Worst-run Presidential Campaign

[Blank Slate]

I voted Other.

I know others on here are voting Dukakis, but I think Mondale had the far worse run campaign.  (I know Reagan was supposedly wildly popular and most would say that he would probably have won in the reelection landslide that he did anyway, but this isn't necessarily so).

If people remember that far back, at the beginning of 1984, it really looked like Reagan might be in trouble, because of how well the Democrats did in House and statewide and legislative elections in 1982, and also there were a lot of doubts about Reagan's age and also how well he was doing foreign policy wise. 

Mondale's worse mistake wasn't his comments about taxes (although that didn't help).  NO, Mondale's worse mistake was picking Gerry Ferraro as his Veep.  (Probably second worse Veep choice after McGovern picked Eagleton in '72, although McGovern did have the sense enough to force Eagleton from the ticket after the revelation of Eagleton's mental health problem and replace him with Shriver, not that did McGovern any good, but you have to give the man credit).  The vetting process on Ferraro must have been a disaster for the Mondale campaign (there were far better potential Veeps, even women for the Democrats that year). 

Of course living in the south at the time, of 1984, and especially in Florida and part of that year in Georgia, of course any semblance of a Mondale/Ferraro campaign was NONE.  At least Dukakis in Florida put up a fight and Pinellas and Pasco County (the two counties I campaigned in, and actually Pasco where I lived) were a lot closer than in previous campaigns or at least the most close since 1976. 

Yes, Dukakis made terrible gaffes and mistakes and of course he details them in his own books, but I don't think they were nearly as bad as the ones Mondale made four years earlier.   And certainly the election results (both the popular and electoral of 1988 vs. 1984), would certainly lend credence that Dukakis and his handlers ran a far better campaign then Mondale. 

Of course the most memorable thing about the 1988 campaign was that evening of the election, which by the way was on my 25th birthday that year -- November 8, 1988, and coming out of the Pinellas county Democratic HQ's and being told by a woman who had also campaigned for Dukakis and hearing her say, "I just wish the Democrats would win the Presidency once before I die."

Of course then in 1992, that woman Lisa, whom I referring to, hope she had a much better perspective.  The most memorable thing from that campaign of 1992, was someone writing on the chalkboard, the next day, at the Pinellas county Democratic HQ's:

Murphy Brown    1
Dan Quayle        0

And just two other things about 1988 election and working for Dukakis and the rest of the Democrats:

1.  The Dukakis campaign had a lot of GREAT food at all of their events, from Boston clam chowder to greek salads to plenty of Baklava, etc.  So I can't put them down for that.  -:)

2.  The Friday before the election that year, I was invited and went to a Dukakis party in Tarpon Springs, FL and I was dressed to the nines, as it were, which was very difficult for me to do on the budget I was on back then (still is to many degrees) and I was actually told by the elderly women that were there that I must be a candidate for something and this was over other legislative and statewide candidates that year.  -:)   

[Blank Slate]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was badly run, because it wasn't. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

[Blank Slate]

I'd have to say Gore 2000 was the worst. Had he won his home state of Tennesee he would have won. Whoever's idea it was to go after Florida should never work in politics again. I mean yeah Clinton won it in 96, but he won it, IIRC, by a pretty slim margin. Gore's campaign would have done much better had they concentrated on Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Nevada, all states Gore should have won (esp. TN) although he might have lost the popular vote had he not campaigned so much in Florida, which he should have known to avoid based on its long history of electoral fraud if nothing else.

I strongly disagree with that. Gore came as close as you can get to winning Florida without winning it, but you can't ignore a 25 EV state. You can't avoid it because there has been fraud there, it's simply too big. Gore had a great GOTV campaign, he was down in the polls going into election day, yet he won a convincing win in Pennsylvania, and came a hell of a lot closer to a lot of states than John Kerry did. So don't blame Donna Brazile for Gore's loss, if Kerry hired her, he might've won, she's certainly better than his team was.

It was a lot easier for Gore to win Florida than it was for him to win AR, TN, and WV, and if he had courted those states more, the Nader factor may have increased, and cost him states such as Oregon.

Thank you for this Akno, I was hoping someone a little more eloquently then me would say that Gore's campaign was not badly run, because it was run well. 

I might agree with dazzleman to a point that Gore might not have been a good candidate (although I will disagree with him on that, point) , but the running of his campaign was really good.  I think there was a number of factors that made that election a lot closer than it should have been.

I also agree with the assessment if the campaign had taken more time in WV, AR, NV or even TN (although from what I heard from people in TN, his campaign was in evidence and rather strong there) that he might have more closer calls and not even in Oregon, but probably Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico and Washington due to Nader.  And Florida was a state that was very important to the electoral outcome that year, as was evident by the eventual outcome.

Yes, by the way, my second choice for worse run campaign after Mondale '84, would have to be Kerry's in 2004.  Mainly because of things said today on www.alternativeradio.org by author Thomas Frank the writer of "What's the matter with Kansas?"  Frank more or less said Kerry went to far in appeasing new Democratic businessman (the silicon valley type) and didn't go after and appease the middle class/poorer Democrats such as would be found in Florida and Ohio, also Iowa and New Mexico -- as he and John Edwards went after in the primaries -- and of course look what happened to Kerry.  Thomas Frank is correct, there was no reason for that with the Kerry campaign. 

   

I agree with that, although Kerry's biggest problem was simply everything that happened from the terrible Dem Convention up until the 1st debate. The convention was just horrible, bringing back memories of the Vietnam War is not the way to get a bounce, and then he let the Swifties run around slandering his record all throughout August. After the "Say 9/11 as often as possible (GOP)" convention, he was simply in too big a hole, and even his superb debate performance and acceptable finish put him in a position where he couldn't win.

I will also agree with that, as well.