland gaffe cost him the election, but surely the fact that it took a gaffe like that to cost the Republican the election after Watergate shows that Ford was a pretty good candidate, no?

First of all, Ford is number 13 on the last, pretty low down there. I would call Ford one of the worst candidates in modern history because of that Poland gaffe and the fact that he didn't make a better VP choice than Dole, who was uncharismatic and made some gaffes of his own (such as saying "more people were killed in all the Democrat wars in the 20th century then the total population of Detroit", or something like that). I mean, Ford only needed a few thousand extra votes in OH and HI to swing the election to him. He could have done it, even though I agree that Watergate and the poor economy greatly hurt his chances. BTW, early polls are essentially meaningless--most people typically only begin to pay attention to the race after Labor Day, and after Labor Day, Ford and Carter were pretty close in the polls. Even though, now that I think about it, I probably should have placed McCain above Ford, but the financial crisis pretty much screwed him over regardless of what he did afterwards or whom he would have picked as VP.

No he didn't.

1. You can't reenter a race that you've already conceded from and Bush was gracious enough to allow Gore this chance.
2. They recounted the votes and Gore kept losing.
3. Why couldn't he win with as popular as Clinton was?

That's a good way to put it. How close an election is doesn't always reflect the electability of a candidate.

1. Walter Mondale- there was no hope for him, but he shouldn't have lost that badly.
2. Barry Goldwater- Far too extreme, especially in 1964.
3. George McGovern- same as Mondale. Plus, way too far to the left.
4. Michael Dukakis- He never fought back against the sleaziness of Bush. In addition, poor debater.
5. Jimmy Carter 1980- blew a huge lead to a guy whose views should have made him unelectable.
6. Al Gore- Somehow managed to associate with all of the negatives of the Clinton administration and none of its positives.
7. John McCain- picking Sarah Palin, plus the suspension of campaign, made him look terrible.
8. John Kerry- Like Dukakis, never fought back against misleading ads.

Oh I am sorry Derrick please tell me where in the constitution or in any election by laws that someone cannot retract a concession, especially when every major news network has the race as to close to call? Can you explain to where you arrived at that logic?

You clearly only have a perception of U.S. history that goes back to 2000. I'll do that after you find me where the national news media is responsible for calling an election. You don't know this but you will now. The candidates get their information LONG BEFORE the news networks do. That's why you see concession speeches immediately after the news reportings because if the candidates waited for the news to call a race, then it would be an hour later that you heard concession and victory speeches. Do you really think George Washington waited for 11:00 news to find out how he did? Come on you're making this too easy for me. Once you concede it's over. No looking at our constitution is necessary unless of course you think that Bob Dole should be allowed to contract his concession from 1996? Now you're telling me that 1996 wasn't close or close enough. Well what is close enough? Oh I guess close enough is whatever you say it is? Right, such a great argument.

No genius its not over till all the votes are counted!!!!!!!!

Republican Rutherford B. Hayes conceded the election to Samuel Tilden in 1876, then took back his concession once the national GOP told him that there is a chance he will be able to dispute the results in LA, SC, and FL and win the election. In the end, Hayes ended up winning after his challenges to those states' EVs were successful. If there is a difference of several hundred votes, and the media makes a mistake and calls a state for your opponent, if the media corrects it's mistake later then I don't see why the candidate shouldn't be able to take back his concession if he didn't realize the race would be so close in the end?

Right I'm saying that it's not the media, but those who count the votes who are able to decide if an election is still winnable. Those who count the votes know before the media.

You do know that there was a backroom deal that if Hayes won the election, Reconstruction would end, and the Republicans stole the election becuase of that deal. Yes, 1876 was a stonlen election. Good thing there were only 2 or 3 others.

Oh I believe it. Those Republicans were awful before the mid 20th century. Alot of people only support conspiracy theories that benefit their party's image, but I happen to believe MOST but NOT ALL of them.

As opposed to now? Really I mean really? When Reagan took office  we were 800 billion dollars in debt and now were close to 13 trillion dollars in debt, they have destroyed the constitution, put us in a un just war, have the biggest divide ever between the wealthy and the poor, and have destroyed the middle class. THE REPUBLICANS ARE AWFUL NOW!!!! REALLY? REALLY? I MEAN REALLY?

Can you hear me all the way back there in 1936?

I am not sure what that means, of course I am not sure what your talking about on most of your post anyway.LOL

No. If Tilden had won, it would only have been because of massive disenfranchisement of black voters in the South.

You sounded like you were quoting the Democrat playbook from 1936 when you heard words like "fat cats," "corporate greed," "evil capitalists." Those words were used to dumb down Americans when those reasons were anything but why the depression happened.

Agreed. In a free and fair election hayes would have won LA, SC, and MS (due to their balck majority populations), thus giving him 189 EVs, more than enough to win.

Well I am not a democrat, but I am d*** sure not a republican, I hate both parties. As George Wallace said in 1968 theres not a dimes worth of difference between the two.

So who do you think is the worst candidate in modern history?

Probably Dukakis, I mean he blew a 17 point lead. Mondale was not as bad as Dukakis he just never had a chance.

I agree. Mondale also blew a 17 point lead I believe but I cut him a break because he ran against Reagan.

()

Mondale never blew a 17-point lead. Reagan was always leading him. As for Dukakis, it's true he blew an early double-digit lead, but keep in mind that the issues in 1988 favored Bush Sr. and once people began to pay attention to the race in the fall, Bush Sr. caught up to and overtook Dukakis.

Ya Mondale was never even in the thing, he trailed sometimes by as many as 20 points. Lol but really Dukakis never even fought back and then at the end riding around in that tank lol, what a joke. He looked like an idiot.

For the tank incident, Margaret Thatcher tried it in Great Britain before and it helped out her poll numbers. Thus, Dukakis thought that it would do the same thing for him.

Maybe if he would have tried it early on, but by that time he was seen as such a bufoon.

Ok I was confusing him with the Dukakis poll. Good job Walter, way to man!

Yeah, good job for winning MN and DC. Reagan, despite all his greatness, couldn't win there.

Well Reagan declined to campaign in his opponent's home state out of the kindness of his heart. D.C. wouldn't vote for the GOP if Bin Laden were the alternative.

Reagan was too poor of a campaigner to win all 50 states. Oh yeah! Democrats 1-Republicans 0.

Stop! I didn't see Mondale winning 49 out of 50. He was a great president rather than a great campaigner.

In your opinion.

Btw I don't see anyone putting Reagan on here as the worst candidate in modern history.

I meant the part about Reagan being a great President. He wasn't so great in my opinion.

History has been very kind to Reagen. His approval ratings were always in the mid 50's, the highest he ever got was 72 and that was after he got shot, and when he left office they were like 63, but throughout his first term they were constantly below 50 percent in fact in 1982 they hit like 38%.

History has been favorable but that means he did well. What short sighted moron judges a president's performance based on his approval ratings WHILE HE IS IN OFFICE? Come on you can't judge an administration until history can really weigh in.

Thats not what I mean there has been this myth put out that Reagan was so very popular through out his administration and thats just not true, not by a long shot. His numbers were just ok.

Tell me we agree on something.

Well there have been a few things we have agreed on, dont worry  I will get you straightened out on what to think, lol.

lol that's true

Who says you can't judge a President during their time in office? Sure you can.

You can but not by approval rating. History takes time to unfold. That's why I still firmly support the Iraq war in fact each day since the invasion in 2003 I've supported it more and more. 50 years from now the democrats will be the party who was on the wrong side of history.

The Republicans were on the wrong side of history when it came to Social Security and Medicare.

Not once it goes bankrupt. The democrats will be looked at as greedy socialists who grew the government IN THE NAME OF helping the needy.

LOL WHATEVER

Did you mean to post something?

Ronald Reagan let the federal minimum wage slide, it lost $2.50 of it's purchasing power per. hour during his career, and the % of people below the poverty line remained at 13  throughout his term.  And the Iran Contra affair, and his failure to stop the decline of the Auto Industry....

Reagan was definitely one of the most OVERRATED presidents if not one of the worst. 

I agree with you about Reagan being overrated but keep in mind that this thread is about bad candidates, not bad Presidents.

Why does the left always think negative about the economy? We added 22 million jobs and grew the GDP while he was in office. The Soviet crumble was due to his free enterprise which they couldn't compete with.

Reagan had 16 million. Clinton had 23 million.

Keith Russell Judd.

jfern's statistics are correct. Also, I agree that the U.S.S.R. collapsed in large part because its economy failed to compete with the West. However, Reagan had nothing to do with that. The U.S. economy was capitalist both before and after Reagan. Reagan being responsible for the end of the Cold War is one of the greatest myths of the late 20th century, if not the greatest.

Hey children, this thread is about the worst candidates in modern history, not the worst presidents in modern history.

John Kerry was a bad candidate based on the fact that he was Massachusetts liberal with no appeal outside of people who hated Bush. I remember telling people in early 2004 that he was a bad choice b/c of what happened with Dukakis. One told me that Dukakis was from MA, but so was Kennedy. I was right though, there are many Southerners who won't vote for Yankees but we have no problem voting for Southerners.

Aside from not fighting back against the Swift Boat ads quickly enough, Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore did. He did great in all three debates for example, IIRC he won 2 of them and was even with Bush in another. He didn't write off as many states (or as quickly) as Gore did.

Bob Dole was an awful candidate, much worse than McCain. I couldn't believe he did as well as he did that year, Clinton would have done even better if turnout was higher. It was low because everyone knew he would win, and his base wasn't as motivated as those in other years. The only reason the GOP were stuck with Dole was because Colin Powell didn't run, and the alternatives were even worse: Gramm, Bauer, Forbes, Keyes? Yuck! Although I did think it was funny when Forbes hosted SNL that time. 

I honestly don't think Kerry lost many votes because he was a Yankee. Obama, despite being a liberal Yankee, won several Southern states. I think Kerry's lack of charisma (in addition to his inability to respond to the GOP attacks and smears) damaged him much more. I also think Kerry's wife damaged his chances and his Edwards pick didn't really help him anywhere. To be honest, I really don't think Kerry ran a better campaign than Gore. Both of them made a lot of flaws that cost them dearly. As for Dole, I agree with you that Dole did the best he could that year. Clinton was going to crush anyone no matter what due to the good economy, so Dole just filled that role of a respectable opponent to Clinton.

Indeed, I would expect Clinton to win 400+ EVs. Hell, even Bush Sr. himself would be a more competitive candidate than Dole.

Kerry's wife telling a reporter to shove it is just one example of how his wife hurt him. I remember Kerry saying that he owns 5 SUV's when speaking to a union and then not liking them when speaking to environmentalists. When asked about his position he said that his family owns the SUV's not him. He referred to Lambeau Field as Lambert Field which is an ultimate sin in Wisconsin where this took place. And I still don't know if he can tell the difference between ribbons and medals. He said they used to be the same thing but now they're not. Kerry also campaigned early in states that turned out to not be close at all such as WV, TN, AR, MO, and VA. It was a horrible campaign and his position on the $87 billion set the tone for the campaign.

Gore it was more about him as a candidate than his campaign which is why I think he was a worse candidate than Kerry. He couldn't even win his home state or cling to the success of the 90's even tho those times were long gone by then.

I really wouldn't blame Gore for losing TN. The reason he lost it was because he flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters became alienated and there was little chance of winning them over again. It would be like Scott Brown flip-flopping on abortion while running for President and then proceeding to lose his home state. And the 1990s were just barely over in 2000. However, I agree with you that Gore should have focused on the good economy much more. TBH, I think both Gore and Kerry lost both because of their personality flaws (both were boring and awkward, or at least perceived that way) and because they made many campaign mistakes.

I agree mostly but don't think Scott Brown would win his home state regardless of his positions on the issues. The boom of the 90's was heading downward as early as 1999 which was almost a congress before the 2000 election. I accredit computers and the internet with the boom of the 90's and there came a point where most people had computers. Tennessee didn't go anywhere though. The democrats had moved to the left of that state in the 90's and by 2000 were too far from the average voter in that state. You could say the same thing about KY, LA, MO, AR, and WV too. On the other side, NJ, VT, ME, CT, DE, and CA were very purple until the GOP moved to their right but not to as great an extent.

Scott Brown won in his home state when he was running for the Senate, just like Al Gore did previously. And the American people still felt pretty good about the economy until 2001, which should have been enough for Gore to win the election had he focused more on the economy. On Election Day 2000, 65% of Americans (if I remember correctly) thought the U.S. was going in the right direction.

The only part I disagree with is Scott Brown. Yes, of course you have to win your home state in order to win a senate election lol. At the federal level, most states are set on who they're going to vote for. Scott Brown wouldn't win that in a presidential election. The same goes for Mitt Romney.  As for the economy, it was heading downward as early as March 2000. I know there's more to like than the DJIA, but look at how it fell from that point on. As for the right direction, people were obviously wrong based on the last 10 years. In fact, we've been heading in the wrong direction for almost 50 years now.

Dole wasnt that bad of a candidate. He was the best they could have got that year, although the Clinton team was very worried about Lamar Alexander. Clinton would have hammered Powel at that time.

 Dewey (48 (2nd)), GOLDWATER (winner), Dukakis, (3rd)

To be fair, Dewey would have probably ran a better campaign at the end if the pollsters continued doing their job until the start of November. Once he would have saw that his poll numbers are collapsing, he would have likely changed campaign strategy.

Dewey is someone who could've had 2 terms actually, 1944 and 1948. At least he gets the GOP of the decade lol.

1. George McGovern - Replaced Tom Eagleton because he took electric shock (even though he supported him "1000 percent")

2. Walter Mondale - Boring

3. Michael Dukakis - Idiot

4. John Kerry - "I voted against it before I voted for it"

You forgot Gore. Gore blew an election that had everything going for him. At least Mondale and McGovern never stood a chance. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry had a chance to win the Oval Office and they blew it. Also, you might as well add Nixon in 1960, since Ike was pretty popular and Nixon still couldn't win.

Hmm who do you think would make a terrible candidate today in both parties?

Scott Brown would not be able to carry Massachusetts, any more than Mark Begich could carry Alaska. Brown could definitely deliver New Hampshire, and possibly Maine.

Al Gore in 2000 is certainly one. He should've been a shoe-in, instead he lost, and would have won if he simply won his home state Tennessee!

I agree with you about Gore being one of the worst. However, it would have been easier for Gore to focus harder on FL, NH, OH, and NV than focus on TN. Those states were more Democratic than TN and even though TN was Gore's home state, Gore flip-flopped on abortion and gun rights after he became VP, and thus many of his former supporters there stopped liking him. There was no way Gore could have become pro-life again in 2000 without committing political suicide.

Gore came from the most prestigous political family in Tennesse. He was a senator, his father was  a senator and Clinton carried the state twice. Gore made no effort in Tennessee and only lost by 40,000 votes. If he would have made the same effort in Tennessee that he made in Florida, he would have easily carried his home state.

Ultimate -facepalm- moment when i heard him say that...

It’s certainly too rigid to just consider candidates back to 1952!

Landon certainly was a very bad candidate – he was according to all accounts an awful speaker and he won just two states and lost his home state which only Goldwater has lost for the Republicans since. However, my readings on the topic suggest that the Republicans were devoid of quality candidates – Styles Bridges, their most talented prospect, was only thirty-eight at the time, though the reason Landon rejected him as a running mate is sort of silly.

However, Mondale was really no better – the Democrats in 1984 possessed no one who could take the new “anti-personalist” culture that came to dominate during the 1980s. However, what Mondale did was really silly except among the academic culture that was coming to dominate the Boom and 13er generations who were growing up or entering such academic positions at the time. Alan Cranston is the only Democratic candidate listed in articles on the 1984 election who seems from what I have read (lacking personal experience) to have had any hope of capturing this new demographic, and he was only three years younger than Reagan, fourteen years older than Mondale, and eight years older than George McGovern.

Hillary. You needed to try very hard to lose to Trump...

True, her campaign was a special type of terrible, which basically consisted of insulting anyone who didn't support her.

That reminds one of many candidacies that failed far worse – every Democratic candidacy that has lost since Carter, perhaps. One would have to go back to Herbert Hoover to see it succeed, and then the evangelical, dry Upper South and secular Pacific Northwest were facing a religion whose anti-Democratic tenants they vehemently opposed.

Funny how we'd be talking about Trump had he lost as many expected, wouldn't we?

McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were uniquely bad.  Stevenson and Goldwater didn't do very much either.  Al Gore lost even though he won the popular vote, but at the same time he over performed by a large margin than expected so I wouldn't include him as much.  Then there was John Kerry who picked up 2 states, won all 3 debates, won the Democratic Primary by one of the largest margins in modern history, campaigned against a mediocre manufacturing sector, and an unpopular war in Iraq.  Yet Kerry still found a way to lose.  Hillary Clinton might take the cake though.  She led Obama by over 30 in 2008, but lost to him once the primaries started.  In 2016 she led Sanders by over 60 and it still became a race.  Then in August she led Trump by 17 and found a way to lose. 

Walter Mondale number one,

Really hard.

There is such thing as running against someone who is too terrible.
Then again, that was Romney's style too.

Oh I would say McGovern without a question. He was largely unpopular due to his isolationist foreign policy, where we attack only if you attack us. He also ran an agenda that was very unpopular at the time. America was tired of the hippies and protesters of the sixties. That's why Nixon not only won big time, but carried counties that are impossible for Republicans to carry such as Cook, Cuyahoga, King, Queens, and Prince George's.

bernie sanders he was a bad fit for the country.

Most of the Democratic losers like Hillary, Kerry and Gore seem out of step with the country at times and lost narrowly.

But, the criticisms of their campaigns grew louder as the campaign season grew to a close.  All three of them seem very arrogant at the debates and thought they would win.  But, Obama and Bill Clinton seem reassuring and came across as not arrogant.

I hope Tulsi Gabbard, or Julian Castro in 2020 have looked at the 3 losses and take Trump more seriously than Clinton did.

Walter Mondale in 1984.