Worst-run presidential campaign
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:17:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Worst-run presidential campaign
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Worst-run presidential campaign  (Read 5490 times)
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,789
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2015, 11:33:47 PM »
« edited: March 28, 2015, 11:48:37 PM by OC »

2004 John Kerry.

He didnt adequately respond to the swift boating attacks duting the late Summer of that year and allowed Dubya to take charge of campaign.

2012 Mitt Romney

Allowed Obama to define him as a rich, out of touch Wallstreeter that fired people at any cost in order to protect his assets at Bain Capital
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2015, 03:46:04 AM »

April 1999, Gallup Poll Bush 54 Gore 41.


But I discount polls like this and tend to focus on the "Fundamentals"

Clinton 60% approval ratings,
GOP lost seats in 1998,
No War,
No Recession,
Economic Fundamentals Strong: Inflation, Unemployment, Fiscal Budget.

Gore should have won by 5-8 points like Daddy Bush in 1988.


One of the worst winning campaigns was also Nixon in 1968. He sat on a 15 point lead for much of the summer and almost blew it.

Id rate the best losing campaigns in no order as:
Romney 2012 (really made no public mistakes, got more votes than the GOP in 2008 and won 2 ore states).
Ford 1976 (his debate gaffe may have cost him, other than that ran a strong campaign considering where the GOP was in the 1974-76 time frame).
Humphrey 1968 (Came from 15 points down in an absolutely awful year for Dems).
Nixon 1960 (He could have called out JFK on the missile gap lie, but would have had to reveal classified info to do so).

Romney made no public mistakes? What about 47%? He was also kind of a gaffe machine with his constant out of touch remarks.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2015, 06:06:06 AM »

Impossible to beat Dewey in 1948, who ran almost no campaign, as everybody thought he'll win and he ended up beaten.

In modern times, from winnable races, Dukakis, who led by double-digits until Summer just to end up losing by a high single digit.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2015, 07:54:01 AM »

1976 Carter: ironically despite this being a winning candidacy Carter was up like 30 points on Ford the summer before the election. Ford closed the gap to 2 points on election day. Many pundits have concluded a few more days campaigning and moderate Ford would likely have won this one.

I was in a poli sci course that semester and the course was almost entirely about that election. The data we saw suggested that Ford peaked the weekend before the election, so had it been held on Sunday instead of Tuesday he might have been retained in office. We also astonished the professor by predicting that the election would be one of the closest of the century, which it was.

Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2015, 02:23:21 PM »

April 1999, Gallup Poll Bush 54 Gore 41.


But I discount polls like this and tend to focus on the "Fundamentals"

Clinton 60% approval ratings,
GOP lost seats in 1998,
No War,
No Recession,
Economic Fundamentals Strong: Inflation, Unemployment, Fiscal Budget.

Gore should have won by 5-8 points like Daddy Bush in 1988.


One of the worst winning campaigns was also Nixon in 1968. He sat on a 15 point lead for much of the summer and almost blew it.

Id rate the best losing campaigns in no order as:
Romney 2012 (really made no public mistakes, got more votes than the GOP in 2008 and won 2 ore states).
Ford 1976 (his debate gaffe may have cost him, other than that ran a strong campaign considering where the GOP was in the 1974-76 time frame).
Humphrey 1968 (Came from 15 points down in an absolutely awful year for Dems).
Nixon 1960 (He could have called out JFK on the missile gap lie, but would have had to reveal classified info to do so).

Romney made no public mistakes? What about 47%? He was also kind of a gaffe machine with his constant out of touch remarks.

That wasnt a public remark and he wasnt a gaffe machine. The gaffe machine is and was Biden
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2015, 02:28:11 PM »

Most inept campaign--McGovern in 1972.  He wasn't going to win, but he could have made it a 45-55 race.  The electoral vote wouldn't have changed very much--probably picking up a few states in the Midwest--but I think the blowouts he suffered in the South would have been less severe.  

The Eagleton affair, his losing the AFL/CIO endorsement (and therefore big labor support), and overreliance on a youth vote (which he lost anyway) hurt McGovern (but not necessarily the Democrats) that year.  Looks like the party had written off McGovern very early to hold Congress (which they did).

I know that the biggest surprise is that Truman won in 1948, but I don't think that Dewey ran a bad race.  It's more that Truman ran a great campaign (not only against Dewey but against the 80th Congress) and he was able to minimize the damage from the Progressives and Dixiecrats.

Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2015, 10:34:28 PM »

April 1999, Gallup Poll Bush 54 Gore 41.


But I discount polls like this and tend to focus on the "Fundamentals"

Clinton 60% approval ratings,
GOP lost seats in 1998,
No War,
No Recession,
Economic Fundamentals Strong: Inflation, Unemployment, Fiscal Budget.

Gore should have won by 5-8 points like Daddy Bush in 1988.


One of the worst winning campaigns was also Nixon in 1968. He sat on a 15 point lead for much of the summer and almost blew it.

Id rate the best losing campaigns in no order as:
Romney 2012 (really made no public mistakes, got more votes than the GOP in 2008 and won 2 ore states).
Ford 1976 (his debate gaffe may have cost him, other than that ran a strong campaign considering where the GOP was in the 1974-76 time frame).
Humphrey 1968 (Came from 15 points down in an absolutely awful year for Dems).
Nixon 1960 (He could have called out JFK on the missile gap lie, but would have had to reveal classified info to do so).

Romney made no public mistakes? What about 47%? He was also kind of a gaffe machine with his constant out of touch remarks.

That wasnt a public remark and he wasnt a gaffe machine. The gaffe machine is and was Biden

He insulted literally very last nation he visited in some way, UK, Poland, Israel, etc.

And the "binders full of women" thing was no help either.

Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2015, 12:39:20 AM »

Dewey, of course. Yes, Truman was a great campaigner. But, still...
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2015, 03:08:45 AM »

April 1999, Gallup Poll Bush 54 Gore 41.


But I discount polls like this and tend to focus on the "Fundamentals"

Clinton 60% approval ratings,
GOP lost seats in 1998,
No War,
No Recession,
Economic Fundamentals Strong: Inflation, Unemployment, Fiscal Budget.

Gore should have won by 5-8 points like Daddy Bush in 1988.


One of the worst winning campaigns was also Nixon in 1968. He sat on a 15 point lead for much of the summer and almost blew it.

Id rate the best losing campaigns in no order as:
Romney 2012 (really made no public mistakes, got more votes than the GOP in 2008 and won 2 ore states).
Ford 1976 (his debate gaffe may have cost him, other than that ran a strong campaign considering where the GOP was in the 1974-76 time frame).
Humphrey 1968 (Came from 15 points down in an absolutely awful year for Dems).
Nixon 1960 (He could have called out JFK on the missile gap lie, but would have had to reveal classified info to do so).

Romney made no public mistakes? What about 47%? He was also kind of a gaffe machine with his constant out of touch remarks.

That wasnt a public remark and he wasnt a gaffe machine. The gaffe machine is and was Biden

He insulted literally very last nation he visited in some way, UK, Poland, Israel, etc.

And the "binders full of women" thing was no help either.


He got way too much hate for some of comments, like when he said the UK and US shared 'Anglo-Saxon heritage". Apparently some people found that "racist", which is just ridiculous.

He said we weren't ready for the Olympics.

The Olympics was literally like the one thing we had going for us at the time
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2015, 12:53:56 PM »

1976 Carter: ironically despite this being a winning candidacy Carter was up like 30 points on Ford the summer before the election. Ford closed the gap to 2 points on election day. Many pundits have concluded a few more days campaigning and moderate Ford would likely have won this one.

I was in a poli sci course that semester and the course was almost entirely about that election. The data we saw suggested that Ford peaked the weekend before the election, so had it been held on Sunday instead of Tuesday he might have been retained in office. We also astonished the professor by predicting that the election would be one of the closest of the century, which it was.



I'm inclined to think the race was going to tighten no matter what because there too many things in the incumbent's favor, so I'm hesitant to say Carter '76 was the worst winning campaign.

Wildcard choice for worst winning campaign: Clinton '96. He had peace, prosperity, Democrats had only held the WH for one term, had a washed-up, inept campaigner for an opponent, had a GOP Congress to rail against...and yet still won only by single digits and couldn't crack 50% of the vote. I know there were questions about his character, but were they any worse than questions about Nixon's character when he won in '72? I guess also we could see the beginnings of regional polarization in this election..
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2015, 12:57:14 PM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 04:54:36 AM by Stone Cold Conservative »

Most inept campaign--McGovern in 1972.  He wasn't going to win, but he could have made it a 45-55 race.  The electoral vote wouldn't have changed very much--probably picking up a few states in the Midwest--but I think the blowouts he suffered in the South would have been less severe.  

The Eagleton affair, his losing the AFL/CIO endorsement (and therefore big labor support), and overreliance on a youth vote (which he lost anyway) hurt McGovern (but not necessarily the Democrats) that year.  Looks like the party had written off McGovern very early to hold Congress (which they did).

I know that the biggest surprise is that Truman won in 1948, but I don't think that Dewey ran a bad race.  It's more that Truman ran a great campaign (not only against Dewey but against the 80th Congress) and he was able to minimize the damage from the Progressives and Dixiecrats.



Fair enough point.  It's hard to run a bad race when you aren't running any.
Logged
CapoteMonster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 486
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.49, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2015, 12:06:23 AM »

When analyzing 1972 we should remember that the winners of that campaign went to jail and the losers didn't.
Logged
Mechaman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,791
Jamaica
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2015, 05:29:26 AM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 05:42:32 AM by Stone Cold Conservative »

On the whole "Anglo-Saxon heritage" controversy:

No, it was a bit more than Romney's advisors just stating that the US shared Anglo-Saxon heritage with Great Britain.  Virtually every credible mainstream historian in the United States would agree with that sort of statement.  The Obama Campaign, as low as I found their tactics throughout the general election, were not completely baseless in pouncing on Romney for some of the statements made in the UK:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that it was a presidential election Team Obama could've written a book on this one quote passage alone.  It really falls into the "anti-colonialist Kenyan" trope that conservatives were using on and off during Obama's first term.

And really, that was what the huge issue people had with Romney: he and his team seemed to think of every moment of the campaign as a good time to attack the president.  Did not matter if it was the Olympics, if it was the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Hurricane Sandy, the weather outside, how good the Cowboys will do this year, etc etc etc..  He might have ran an aggressive campaign (nothing really wrong with that) but he seemed to go as far if not further to attack Obama as Obama did him.  A book could (and probably should) be written about the negativity of that election.
Logged
m4567
Rookie
**
Posts: 220
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2015, 06:59:50 AM »
« Edited: March 31, 2015, 07:01:52 AM by m4567 »

1976 Carter: ironically despite this being a winning candidacy Carter was up like 30 points on Ford the summer before the election. Ford closed the gap to 2 points on election day. Many pundits have concluded a few more days campaigning and moderate Ford would likely have won this one.

I was in a poli sci course that semester and the course was almost entirely about that election. The data we saw suggested that Ford peaked the weekend before the election, so had it been held on Sunday instead of Tuesday he might have been retained in office. We also astonished the professor by predicting that the election would be one of the closest of the century, which it was.



I'm inclined to think the race was going to tighten no matter what because there too many things in the incumbent's favor, so I'm hesitant to say Carter '76 was the worst winning campaign.

Wildcard choice for worst winning campaign: Clinton '96. He had peace, prosperity, Democrats had only held the WH for one term, had a washed-up, inept campaigner for an opponent, had a GOP Congress to rail against...and yet still won only by single digits and couldn't crack 50% of the vote. I know there were questions about his character, but were they any worse than questions about Nixon's character when he won in '72? I guess also we could see the beginnings of regional polarization in this election..

There was also the Ross Perot factor possibly keeping Clinton 50%.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 31, 2015, 09:33:06 AM »

1976 Carter: ironically despite this being a winning candidacy Carter was up like 30 points on Ford the summer before the election. Ford closed the gap to 2 points on election day. Many pundits have concluded a few more days campaigning and moderate Ford would likely have won this one.

I was in a poli sci course that semester and the course was almost entirely about that election. The data we saw suggested that Ford peaked the weekend before the election, so had it been held on Sunday instead of Tuesday he might have been retained in office. We also astonished the professor by predicting that the election would be one of the closest of the century, which it was.



I'm inclined to think the race was going to tighten no matter what because there too many things in the incumbent's favor, so I'm hesitant to say Carter '76 was the worst winning campaign.

Wildcard choice for worst winning campaign: Clinton '96. He had peace, prosperity, Democrats had only held the WH for one term, had a washed-up, inept campaigner for an opponent, had a GOP Congress to rail against...and yet still won only by single digits and couldn't crack 50% of the vote. I know there were questions about his character, but were they any worse than questions about Nixon's character when he won in '72? I guess also we could see the beginnings of regional polarization in this election..

There was also the Ross Perot factor possibly keeping Clinton 50%.

Perot could be the reason Clinton didn't get 50%, but not the reason why his margin was only single digits.
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,682
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -0.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2015, 08:52:41 PM »

Taft 1912. Haha, simply because he didn't really want to even be president
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2015, 11:12:20 PM »

Perot 1992 was mismanaged. If he hadn't dropped out so abruptly in the summer, and not have picked such a terrible running mate in Stockdale, voters would have taken him far more seriously. He could've finished 2nd place at least.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2015, 11:12:45 PM »

Taft 1912. Haha, simply because he didn't really want to even be president
The fact he even won two states is incredible.

Well, the fact he won pre-Ezra Benson Utah is incredible. Vermont in those days, however, would elect literally anyone as long as they were a Republican.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2015, 05:44:47 PM »

Perot 1992 was mismanaged. If he hadn't dropped out so abruptly in the summer, and not have picked such a terrible running mate in Stockdale, voters would have taken him far more seriously. He could've finished 2nd place at least.

I agree. And he should have focused on winning EVs. He ran like the US elects its president via the PV
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2015, 05:29:12 PM »
« Edited: April 30, 2015, 05:36:37 PM by mathstatman »

Mondale 1984. Second worst electoral and one of the worst popular defeats in history despite campaigning his tail off. Totally misread the will of most voters (raise taxes, Reagan is a hairbreadth away from launching nuclear war, religious fundamentalists have too much influence, etc.) I respect Mondale and think he would have made a decent President; but he had no idea how to appeal to voters outside his home state and a handful of other areas. Bush 92 would be a strong second choice. He thought sporadic, cliche conservative appeals (shedding tears over Baptist support, saying carjackers should go to jail until they're so old they can't drive, etc.) would win people over, and he ended up sounding humorless and wooden, like a relic of the past.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 11 queries.