Worst campaign you've been alive for (primary and general)

[??????????]

McGovern.  Hands down.

Except McGovern's primary campaign was in fact excellent- he just screwed up the finish. A lot like Dukakis, actually.

Nixon was a shoe in, regardless.

[Mint]

McCain for rolling over like a dead dog to Obama.

Anybody else would have been literally destroyed by Obama. Particulary an ultraconservative as you seem liking him.

That's merely opinion for historians to discuss. If we had a real conservative candidate who would have called Obama out on certain issues which came up, things may have changed. McCain was killed by his kindness.

I don't know, the field last year was pretty weak. I think out of all of the candidates the GOP offered only Romney might have done better. But he still had the mormon and flip flopping obstacles to overcome so probably not even then.

[Mint]

Anyway, going by competence:

Primaries: Giuliani, followed by Lieberman. Absolutely embarrassing.
General: Dukakis. Even he admits it was a disaster.

[Antonio the Sixth]

McCain for rolling over like a dead dog to Obama.

Anybody else would have been literally destroyed by Obama. Particulary an ultraconservative as you seem liking him.

That's merely opinion for historians to discuss. If we had a real conservative candidate who would have called Obama out on certain issues which came up, things may have changed. McCain was killed by his kindness.

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The proper of a far-rightist is to strongly believe that he's just a moderate rightist and that he is viewed so only because the entire world is leftist.

[??????????]

Again, I'm not a far rightist my frog friend.

[??????????]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology.

Don't know much about the Community Reinvestment Act, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology.

Don't know much about the Community Reinvestment Act, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Oh, yes, certainly. These poor banks were obligated to ruin themselves because of evil state ( he is evil only when he tries to regulate economy, not when he harms civil liberties with Patriot Act-type laws... ). Nothing to do with incompetence and venality encouraged by a government who considered Friedman and Hayek as the New Prophets...

[minionofmidas]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )
But McCain was a safe pair of hands and a household name and could not be painted as a frothing-at-the-mouth-extremist or even all that well (tho' it was tried) as just a third Bush term. In other words, people disapproving of Bush but squeamish at voting for an outlandish inexperienced black muslim terrorist hugger could vote for John McCain. 
Whether they would have voted for Mitt Romney is highly dubious.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

[Deldem]

Worst in the general is probably John Kerry in 04. Somehow, he managed to make being a veteran a negative, and he couldn't hit back.

John McCain had a bad campaign as well, though that was primarily due to the fact that he had to shift way right to win the nomination, and Sarah Palin was about equal to Dan Quayle and Thomas Eagleton in quality.

Guiliani, obviously. How did he self destruct so badly.

I wasn't alive for it, but McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis were epic failures from what I can tell. Yeah, McGovern and Mondale would have been destroyed, but they weren't even competitive.

[pbrower2a]

Worst -- in having unforeseen consequences to the detriment of the winners?

Richard Nixon, 1972 -- in view of how many people in the campaign ended up in prison, and that Nixon ended up resigning in disgrace for impeachable offenses for the campaign.

Another: US Senate, George Allen, 2006. Campaign staff beat up a heckler, after which he lost what had been a close election -- and control of one of the Houses of Congress. Many thought until that re-election campaign that he was a future President

Dishonorable mention, 2006: whoever was running against William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (Crook, LA). The only vulnerable House seat for the Democrats.

Race-baiting? Many such campaigns have existed.

[??????????]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

Actually that is not true at all. Sarah Palin closed McCain closer to Obama then he was before the pick. The economic collapse in September finished McCain.

[Alcon]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

Actually that is not true at all. Sarah Palin closed McCain closer to Obama then he was before the pick. The economic collapse in September finished McCain.

I think there's a lot of ambiguity over Palin's later effect in light of the economic collapse that followed during it, but considering her introduction was a lot better than her follow-up, I don't think you can make a concrete conclusion either way.  I tend to think that it hurt the "brand" long-term, but I can't really prove it either way.

Her approval ratings did decline, IIRC, to the point where they were a drag on McCain and the ticket but maybe I mis-remember.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

Actually that is not true at all. Sarah Palin closed McCain closer to Obama then he was before the pick. The economic collapse in September finished McCain.

I think there's a lot of ambiguity over Palin's later effect in light of the economic collapse that followed during it, but considering her introduction was a lot better than her follow-up, I don't think you can make a concrete conclusion either way.  I tend to think that it hurt the "brand" long-term, but I can't really prove it either way.

Her approval ratings did decline, IIRC, to the point where they were a drag on McCain and the ticket but maybe I mis-remember.

They were in steady decline after the Gibson interview and they completely collapsed after the Kouric interviews and after she started using gutter rhetoric (''Obama palls around with terrorists'').

She was the number one reason many moderates/conservatives mentioned when they endorsed Obama.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

Actually that is not true at all. Sarah Palin closed McCain closer to Obama then he was before the pick. The economic collapse in September finished McCain.

I think there's a lot of ambiguity over Palin's later effect in light of the economic collapse that followed during it, but considering her introduction was a lot better than her follow-up, I don't think you can make a concrete conclusion either way.  I tend to think that it hurt the "brand" long-term, but I can't really prove it either way.

Her approval ratings did decline, IIRC, to the point where they were a drag on McCain and the ticket but maybe I mis-remember.

McCain campaigned well enough early.  Obama simply ran the best Presidential campaign that I have seen in my lifetime, and that includes Presidential campaigns as far back as 1964 -- blow-outs and close ones alike.

There is no such thing as a normal campaign year. Political concerns can and do change rapidly, and political styles matter greatly. So do opportunities. As I see it, McCain did very well considering that he was following an incumbent President within his own Party  -- an incumbent heavily discredited. He didn't get control of the GOP apparatus; it controlled the agenda. The people who supported Dubya still controlled the agenda of the GOP. 

He was close in popular vote until the economic meltdown of the autumn of 2008 -- and he didn't have a clue on how to meet it. To avoid losing he had to make gambles with high payoffs if successful but defeat if unsuccessful. McCain made quixotic efforts to win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire -- and those cost him Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina. He had no choice; he was losing Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado.

Sarah Palin was a huge blunder, but I am not sure that she was his first choice. The Party leadership probably foisted her upon him in the expectation that she would win over people who might have supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Political geography doomed McCain unless he ran a very effective campaign against a weak opponent. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia hadn't voted for any Republican nominee for President since at least 1988.. and after eight years of a President who had done nothing to win those states over, they went for the Democrat by double-digit margins. None were close! Those states combine for 248 electoral votes -- 22 short of victory. Then add New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico, states which had voted only once for a Republican nominee for President since 1988 -- and it's only 6 electoral votes away from a Democratic victory outright. Neither of those three states was close in 2008. Nevada ensured a tie -- that would have been decided in the House of Representatives to the obvious benefit of Obama.

A moderate Republican with a moderate GOP might have cut into the so-called "Blue Firewall" and forced Obama to make some quixotic gambles -- like trying to pick off Texas as Pennsylvania and Michigan slipped away -- but however McCain claimed to be a moderate, the GOP wasn't. Then came the economic catastrophe that voters attributed to the GOP: the stock market collapse that scared everyone.
 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, he just would have to explain peolpe why conservative policies since 1980 caused a catastrophical and useless crusade and an economical crisis due to a blind "laisser-faire" ideology. In synthesis, why conservatism ruined America. You're right, nothing more simple !

On that particular count, actually, John McCain had the same problems as a far right Republican would have had. (And Obama hardly represented change, anyhow. )

Only because he chose to compromise himself with the conservative religious right : his pick of Sarah Palin meant exactly that. And it was a dramatic erroc : had McCain not done this, he could have come much more close to Obama. But GOP os today the prisoner of a disastrous strategy, to mobilise an hypothetical "conservative grass roots". It worked once, in 2004, but definiteli disgusted indipendent voters.

Actually that is not true at all. Sarah Palin closed McCain closer to Obama then he was before the pick. The economic collapse in September finished McCain.

I think there's a lot of ambiguity over Palin's later effect in light of the economic collapse that followed during it, but considering her introduction was a lot better than her follow-up, I don't think you can make a concrete conclusion either way.  I tend to think that it hurt the "brand" long-term, but I can't really prove it either way.

Her approval ratings did decline, IIRC, to the point where they were a drag on McCain and the ticket but maybe I mis-remember.

McCain campaigned well enough early.  Obama simply ran the best Presidential campaign that I have seen in my lifetime, and that includes Presidential campaigns as far back as 1964 -- blow-outs and close ones alike.

There is no such thing as a normal campaign year. Political concerns can and do change rapidly, and political styles matter greatly. So do opportunities. As I see it, McCain did very well considering that he was following an incumbent President within his own Party  -- an incumbent heavily discredited. He didn't get control of the GOP apparatus; it controlled the agenda. The people who supported Dubya still controlled the agenda of the GOP. 

He was close in popular vote until the economic meltdown of the autumn of 2008 -- and he didn't have a clue on how to meet it. To avoid losing he had to make gambles with high payoffs if successful but defeat if unsuccessful. McCain made quixotic efforts to win Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire -- and those cost him Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina. He had no choice; he was losing Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado.

Sarah Palin was a huge blunder, but I am not sure that she was his first choice. The Party leadership probably foisted her upon him in the expectation that she would win over people who might have supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Political geography doomed McCain unless he ran a very effective campaign against a weak opponent. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia hadn't voted for any Republican nominee for President since at least 1988.. and after eight years of a President who had done nothing to win those states over, they went for the Democrat by double-digit margins. None were close! Those states combine for 248 electoral votes -- 22 short of victory. Then add New Hampshire, Iowa, and New Mexico, states which had voted only once for a Republican nominee for President since 1988 -- and it's only 6 electoral votes away from a Democratic victory outright. Neither of those three states was close in 2008. Nevada ensured a tie -- that would have been decided in the House of Representatives to the obvious benefit of Obama.

A moderate Republican with a moderate GOP might have cut into the so-called "Blue Firewall" and forced Obama to make some quixotic gambles -- like trying to pick off Texas as Pennsylvania and Michigan slipped away -- but however McCain claimed to be a moderate, the GOP wasn't. Then came the economic catastrophe that voters attributed to the GOP: the stock market collapse that scared everyone.
 

Perfectly agreed.

[© tweed]

General: Gore (narrowly)

please stop

Gore was losing just about the entire Union a year before the election

[Badger]

In order:

Primaries:
Guliani (hands down)
Fred Thompson (lest we forget how quickly the man dubbed the inheriter of the Reagan legacy fell to weak 3rd place finishes in Iowa and South Carolina)
John Connally 1980
Ted Kennedy 1980
Honorable Mention (before my birth) to George Romney in 1968. Who was the politican who said: "Watching Romney run for president was like watching a duck trying to f*** a football."?

General:
Dukakis (That sucked to be a part of and watch it fall apart)
Carter 1980
Gore 2000. Yes, he came from behind and technically won, but his fundamental decision to separate himself utterly from Clinton rather than run on a successful record (a platform of"four more years, but without the drama" would've won hands down), plus the kids glove conciliatory approach to the recount in the face of Baker's hardball approach that would've put a Mafia don to shame, combined deserves a place on this list. Not sure if that counts more towards a bad campaign versus a couple crucially bad executive decisions by the candidate.