Candidates who ran a bad campaign and still won?

[m4567]

Trump is the only one I can think of offhand.

[Pandaguineapig]

Carter 76 maybe, coughed up a huge lead down the stretch. Bush 2000 also made several mistakes

[darklordoftech]

Harding 1920, Clinton 1996

[Pandaguineapig]

Harding 1920, Clinton 1996

Harding may have been a bad President but his "return to normalcy" theme was political brilliance

[Podgy the Bear]

Harding 1920, Clinton 1996

Harding may have been a bad President but his "return to normalcy" theme was political brilliance

In addition to his Front Porch campaign, Harding did go out and visit several states in September and early October 1920--primarily in the Midwest and also New York and Massachusetts.  Calvin Coolidge campaigned more extensively and even hit several states in the South.  Whatever the strategy, it worked beautifully.

[Awesomo]

Pretty much every Republican in the South in the 21st century.

[morgankingsley]

Carter is the only one I can think of. If Dukakis won in 1988, which is not that crazy to imagine, then him as well

[Kool-Aid]

The media helped elect Trump.

[Pericles]

Trump and Carter 1976.

[Podgy the Bear]

Nixon 1968 was not all that great a campaign.  He had a huge lead post-convention and in early October was leading everywhere except the Deep South.  In the end, it was a cliffhanger.   

On the other hand, perhaps the more accurate answer is that Humphrey ran a great race.  He had a divided party, was out of money, and didn't run the most efficient strategy.  But he came very close to getting the election decided in the House (and probably winning from there).

[Mr. Smith]

Trump. Carter '76. Bush Sr. '88.

And depending on your POV, Gore.

Would've been Hillary if she had just gotten the 210,000 in Florida and Arizona.

[dw93]

Carter 1976, Trump 2016, and arguably Bush in 2004.

[Politician]

Trump 16
Carter 76

[coolface1572]

One infamous one is James Buchanan.

[morgankingsley]

arguably Bush in 2004.

What even was his campaign

[dw93]

arguably Bush in 2004.

What even was his campaign

I just think it was bad in a sense that the fundamentals were pretty favorable to him, and while Kerry was one of the stronger "Presidential losers," his campaign wasn't an exceptional one and the election was still really close. Obama had less favorable fundamentals and beat Romney pretty decisively.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush 2000 for sure

[Stranger in a strange land]

Trump 2016 was pretty much a complete dumpster fire of grifting and incompetence

[darklordoftech]

arguably Bush in 2004.

What even was his campaign

The flag and the Twin Towers.

[Vosem]

Examples of candidates who pissed away large leads, or under-performed dramatically:
Bush '04/'00 (led by a lot in the year before the election, 1999/2003, but had basically lost the advantage to a tie in the summer before the race; not sure if these count)
Clinton '92/'96 (bled to third-parties down the stretch in both races)
Carter '76 (pissed away one of the greatest leads ever recorded in the summer of '76; still won by 2 points)
Nixon '68 (went from leading by a landslide to winning by less than a point)

Hard to say about earlier campaigns, since there was a lot less polling in those days. My impression is that before the 1920s elections tended to be much more static, but examples of candidates who were expected to win dramatically but actually won narrowly, based on my general read of the political environment, included Cleveland's last campaign (1892) and Zachary Taylor's election (1848). In general, this feels like a more common campaign type in modern times.

Obama generally held to the advantages he had, and Trump was actively disfavored for most of the race. The most spectacular bad campaign in recent years was that of Mike Dukakis, though, who went from leading by double-digits over the summer to losing by a full 7 points on Election Day. (Carter 1976 lost a similar amount of support, but he still at least eked it out in the end).

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Nixon 68, the southern strategy failed and he almost bungled the election to a Democratic party in civil war over an unpopular incumbent President.

arguably Bush in 2004.

Bush in 2004 was fine. Kerry lead narrowly through the summer but Bush gained a big lead post-convention and held onto it despite Kerry winning the debates.

[sg0508]

Bush did not run a BAD race in '04.  Karl Rove was a genius....the Iraq War, a shaky economy and job market and he won.  Now, you may not have liked "how" Bush won and the tactics, but Rove was smart.

He had to turn John Kerry into an anti-Patriot and also had to get all those conservatives out to the polls with the Pro-Christian, anti-gay and pro moral values rhetoric.  He did JUST that.