Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis

[Progressive Pessimist]

Dukakis. I know it's the unpopular answer, but Dukakis had a much better environment to win in than she did. The eight year curse should have prevented Bush from winning just as it prevented Clinton in 2016.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Clinton lost the electoral college by 77,774 votes when she lost Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes and Wisconsin by 22,748 votes. She healthily out-performed Trump in the national vote by nearly 3 million. She lost by a fraction of a fraction. It all boils down to the fact that Republicans showed up come voting day and never had any real sense of moral conflict with Trump to begin with. You don't churn out record shattering numbers of support in Republican counties enough times to win by a fraction of a fraction because you're split about your candidate. She didn't run a great campaign but she did her job.

Dukakis on the other hand learned the hard way that high roads are far to fall from and refused to follow the advice of his management team at every turn right down to not answering the death penalty question the way he was told. He absolutely could have beaten George Bush if he simply ran a more aggressive campaign that was centered on the idea that Republican administration could not be trusted and he had Watergate and Iran/Contra to prove it. It would have been dirty but doable.

This.