Rank losing campaigns from Best to Worse Since 1972

[SingingAnalyst]

Rank them by how well they did given the circumstances

In order from best to worst, in 3 tiers (those in the middle tier I think are very similar in quality, and I did my best to rank them).
Top tier:
Ford 1976: he came from 33 points behind to 1 point ahead per Gallup the weekend before the election. He ran an honorable Presidency and campaign, and Carter, in accepting victory, rightly praised Ford for doing much to heal the nation after Watergate.

Kerry 2004: he almost unseated an incumbent President in the first post-9/11 Presidential election. He built coalitions well, did well among young people (a harbinger of what was to come), and turned out his base. He did make a couple of gaffes: In addition to being "for" something before he was against it, he commented in Columbus that "there's nothing like some good ol' Buckeye football." Bush, of course, pounced on this remark the next day in Ann Arbor. It's amazing Kerry came as close as he did.

Gore 2000: after 8 years of Lewisnky-scandal-plagued Clinton, voters were ready for a change; that's what motivated his pick of Lieberman (though as Monday morning quarterbacks we can say he should have picked Shaheen or Graham). I did not expect Gore to win the PV.
***
Middle tier:
Romney 2012: obviously his "binders full of women" and "47%" comments hurt him, but he ran an honorable campaign at a time when many voters simply did not see a reason to change course.

Mondale 1984: perhaps the most doomed campaign in modern history; after the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, and after voting out incumbents in two consecutive elections, voters were not going to have their 5th President in a bit more than a decade. Mondale fought hard, throwing everything at Reagan including the kitchen sink (nothing stuck, because Reagan was the Teflon President). He kept his composure till the very end, and accepted defeat gracefully (if tearfully).

Carter 1980: his bad luck (stagflation, the Iran hostage crisis, his rift with Sen. Edward Kennedy) did not keep him from running a solid campaign. In particular, in one debate, he hit Reagan hard for not answering a question about what he would do about the Iran crisis. 1980 just was not his year.

McGovern 1972: what can one say about an inferior nominee, coming out of a hacked process that saw Edmund Muskie in tears? In addition to building on anti-war, anti-draft sentiment among young people, he had to appeal to farmers, workers, and newly empowered ethnic minorities. He simply couldn't do it all.

Dole 1996: at a time when many still questioned President Bill Clinton's honesty and integrity, Dole ran a rather lackluster campaign.

Bush 1992: seemed clueless, as if his incumbency and experience would carry the day in a year that the book "America: What Went Wrong?" was a best-seller. His "back nine" quip ("Most of my supporters are on the back nine or at their daughter's coming out parties") showed many how out of touch he was. At the end he seemed strident and angry ("Someone who carjacks someone should go to jail until they're so old they can't drive" at a time when a wave of carjackings was sweeping the nation, showed his frustration).

McCain 2008: His pick of Sarah Palin was a terrible choice (Monday morning quarterback here). Maybe Tim Pawlenty would have been better?
***
Bottom Tier:
Dukakis 1988: His technocratic, unfeeling answer to Brit Hume's pointed death penalty question, and of course, his famous tank ride, helped Bush become the first sitting VP to be elected President since 1836 (not that Bush's campaign was much better).

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

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?

People seem to hate Clinton so much that they will revise history to rationalize it and make her out to look worse at any possible opportunity.

For the record, I do not hate Hillary Clinton. If I did, I would not have bought her book, and I almost certainly would have voted Trump, rather than Johnson as IRL.

Most of the discussion in the media, IIRC, during the 2016 campaign centered on whether Clinton would win by a little or a lot. Clinton was running against an opponent whom many viewed as a buffoon (or worse). None of 538's five predictions had Trump winning more than 45% of the PV. Serious discussions took place on this Forum to the effect that Indiana and Missouri were in play. Perhaps this says more about the shortcomings of polling than it does about Clinton's campaign. Now, Atlas is littered with posts about how Clinton did worse in such-and-such county than any Dem since 1984, or 1972, or 1924, or what have you. That does not strike me as the result of a stellar campaign. Again, that may say more about the American people than it does about her (though the same argument could be made for 1972: shouldn't Americans have believed McGovern when he called Nixon "the most morally corrupt President in American history"? It would have spared us the resignation of a sitting President). Hindsight is 20-20.

On a personal note, of the nine Presidential elections I have participated in, 2016 is the only one in which I was truly shocked (and upset) at the result.

I may reconsider my placing her in last place, at some point.

[SingingAnalyst]

Al Gore, 2000  He ran the best campaign he could have.  Arguably, he could have pulled it out by winning WV, TN, or NH, but the first two were probably out of reach for any Democrat by then and NH was not as Democratic as it is now.  And he won the popular vote.

Gerald Ford, 1976:  He overcame a lot to make it as close as he did.  He came back from the widest margin.  Had the election gone on another two (2) weeks, he likely would have won.

Humphrey, 1968:  He, too, would have won if the election lasted another two (2) weeks.  He was dealt a terrible hand, and in an unprecedented situation.  

Hillary Clinton, 2016:  I can't ignore the effort of someone who wins the popular vote by a 2.8 million margin, even given flop in WI, MI, and PA.  On the other hand, she LOST ground; she lost three (3) states that had gone for the Democrats every year since 1992, and lost key swing states (FL, OH) in a year where she WON big.  She didn't pick up a single state to make up for the ones she lost, despite a significant popular vote win.  This represents serious asleep-at-the-switch syndrome by those driving this particular ship.

Romney, 2012:  Romney made specific, defined mistakes that did him in, but the worst thing that happened to him was being recorded (illegally, I might add) by a strategically placed cell phone at a private fundraiser.  (Romney could have prosecuted the person who did that, as he did not give his permission to be voice-recorded, but that would have made the situation worse.)

Kerry, 2004:  He did not know how to respond to the Swiftboat issue.  He came off as stiff and phony.  He picked the wrong running mate; he SHOULD have picked Gephardt.  And he lost ground (IA, NM), but made up for it by winning back NH.  

McCain, 2008:  McCain ran a pretty good campaign, but he had a tough row to hoe, and he made a YUGE mistake by picking Palin as his running-mate.  Had he stuck to his guns and picked Lieberman, he MIGHT have won.

Dole, 1996:  Dole probably did as well as he was going to do.  He might have done better if he had picked a border-state running mate to help him in KY and MO, states he lost.  He did make the mistake of not finding a way to pre-empt the Perot candidacy.  Dole was probably the most Perot-ish Republican nominated before Trump.

Dukakis, 1988:  Dukakis ran a themeless, uninspiring campaign that sought to make no mistakes, and he got caught in verbal traps that made him seem detached and unemotional.  Yet he won 45% of the vote; the most any Democrat won since 1964, with the exception of Carter in 1976, and the most a Democrat would win until Clinton's 1996 effort.  He should have picked someone other than Bentsen as his running-mate; Gephardt, Gore, or Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), the guy Dukakis actually liked the best, would have been more helpful on the ticket.

Carter, 1980:  I refused to believe that Carter was going to lose in 1980.  I was not a Carter supporter (I voted Kennedy in the primary, and abstained in the GE; both moves I regret and wish I could take back.)  To the near end, I thought Carter would win reelection because (A) of his diplomatic accomplishment of brokering a peace deal between Israel and Egypt, and (B) the perception in people's mind that Carter was an honest, decent man of integrity.  The Iran Crisis (an unprecedented crisis) undermined the first point, and Carter's reliance on some slick and gimmicky strategies during the 1980 campaign undermined the other.

If I had been Carter's campaign advisers I would have done everything I could have to pre-empt the Kennedy challenge.  I would have done more to convince liberals that such courses of action lead to incumbent Presidents being defeated for re-election, and that he, Carter, had given liberals most of what they wanted.  Failing to do so, I would have run the General Election campaign as presenting a choice between "Extremism" and the "Moderate, Middle Way".  I would have constantly ridiculed Reagan as an unqualified actor whose military experience was confined to special services.  I would have cited Reagan's extreme positions, and endlessly stressed how lots of seemingly reassuring figures in history unleashed intemperate policies.  I would have constantly pushed the theme that good things take time, and I would have reminded people that they teach their own kids that lesson because it's an important one to learn.  I would remind them of the peace deal he brokered; and how I've kept America out of war and kept the Constitution the way I found it.  Over and over, I'd have pushed the theme of Moderation and Reasonableness, which is the "conservatism" most people had in mind back then.

Bush 41, 1992:  An inexcusable loss, given the sort of advantages incumbents should have.  One thing that was forgotten is that Clinton ZOOMED to a huge lead after looking like a GE loser for most of the primary season, and right after Ross Perot exited the race (only to re-enter later).  His lack of empathy, his telling people that the recession was a part of the normal business cycle, was an awful lack of empathy, and explains why Bush lost so many key races (TX Senate seat, 1970, GOP Primaries, 1980).  George Bush would NEVER have been President if he had not been Reagan's VP, period.  He should have won.  It was all his persona that he didn't.

Mondale, 1984:  I rated Mondale behind Bush 41 as he lost 49 states, and only barely carried MN.  In his case, I would attribute that crushing loss to the immense popularity of then-President Reagan, but his loss did not have to be so unmitigated.  His VP choice was horrible (whereas Quayle was actually a good choice by Bush 41).   Mondale SHOULD have picked a running mate that could have actually helped him carry a few states.  The MAGNITUDE of Mondale's loss disheartened Democrats for years; making them wonder if they'd ever elect a President again.

McGovern, 1972:  The worst campaign in modern history, hands down.  McGovern, himself, said it best:  "I opened the doors of the Democratic Party and 20 million people walked out."

One of the biggest false equivalencies in politics is presenting McGovern's defeat as the equivilent of Goldwater's; too far left vs too far right.  But Goldwater laid the foundation for a new, conservative GOP that became the majority party in America in terms of elected officials.  McGovern became a symbol for what Democrats needed to avoid.  Barry Goldwater could have been elected President in 1980 had he tried, but McGovern couldn't have been elected President in his lifetime.

His choice of a guy who had been hospitalized with psychiatric issues as his VP sealed his fate.  When your first and most important appointment is someone revealed to have a history of mental illness, that's not good.  Even worse was the way he got nominated; his campaign was his faction overwhelming all the other factions in a way that alienated them.  Of the McGovernites, Rep. Wayne Hays (D-OH) said it best:  "They reformed us out of a Presidency, and now, they're going to reform us out of a party."  Scumbag that he was, Hays was correct, and he represented the sort of Democratic voter that McGovern needed and didn't get.

The 1972 Democratic National Convention provided one of the biggest pieces of culture shock to America.  It did not have the kind of heated argument of the 1968 convention, but it had the appearance of the inmates running the asylum.  Radical hippies, blacks in Afros and dashikis, Feminist Leftist, a free for all VP nomination where two (2) delegates voted for Mao Zedong; all of this gave the appearance of something other than a serious political gathering.  

Then, there were the anti-war posters.  "Stop Bombing The Dikes!" they read, speaking of the American air campaign to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam in order to bring about movement in the peace talks.  I remember my neighbor talking to my stepdad, saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will help us win, why would we not do it?"  Now I was a long-haired teenage peacenik back then, and I hated Nixon and was pulling for McGovern (whom, even then, I thought was a loser), but that argument, made by a man who was a working-class Middle American, had the sort of good sense that I can't refute to this day.

To me, the McGovern campaign was a losing effort without redemption.  No good came about it for the Democratic Party.  And imagine where the Democratic Party would have been today if there had been no Watergate, and Nixon had completed his second term.  

Excellent list, and quite a bit different from mine! I like that, though.

One minor edit to your section on Mondale: Mondale was under intense pressure to nominate a woman, and at that time there were no female governors and, IIRC, both female Senators were Republicans. He may have done the best he could, though, in hindsight, Dianne Feinstein may have been a better choice.

I agree that Mondale's devastating loss was demoralizing to Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/03/us/mondale-s-tough-choice.html

[SingingAnalyst]

Ran good campaigns:
Mitt Romney (2012)
John Kerry (2004)

Ran average campaigns:
John McCain (2008)
George H.W. Bush (1992)
Bob Dole (1996)
George McGovern (1972)
Gerald Ford (1976)

Ran bad campaigns:
Al Gore (2000)
Walter Mondale (1984)
Hillary Clinton (2016)

Living disasters:
Jimmy Carter (1984)
Ross Perot (1996)
John Anderson (1980)
Mike Dukakis (1988)

Literally dropped out while leading in the polls:
Ross Perot (1992)

Interesting and unique list. I have to ask, why is McGovern's campaign rated above Gore's?

[SingingAnalyst]

Dukakis 1988: His technocratic, unfeeling answer to Brit Hume's pointed death penalty question, and of course, his famous tank ride, helped Bush become the first sitting VP to be elected President since 1836 (not that Bush's campaign was much better).

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.

Upon further reflection, I have decided to switch these two.

While Clinton did lose an election she was, by almost all accounts, favored to win, she did win the PV by 2.9 million votes. She also helped to either cement the Dems as the Presidential majority party (VA; Orange County, FL) or get many people to vote Dem for the first time (Orange County, CA); thus, helping making the GOP uncompetitive in these areas in the short term.

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

[SingingAnalyst]

Am I the only one who think the Palin pick was savvy? It boosted McCain to draw ahead of Obama in the polls before Lehman Brothers and the financial crash changed the race.

You're probably not the only one, but I for one did not. I was expecting/hoping McCain would pick Tim Pawlenty. IIRC, Sarah Palin became a walking joke almost from the day she was nominated.

[SingingAnalyst]

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.