Best decisions made by losing campaigns?

[pikachu]

I think, understandably, that a lost of the post-election analysis of elections focuses a lot on what the winning campaign did right and the losing campaign did wrong, but obviously not everything that the winner does is right and the loser does is wrong. I feel like there's a decent amount of analysis about winners' mistakes, so I'm interested if people have anything to point out in the other direction: great decisions made by the losers, notable areas of overperformance, etc.

[brucejoel99]

Arguably Ford's pursuance of a "Rose Garden strategy," in which he sought to portray himself as an experienced leader focused on fulfilling his role as chief executive, since he was able to come from 33 points behind at the time of the conventions to 1 point ahead(!) per Gallup the weekend before the election & ultimately only 2 points behind come Election Day itself.

[Podgy the Bear]

I would agree that Ford 1976 would be the "best" losing campaign in recent history.   No one gave him a chance in July-August 1976.  It was remarkable that he was able to beat back a very strong primary challenge from Ronald Reagan, unify the Republicans, and pick up considerable independent strength to come as close as he did. 

I would say that Kerry 2004 would be next.  The country turned rightward after 9/11 and the 2002 midterm results (and actually, the 2004 results as well) reflected that.  Kerry didn't run a very good personal campaign.  But the Democrats consolidated the base and targeted the swing states well--especially Ohio where Kerry came very close.  I maintain that if it weren't for Amendment 1 (Defense of Marriage) on the same ballot where 62% voted in the affirmative, Kerry would have pulled it out.

[Podgy the Bear]

In some ways, the 2004 result may have been even more remarkable than 1976.  Ford had the power of incumbency and used it to great effect (his campaign ads and posters always presented it as "President Ford '76").  Kerry had no such benefit.

[Mr. Smith]

Not feeding the troll was an excellent move from the Clinton Campaign in '16, also the investments in Texas, Arizona, and Georgia were quite sound.

Humphrey did an amazing job going all-in with The Northeast, using Muskie to keep the anti-war movement from completely bolting, and did well to portray Nixon as a guy willing to say anything to get elected.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Kerry was smart to try and undermine Bush on national security issues...allowing him to almost win the Electoral College (which is what matters).

On other hand, he was bland and so was his campaign, making him the only Democrat in the post-Cold War era to lose the popular vote.

[Gustaf]

One potential metric is how well a campaign did in the electoral college relative to their popular vote margin. By that metric Hughes in 1916 would look pretty good. He almost won the EC in spite of losing the popular vote by a few points. Kerry in 2004 also looks pretty good by that standard.

I agree Ford in 1976 is definitely impressive in how close he came in spite of starting so far behind.

[Sol]

At the risk of being a little narrowly focused on the recent past, the Sanders campaign's strong focus on Latino voters was very smart.

[dw93]

Ford in 1976
Humphrey in 1968
Kerry in 2004 

These are examples of losing campaigns that were well run.

[Orser67]

In 1968, Humphrey almost pulled off a huge comeback in part by putting some distance between himself and LBJ, particularly regarding the Vietnam War.

In 1860, some combination of the three losing candidates created fusion tickets in a few different states in hopes of denying Lincoln the state's electoral votes.

In 1812, DeWitt Clinton and his supporters were smart to focus on NY and PA (the latter by quasi-nominating Jared Ingersoll for VP), even though it didn't quite work out.

Only other campaign that comes to mind is Perot '92, who I think really found the right issues to campaign on for the time period.

[darklordoftech]

Dukakis picking Lloyd Bentsen as a running mate.

[Hope For A New Era]

Well, Sanders 2020 was a very well-run campaign. Probably would have won, too, if not for the "electability" panic that the party got into.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Well, Sanders 2020 was a very well-run campaign. Probably would have won, too, if not for the "electability" panic that the party got into.

Bernie in 2016 would have beat Trump, his favorable and GE numbers were much better than Hillary's. For some reason by 2020, he had lost his mojo, his favorability and GE numbers were mediocre. Some say him changing his emphasis from anti establishment in 2016 to #SOCIALISM in 2020 was the cause.

[Please delete this account. :)]

In my opinion, Smith in 1936, his appeal in northeast might have sped up the democratic trends being experienced by most northeastern urban areas.

[dw93]

Dukakis picking Lloyd Bentsen as a running mate.

This was arguably a mistake as Bentsen overshadowed Dukakis.

Well, Sanders 2020 was a very well-run campaign. Probably would have won, too, if not for the "electability" panic that the party got into.

Bernie in 2016 would have beat Trump, his favorable and GE numbers were much better than Hillary's. For some reason by 2020, he had lost his mojo, his favorability and GE numbers were mediocre. Some say him changing his emphasis from anti establishment in 2016 to #SOCIALISM in 2020 was the cause.

I would say that it was his messaging in 2016 that was much better than it was in 2020. His positions on the issues were hardly different in 2020 than they were in 2016 and healthcare and economic inequality were just as front and center in 20 as they were in '16, the only thing that was different in 2020 was that he went in a more "woke" direction.