Subpar Campaigns that WON

[pragmatic liberal]

Although the standard is often disregarded in state and local races, historians and pundits tend to regard any winning presidential campaign as having been "good" and any losing presidential campaign as "bad." I think this is often simplistic; who wins a presidential race often has as much (if not more) to do with the political/social/economic climate than the actions of the candidate him or herself. For example, if an incumbent president has a 30% approval rating, the challenger WILL almost certainly win, regardless of how weak the campaign is. However, a stronger incumbent with a 52% approval rating will be much harder to dislodge, even against a strong campaign.

So what are some subpar campaigns that still managed to win?

A couple come to mind - Carter in '76, Reagan in '80, and Bush in '00. I say Carter because he came out of the primary campaign with a 33-point lead and nearly blew it with embarrassing public statements, vagueness, and general sloppiness. Ultimately he eked out a narrow 2-point win over Ford two years after Watergate. It should never have even been close.

Others can correct me on Reagan if I am wrong, but in spite of Reagan's electoral college landslide, he seems to me to have underperformed relative to where he (or another Republican) could have. Carter's approval ratings were mired in the '30s; a more moderate Republican could probably have won by 20 points, instead of the 9 points that Reagan won by. Reagan's campaign also never actually took a consistent lead in polling until the race's final days and Carter lead for several months. Reagan's campaign even had a big shakeup in September of 1980, usually a sign of a campaign in distress.

Bush in 2000 failed to really energize voters, looked lost and unfocused throughout the first stretch of the fall campaign, addressed no major issues and appeared vacuous and then in the final week of the campaign blew a 5-point lead such that they lost the popular vote and only won the electoral vote by their fingertips under questionable circumstances.

Any thoughts?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, welcome to the forum pl.

Second, lets look at each of the elections where you label the winning candidate's campaign "sub-par."

The 1976 general election campaign was sub-par not so much because thevictory margin differed in actual result from the opinion polls at the time of his nomination as because it was rather aimless.  Carter tried to be all things to all people, lacked the "vision thing" and won mainly because people didn't want Ford elected to office.

The Reagan general election campaign on the other hand was very effective. Not only did he win by a margin greater than the media public opinion polls predicted, but he brought a Republican Senate into office with him.

The 2000 election is the largely unsung story of the best run get out the vote effort by the Democrat party on a national basis since FDR.  Rendell and associates turned what should have been a clear victory for Bush into a very close election.

[WalterMitty]

First, welcome to the forum pl.

Second, lets look at each of the elections where you label the winning candidate's campaign "sub-par."

The 1976 general election campaign was sub-par not so much because thevictory margin differed in actual result from the opinion polls at the time of his nomination as because it was rather aimless.  Carter tried to be all things to all people, lacked the "vision thing" and won mainly because people didn't want Ford elected to office.

The Reagan general election campaign on the other hand was very effective. Not only did he win by a margin greater than the media public opinion polls predicted, but he brought a Republican Senate into office with him.

The 2000 election is the largely unsung story of the best run get out the vote effort by the Democrat party on a national basis since FDR.  Rendell and associates turned what should have been a clear victory for Bush into a very close election.

donna brazille deserves credit for getting out the vote for gore.

[bullmoose88]

Rendell and associates turned what should have been a clear victory for Bush into a very close election.

I don't think Rendell's ever done a poor job at something. He made Philly respectable to us suburbanites, although his successor hasn't followed up on it, he's done a pretty good job with the commonwealth too.

[Sam Spade]

I disagree.  Reagan in 1980 was one of the smartest campaigns I've seen.  It was also helped by Carter's real incompetance in campaigning, something which showed itself towards the end of 1976. 

You say that Carter's approval ratings were in the mid-30s, so Reagan should have beaten him by 20%.  That is clearly wrong.  Even when approval ratings are low for incumbents, there are generally always a certain amount who will vote for their candidate simply because of party ID.  For example, Bush 41 was mired in the mid to upper 30s in approval rating throughout most of the 1992 campaign and still only lost by 5.5%.

If you want another subpar campaign that won, the best example IMO is Nixon 1968.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I disagree.  Reagan in 1980 was one of the smartest campaigns I've seen.  It was also helped by Carter's real incompetance in campaigning, something which showed itself towards the end of 1976. 

You say that Carter's approval ratings were in the mid-30s, so Reagan should have beaten him by 20%.  That is clearly wrong.  Even when approval ratings are low for incumbents, there are generally always a certain amount who will vote for their candidate simply because of party ID.  For example, Bush 41 was mired in the mid to upper 30s in approval rating throughout most of the 1992 campaign and still only lost by 5.5%.

If you want another subpar campaign that won, the best example IMO is Nixon 1968.

Nixon always reportedly said that if the election had been held a week later Humphrey would have won.  Humphrey's began very badly but he picked up towards the end and lost very narrowly; in fact wasn't 1968 closer than 1960?  I think that haunted Nixon which was why he was determined to win decisively in 1972.

[Gustaf]

Actually, given that Nixon's 1972 campaign turned an assured victory into a disgraceful resignation, one could consider that sub-par.

Beyond that, Carter in 1976 is an obvious example. I agree on Bush 2000 too.

[Sam Spade]

I disagree.  Reagan in 1980 was one of the smartest campaigns I've seen.  It was also helped by Carter's real incompetance in campaigning, something which showed itself towards the end of 1976. 

You say that Carter's approval ratings were in the mid-30s, so Reagan should have beaten him by 20%.  That is clearly wrong.  Even when approval ratings are low for incumbents, there are generally always a certain amount who will vote for their candidate simply because of party ID.  For example, Bush 41 was mired in the mid to upper 30s in approval rating throughout most of the 1992 campaign and still only lost by 5.5%.

If you want another subpar campaign that won, the best example IMO is Nixon 1968.

Nixon always reportedly said that if the election had been held a week later Humphrey would have won.  Humphrey's began very badly but he picked up towards the end and lost very narrowly; in fact wasn't 1968 closer than 1960?  I think that haunted Nixon which was why he was determined to win decisively in 1972.

Nixon wasn't convincing anyone with his Kerry-like "I have a plan to get us out of Vietnam" and then refusing to tell the voters what his plan was.  That's what nearly cost him that election.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, welcome to the forum pl.

Second, lets look at each of the elections where you label the winning candidate's campaign "sub-par."

The 1976 general election campaign was sub-par not so much because thevictory margin differed in actual result from the opinion polls at the time of his nomination as because it was rather aimless.  Carter tried to be all things to all people, lacked the "vision thing" and won mainly because people didn't want Ford elected to office.

The Reagan general election campaign on the other hand was very effective. Not only did he win by a margin greater than the media public opinion polls predicted, but he brought a Republican Senate into office with him.

The 2000 election is the largely unsung story of the best run get out the vote effort by the Democrat party on a national basis since FDR.  Rendell and associates turned what should have been a clear victory for Bush into a very close election.

donna brazille deserves credit for getting out the vote for gore.

True.  Brazille and Rendell collaborated on the FOTB effort.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I disagree.  Reagan in 1980 was one of the smartest campaigns I've seen.  It was also helped by Carter's real incompetance in campaigning, something which showed itself towards the end of 1976. 

You say that Carter's approval ratings were in the mid-30s, so Reagan should have beaten him by 20%.  That is clearly wrong.  Even when approval ratings are low for incumbents, there are generally always a certain amount who will vote for their candidate simply because of party ID.  For example, Bush 41 was mired in the mid to upper 30s in approval rating throughout most of the 1992 campaign and still only lost by 5.5%.

If you want another subpar campaign that won, the best example IMO is Nixon 1968.

Nixon always reportedly said that if the election had been held a week later Humphrey would have won.  Humphrey's began very badly but he picked up towards the end and lost very narrowly; in fact wasn't 1968 closer than 1960?  I think that haunted Nixon which was why he was determined to win decisively in 1972.

Nixon wasn't convincing anyone with his Kerry-like "I have a plan to get us out of Vietnam" and then refusing to tell the voters what his plan was.  That's what nearly cost him that election.

But what won him it was his sabotaging of the Paris Peace talks which actually did have a purpose in the ending the war in Vietnam. Funny that...

[johnpressman]

I believe Nixon ran a BRILLIANT campaign in 1968, a campaign that was run exactly opposite to the 1960
race.  Nixon remained low-key with scripted "town meeting" type TV commercials showing him in a calm and relaxed manner, talking with "supporters".  His 1960 campaign was a one man show where he drove himself to exhaustion, travelling to in all 50 states.

I agree with the concept that, had the election been held a week later, Humphrey would have won. I was at the rally in Madison Square Garden on  Halloween when the bombing halt in Vietnam was announced to the crowd by former Governor Dewey.  This "October Surprise" made an easy victory by Nixon into a close race.  Humphrey was slipping behind Wallace until Gen. Curtis Lemay's remarks derailed the Wllace campaign.   The stage was set for Nixon in 1968, just as it was for Carter in 1976 and Reagan in 1980.

[PBrunsel]

I would say that Cleveland’s 1884 Campaign was quite sub par, but it still won. He did nothing for damage control on the Illegitimate Child Scandal (except fess up to it) and he was going to lose New York, the state hen governed, if not for the “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” gaffe by the Blaine Campaign. Had Blaine ran a slightly better race in 1884, Cleveland would have lost.

Taft in 1908 was another great example. His campaign was lacking energy and organization, which Bryan had. Bryan was simply his own worse enemy. He tracked down the road to Socialism, thus the sub par Taft Campaign could win in 1908. Bryan had a better campaign machine by far, and thus he nearly won the election. A 5-10% shift in several Middle West and Western states would have secured Bryan a win. Taft, with the backing of  the popular President Teddy Roosevelt, should have easily won.

Warren G. Harding’s 1920 Campaign was also not that great. His “return to normalcy” campaign was just a platitude. Had the Democrats not been in such disarray in 1920, the intelligent Governor Cox would have won in 1920. How would we respond to a president name “Cox” however?

[Dr. Cynic]

I would say that Cleveland’s 1884 Campaign was quite sub par, but it still won. He did nothing for damage control on the Illegitimate Child Scandal (except fess up to it) and he was going to lose New York, the state hen governed, if not for the “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” gaffe by the Blaine Campaign. Had Blaine ran a slightly better race in 1884, Cleveland would have lost.

Taft in 1908 was another great example. His campaign was lacking energy and organization, which Bryan had. Bryan was simply his own worse enemy. He tracked down the road to Socialism, thus the sub par Taft Campaign could win in 1908. Bryan had a better campaign machine by far, and thus he nearly won the election. A 5-10% shift in several Middle West and Western states would have secured Bryan a win. Taft, with the backing of  the popular President Teddy Roosevelt, should have easily won.

Warren G. Harding’s 1920 Campaign was also not that great. His “return to normalcy” campaign was just a platitude. Had the Democrats not been in such disarray in 1920, the intelligent Governor Cox would have won in 1920. How would we respond to a president name “Cox” however?

Actually, If I recall one of my books correctly, it seemed as though the country was indeed ready to accept Bryan, as he had tempered his silver views, and many were considering him... He even began a debate by mail with Theodore Roosevelt.

However, one speech... Just one... wrecked his chances forever. He mentioned advocating government ownership of railroads (Which today, we don't even flinch at it). At the time it was downright socialist to say that and his campaign was destroyed...

[WalterMitty]

i would say bush 2000, but the question dealt with campaigns that won.

[Gabu]

How would we respond to a president name “Cox” however?

Probably the same way we currently respond to a president named "Bush" or a vice president named "Dick".