Who should have easily won but ended up blowing it?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:57:29 AM
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)
  Who should have easily won but ended up blowing it?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Of the following candidates, which choked harder?
#1
Al Gore 2000
 
#2
John Kerry 2004
 
#3
Mitt Romney 2012
 
#4
None of these had a prayer
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 72

Author Topic: Who should have easily won but ended up blowing it?  (Read 2757 times)
EJ24
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,110
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 09, 2020, 09:01:52 PM »

?
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2020, 09:48:57 PM »

Will probably get "well ackchyually"ied, but none. Al Gore was at least perceived to be the less conservative/evangelical candidate during a very conservative time in American history, John Kerry came after 9/11 which I think still overpowered the unpopularity of the Iraq War in 2004, and the GOP was too connoted with the hated policies of the Bush era in 2012. However, I did expect Romney to win Florida at least.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2020, 10:18:04 PM »

All three of them could've won in the respective years that they ran in. That said, Kerry was dealt the most difficult circumstances to run in of the three candidates and managed to make it a close race, so on balance he was, if not the best candidate, certainly the best campaigner of the three.

In 2012 the fundamentals weren't very favorable to Obama, but the memory of George W. Bush as well as overreach and downright hostility (and a bit of racism) by the TEA Party types after 2010 wasn't going to make a clear and easy path for a Republican victory either. Romney however ran a laughably bad campaign so what should've been a close election that went either way ended up being a pretty decisive Obama victory.

Gore had favorable fundamentals (Peace, Prosperity) while running as the sitting VP, but stupidly ran away from that and picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate in the name of distancing himself from Bill Clinton's personal indiscretions, thus giving Dubya's calls to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" traction. It wasn't all bad though as polling had Gore down in the polls by a pretty wide margin early in the general election campaign and he managed to close the gap enough to make it close.

So I guess the answer is Gore, but a good case could be made for Romney based on the fact that even in 2012 unemployment was north of 8% for most of that year, GDP growth was weak, and Obamacare was still unpopular.
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,729


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2020, 10:59:21 PM »

Al Gore didn't choke, he was robbed. Kerry had the most difficult circumstance but still came close. Therefore it has to be Romney.



The real answer here though is obviously Hillary Clinton. Even after running a terrible campaign and becoming if anything even more unpopular with the American public than she already had been, she still won the popular vote, with only a few thousand votes in three states separating her from the electoral vote. She literally had the easiest opponent since McGovern. Imagine if she had been even slightly less horrible?
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2020, 11:48:39 PM »

Kerry because Bush brushed off warnings about terrorism and let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora.
Logged
MARGINS6729
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 385
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2020, 12:38:39 AM »

Out of these three, Romney but without a doubt it's Hillary who should have easily won but ended up blowing it. A lot of the fundamentals were in the GOP's favor but Trump wasn't unbeatable. If her campaign had not relied so much on analytics and didn't neglect persuasion efforts she probably would have won.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2020, 06:39:37 PM »

Dukakis overall.

Gore of these.

At least Hillary had good reason to aim for a popular vote margin, I mean think about exactly what the narrative would've been if let's say:

A. Arizona flips and Florida holds, but the Midwest is a blowout for Trump.

or

B. Texas doesn't swing so harshly and Hillary holds The Rust Belt.

Can you imagine the implications of a post-Tea Party Era Republican taking the popular vote but not the EC? The truth is, Hillary needed to win on all counts decisively. What's worse, Brexit won that year, and the far-right was generally on the rise.

And Romney was running against the bin Laden catcher and bailouter, but he really could've won that despite the odds. Kerry was pretty much always doomed, and it's remarkable he got it to Ohio at all.

Gore has none of those excuses at all.
Logged
KYRockefeller
Rookie
**
Posts: 204


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2020, 04:33:49 PM »

Dukakis would be a good pick for this as he just imploded after the spring in 1988.

Of the major choices, though, I'd pick Gore because he had more advantages than the other candidates.  Clinton was popular despite the Lewinsky scandal, economy hadn't quite entered the decline it would have throughout much of the 2000s (although the soft spots were starting to get exposed), and America wasn't under threat from a foreign menace.  Gore had a bad first debate from a perception standpoint, he didn't enlist Clinton's support in places like Tennessee or Arkansas, and lost.  The Liebermann pick probably hurt more than it helped too.

I'll always say Kerry would've won if he picked Dick Gephardt at the nominee.  I think that shifts enough labor votes in Ohio.

I really wanted Romney to win.  Biggest electoral disappointment of my lifetime because I think he would've been a good president.  However, the campaign didn't make a good VP pick, didn't keep the momentum going from a good first debate, and it let the Obama campaign define him as an out of touch plutocrat - which the 47% comment didn't help (an image that the Netflix doc on Romney shifted some views about him, though).  Also, the GOP base was never fired up about Romney and they had a rotating set of challengers before finally caving in and nominating him (Bachmann, Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, Newt Gingrich, and then Rick Santorum).  Romney did very little to solidify that part of the GOP coalition and that didn't do anything for his election efforts.
Logged
TheTide
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,593
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 15, 2020, 07:53:22 AM »

Kerry did well to keep it as close as it was. Romney was always going to be the underdog against s campaigner like Obama but really should have kept Obama below 300 ECVs. Gore, on the other hand, really ought to have won.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 15, 2020, 08:28:33 AM »
« Edited: August 15, 2020, 08:34:40 AM by Georgia Democrat in 2020 »

You had to have been there in 2000 to see what it was all about.  People today think that Gore should have easily won for several reasons (Clinton's popularity, strong economy) and he blew it.  

But Clinton's popularity post-impeachment and Senate trial took a hit in the more conservative areas that he had won in 1992 and 1996.  The South and Midwest reflected those swings away from the Democrats in 2000.  In those areas, Bush was looked as the moral salvation in response to the repugnance of the Clinton years.   And the perception of the economy at that time was not all that strong.  The stock market was taking big hits from the dot com bubble that had burst (and this continued for a while and did indicate a looming recession which happened in 2001).  

Gore was running behind Bush for most of 1999 and much of the 2000 campaign--which caused many to think that Gore would lose the popular vote but could pull it out in the electoral college (!!!).  Finally, the Ralph Nader effect reared its very ugly head in places that had gone solidly for Clinton in the previous two election cycles.  Add to this, the normal pendulum shift away from the party in power--it is clearly difficult to win a third term in a row.

To their credit, the Gore campaign understood that the Democrats had accumulated a significant electoral vote edge from 1992 and 1996.  They focused on the states they thought that they could hold.    And they came close to winning the big state trifecta (PA, MI, FL) and the Nader states (all except NH--FL wasn't really considered a Nader state even though 538 votes out of nearly 100,000 could have made the difference).  He retained 48 percent of the popular vote (Clinton in 1996 got 49).

Gore's campaign was full of blunders and tactical mistakes (terrible response to the Elian Gonzalez episode, selection of the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate, didn't allow Clinton to campaign in FL, didn't focus hard enough in TN or WV, wrote off OH a month before the election when he ended up losing it by only 4 points).  And the 36 day post-election process by Gore et al is another matter altogether.  But looking back after 20 years, it's really amazing that Al Gore came as close as he did.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 15, 2020, 05:25:00 PM »

You had to have been there in 2000 to see what it was all about.  People today think that Gore should have easily won for several reasons (Clinton's popularity, strong economy) and he blew it.  

But Clinton's popularity post-impeachment and Senate trial took a hit in the more conservative areas that he had won in 1992 and 1996.  The South and Midwest reflected those swings away from the Democrats in 2000.  In those areas, Bush was looked as the moral salvation in response to the repugnance of the Clinton years.   And the perception of the economy at that time was not all that strong.  The stock market was taking big hits from the dot com bubble that had burst (and this continued for a while and did indicate a looming recession which happened in 2001).  

Gore was running behind Bush for most of 1999 and much of the 2000 campaign--which caused many to think that Gore would lose the popular vote but could pull it out in the electoral college (!!!).  Finally, the Ralph Nader effect reared its very ugly head in places that had gone solidly for Clinton in the previous two election cycles.  Add to this, the normal pendulum shift away from the party in power--it is clearly difficult to win a third term in a row.

To their credit, the Gore campaign understood that the Democrats had accumulated a significant electoral vote edge from 1992 and 1996.  They focused on the states they thought that they could hold.    And they came close to winning the big state trifecta (PA, MI, FL) and the Nader states (all except NH--FL wasn't really considered a Nader state even though 538 votes out of nearly 100,000 could have made the difference).  He retained 48 percent of the popular vote (Clinton in 1996 got 49).

Gore's campaign was full of blunders and tactical mistakes (terrible response to the Elian Gonzalez episode, selection of the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate, didn't allow Clinton to campaign in FL, didn't focus hard enough in TN or WV, wrote off OH a month before the election when he ended up losing it by only 4 points).  And the 36 day post-election process by Gore et al is another matter altogether.  But looking back after 20 years, it's really amazing that Al Gore came as close as he did.

With that said, who do you think should've won but blew it?
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 15, 2020, 10:07:33 PM »

You had to have been there in 2000 to see what it was all about.  People today think that Gore should have easily won for several reasons (Clinton's popularity, strong economy) and he blew it.  

But Clinton's popularity post-impeachment and Senate trial took a hit in the more conservative areas that he had won in 1992 and 1996.  The South and Midwest reflected those swings away from the Democrats in 2000.  In those areas, Bush was looked as the moral salvation in response to the repugnance of the Clinton years.   And the perception of the economy at that time was not all that strong.  The stock market was taking big hits from the dot com bubble that had burst (and this continued for a while and did indicate a looming recession which happened in 2001).  

Gore was running behind Bush for most of 1999 and much of the 2000 campaign--which caused many to think that Gore would lose the popular vote but could pull it out in the electoral college (!!!).  Finally, the Ralph Nader effect reared its very ugly head in places that had gone solidly for Clinton in the previous two election cycles.  Add to this, the normal pendulum shift away from the party in power--it is clearly difficult to win a third term in a row.

To their credit, the Gore campaign understood that the Democrats had accumulated a significant electoral vote edge from 1992 and 1996.  They focused on the states they thought that they could hold.    And they came close to winning the big state trifecta (PA, MI, FL) and the Nader states (all except NH--FL wasn't really considered a Nader state even though 538 votes out of nearly 100,000 could have made the difference).  He retained 48 percent of the popular vote (Clinton in 1996 got 49).

Gore's campaign was full of blunders and tactical mistakes (terrible response to the Elian Gonzalez episode, selection of the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate, didn't allow Clinton to campaign in FL, didn't focus hard enough in TN or WV, wrote off OH a month before the election when he ended up losing it by only 4 points).  And the 36 day post-election process by Gore et al is another matter altogether.  But looking back after 20 years, it's really amazing that Al Gore came as close as he did.

With that said, who do you think should've won but blew it?

I voted "None of these".  I think there have been others in the past 100+ years: of course Dewey in 1948 and probably Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.

But of this group, I believe that Kerry and Gore did better than expected.  Romney did no better than meet expectations or perhaps underperformed somewhat.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,280
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2020, 08:55:44 AM »

You had to have been there in 2000 to see what it was all about.  People today think that Gore should have easily won for several reasons (Clinton's popularity, strong economy) and he blew it.  

But Clinton's popularity post-impeachment and Senate trial took a hit in the more conservative areas that he had won in 1992 and 1996.  The South and Midwest reflected those swings away from the Democrats in 2000.  In those areas, Bush was looked as the moral salvation in response to the repugnance of the Clinton years.   And the perception of the economy at that time was not all that strong.  The stock market was taking big hits from the dot com bubble that had burst (and this continued for a while and did indicate a looming recession which happened in 2001).  

Gore was running behind Bush for most of 1999 and much of the 2000 campaign--which caused many to think that Gore would lose the popular vote but could pull it out in the electoral college (!!!).  Finally, the Ralph Nader effect reared its very ugly head in places that had gone solidly for Clinton in the previous two election cycles.  Add to this, the normal pendulum shift away from the party in power--it is clearly difficult to win a third term in a row.

To their credit, the Gore campaign understood that the Democrats had accumulated a significant electoral vote edge from 1992 and 1996.  They focused on the states they thought that they could hold.    And they came close to winning the big state trifecta (PA, MI, FL) and the Nader states (all except NH--FL wasn't really considered a Nader state even though 538 votes out of nearly 100,000 could have made the difference).  He retained 48 percent of the popular vote (Clinton in 1996 got 49).

Gore's campaign was full of blunders and tactical mistakes (terrible response to the Elian Gonzalez episode, selection of the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate, didn't allow Clinton to campaign in FL, didn't focus hard enough in TN or WV, wrote off OH a month before the election when he ended up losing it by only 4 points).  And the 36 day post-election process by Gore et al is another matter altogether.  But looking back after 20 years, it's really amazing that Al Gore came as close as he did.

With that said, who do you think should've won but blew it?

I voted "None of these".  I think there have been others in the past 100+ years: of course Dewey in 1948 and probably Charles Evans Hughes in 1916.

But of this group, I believe that Kerry and Gore did better than expected.  Romney did no better than meet expectations or perhaps underperformed somewhat.

I was not even born in 2000 and I take you at your word for what you wrote before, but I still voted Gore because I interpreted this as "who underperformed the fundamentals" not "who did better than people expected".
What you say suggests to me not that Bush was the one who almost blew it, but that the Administration blew it long before year 2000 even started and had to play offense for no reason at all but only because the Lewinsky scandal unduly got everyone crazy. I don't know if it makes sense.
It's also true that Nixon lost in 1960 under very similar circumstances, so probably the party-in-power-fatigue is very real.


By the way, why would you say that Hughes blew it in 1916?
It's interesting, that election is almost never talked about, neither here nor in other media.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,803
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2020, 10:09:20 AM »

Probably Al Gore in 2000 and maybe John Kerry in 2004, though Geroge W. Bush was in a pretty strong position in 2004 and might have underperformed in retrospect. Not counting the elections listed, then Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, Thomas Dewey in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1960, and Hillary Clinton in 2016 could be included as well.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2020, 01:01:33 PM »

To Battista's comments and questions:

1) I would say that Monicagate and the Clinton transgressions had significant impact on what happened in the 2000 election and cycles to come.  I often wonder what would have happened if Clinton had resigned in 1998--allowing Gore to be president and perhaps allowing him to consolidate his power with possible re-election in 2000 (and even in 2004).  I also wonder if 9/11 would have happened.

2) Regarding Hughes and the 1916 election--the Republicans were the majority party at that time and only lost in 1912 because of the Old Guard/Progressive Republican split.  The Republicans made a significant comeback in the 1914 elections and were dominant in the large EV states and the Northeast.  Woodrow Wilson did have unified Democratic support and did have rural and German-American support that year (which made him quite strong in much of the Midwest).

It's well documented that Hughes lost California (and therefore the election) because he supposedly snubbed Governor Hiram Johnson (who was TR's running mate in 1912 and was running for the Senate that year).  Johnson was quite popular in the state (and continued to be so until he died in 1945) and he won the Senate by nearly 300,000 votes (Hughes lost by 4,000 out a million).

Had Hughes pulled it out in California, he would have had an electoral vote majority despite losing the popular vote by over 3 points.  Additionally, he should have won normally Republican Ohio but antiwar sentiment swung the rural population behind Wilson. 

I wouldn't say Hughes blew it in 1916 (the way I think Dewey in 1948 and Hillary in 2016 did), but he had several advantages to win and did not capitalize on them.
Logged
buritobr
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2020, 05:24:20 PM »

Of course Hillary 2016. When Trump decided to be candidate in August 2015 and started to lead the primary polls, the media told "this entuasiasm will end after some weeks". But he was still leading the polls when the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries took place. When Trump started to win, the media told "Trump doesn't have >50%, and all the anti-Trump republicans will join in a single candidate". When Trump became the nominee, the media told "Hillary will win".
But in this list, Gore 2000, because the other 2 options had elections in which presidents were running for reelection.
However, we should remember that there were Bush vs Gore polls since late 1998, after the midterms. During 2 years, Bush led the popular vote. Only some days after the DNC Gore led the popular vote. If you observe only the polls, Gore's victory in the popular vote was a surprise.
Logged
One Term Floridian
swamiG
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,042


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2020, 10:04:33 AM »

I think they all had a shot, ranked Gore > Kerry >> Romney.

But none of them ever had a serious shot at winning “easily”
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2020, 11:00:53 AM »

There's only one candidate in recent memory who should've "easily won but ended up blowing it," & it's not any of the listed candidates in this poll.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2020, 12:21:26 PM »

There's only one candidate in recent memory who should've "easily won but ended up blowing it," & it's not any of the listed candidates in this poll.

HRC?
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,280
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2020, 12:43:56 PM »

To Battista's comments and questions:

1) I would say that Monicagate and the Clinton transgressions had significant impact on what happened in the 2000 election and cycles to come.  I often wonder what would have happened if Clinton had resigned in 1998--allowing Gore to be president and perhaps allowing him to consolidate his power with possible re-election in 2000 (and even in 2004).  I also wonder if 9/11 would have happened.

2) Regarding Hughes and the 1916 election--the Republicans were the majority party at that time and only lost in 1912 because of the Old Guard/Progressive Republican split.  The Republicans made a significant comeback in the 1914 elections and were dominant in the large EV states and the Northeast.  Woodrow Wilson did have unified Democratic support and did have rural and German-American support that year (which made him quite strong in much of the Midwest).

It's well documented that Hughes lost California (and therefore the election) because he supposedly snubbed Governor Hiram Johnson (who was TR's running mate in 1912 and was running for the Senate that year).  Johnson was quite popular in the state (and continued to be so until he died in 1945) and he won the Senate by nearly 300,000 votes (Hughes lost by 4,000 out a million).

Had Hughes pulled it out in California, he would have had an electoral vote majority despite losing the popular vote by over 3 points.  Additionally, he should have won normally Republican Ohio but antiwar sentiment swung the rural population behind Wilson. 

I wouldn't say Hughes blew it in 1916 (the way I think Dewey in 1948 and Hillary in 2016 did), but he had several advantages to win and did not capitalize on them.

I understand. Interesting analysis re: 1916

P. S. Why didn't you just quote my post?
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,449
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2020, 12:51:13 PM »

There's only one candidate in recent memory who should've "easily won but ended up blowing it," & it's not any of the listed candidates in this poll.

HRC?

Yes, obviously.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2020, 02:49:10 PM »
« Edited: August 17, 2020, 02:56:44 PM by Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More »

From my perspective, in 1999-2000, I just thought that people were looking for someone else to give it a shot though things were going really well. As a 15 year old kid in 2000, that's how I looked at it.

When I was 18, I thought people just thought Bush was dumb, the economy was struggling, though I thought getting geopolitical closure in Iraq was important.  When I trolled a Republican classmate in current events class, she just replied on the quiz I made for her, "who is running in 2004?", and she responded "it doesn't matter. They are all going to lose." Now I understand why but all I thought that all Kerry had to do is solidify all the Gore and Nader voters and he wins. It was a rude awakening when Kerry struggled throughout the night, getting killed in Florida and barely coming from behind in the Great Lakes. Up until about midnight, I thought he had a chance because Nevada, New Mexico, and Iowa looked promising and he was still ahead in Ohio. The first hot take was that he mobilized a lot of voters around abortion but the exit polls showed that a lot of Bush voters who turned out were pro-choice. Then maybe I thought it was gays but eventually that fell by the wayside when I saw also that people were ready to at least compromise on the gay thing. Personally, I just thought the economy was a lot better than I gave it credit for (I was in college and couldn't find a part-time job until the February after the election). After all, people with only an Associate's degree were buying nice houses on TV and I eventually was able to buy a new car in college. Between that and people not quite moved on the Abu Ghraib thing, I think Bush got it.


I bet a lot of 19 year old Republicans probably saw 2012 the way I saw 2004 even though Kerry was ahead between clinching the nomination and roughly now. Romney was able to tie after the first debate.

One other thing was particularly extreme about Kerry losing was how badly the Democrats did downballot. They lost 4 seats in the Senate and 6 seats in the House. I really don't blame Bush for basically trying to phase out social security like he did after the election. And I imagine that's what the major issue next year will be in Trump's next term if he wins the house:

- Cancel Social Security to pay for a "working class" tax cut
- Graham-Cassidy or nothing if the ACA is overruled.
- Re-implement the 1986 tax code
Logged
GeorgeBFree
Npard23
Rookie
**
Posts: 55
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2020, 11:57:02 AM »

I don't know why people thought Romney had a chance to win. He was running against a relatively popular incumbent and he was in no mans land for popular appeal (he was unpopular with conservatives in his own party as being too left and by general public for working in LBO industry). Also his only path to victory was Bush 04 map as the campaign had no new policy ideas to expand into the "blue wall" at the time.

I think the biggest choke was Perot in '92 blowing a chance at winning by dropping out mid campaign.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2020, 05:11:40 PM »

The question ask that we decide which losing candidate "blew it," but I would actually argue that Clinton in 1996 tanked the most relative to circumstances even though he won. A major speculative bubble forming, no foreign policy crises or controversies and a loathed right-wing House Speaker all resulting in him polling constant double-digit leads... and he gets just 49% of the vote. And turnout was the worst in any presidential election ever. And the Republican Party, seemingly on the run after the government shutdown, maintained their majority in the House and gained in the Senate? 1996 was about as pyrrhic a victory as you can get.

It's not hard to see why. Clinton's reelection campaign, shaped by quack-pollster Mark Penn, was probably the most banal in American history. He blew cash on ads about the V-Chip and school uniforms! Even more ridiculous, DNC leader Donald Fowler ordered that no funds would go into congressional races or voter registration because it would take cash from Clinton! No wonder the GOP held Congress (which, ironically, guaranteed his impeachment).
Logged
SenatorCouzens
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 267
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2020, 01:38:02 AM »

I think they all had a shot, ranked Gore > Kerry >> Romney.

But none of them ever had a serious shot at winning “easily”

Absolutely!
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 0.074 seconds with 14 queries.