Rank losing campaigns from Best to Worse Since 1972

[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

[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.