Rank Trump’s general election campaign with other republican nominees since 1992

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would go

1. Bush 2000
2. Trump 2016
3. Bush 2004
4. McCain 2008(without Lehman this could have been number 1 but he did falter after that)
5. Trump 2024
6. Trump 2020
7. Dole 1996
8. Romney 2012
9. Bush 1992

[Red Willow]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

[OSR stands with Israel]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

Few questions :

How is Trump 2024 higher than Trump 2016. Hillary Clinton was succeeding a popular Democratic  president and was the wife of a popular Democratic president as well while this time Kamala is succeeding and is the vice president to an unpopular democratic president . If 2016 Trump was the nominee this time , Trump very much could have won 320+ EV especially given the fact he has far more institutional support this time as well .


Also how is Bush 2004 higher than Bush 2000. Bush in 2000 won despite the fact the democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President at a time when 67% of people approved of the president , 70%+ approved of the economy and was relatively a very peaceful time . There is no way the incumbent party should have lost that election given the fundamentals and they still did . In the other hand in 2004 , Bush was a wartime president who rarely was criticized by the media for 2.5 years after 9/11 , and yet it was a close election when it should have been a clear win for him . Bush winning in 2000 was absolutely more impressive than him winning in 2004

How is Romney 2012 more impressive than McCain 2008. Romney only picked up the two states McCain lost barely and failed to pick up the state McCain lost by 2-3 points so I can’t say how his campaign was more impressive. McCain faced insanely bad fundamentals for a being the nominee of an incumbent party and despite that he was tied with Obama in the polls pre Lehman .

[Mr. Third-Wayist]

1.Bush 2004
2.Bush 2000
3.Trump 2016
4.McCain 2008
5.Dole 1996
6.Trump 2024
7.Bush 1992
8.Romney 2012
9.Trump 2020

[Mr. Smith]

1. G.W. Bush 2000
2. Trump 2016
3. G.W. Bush 2004
4. McCain
4.5 -Trump 2024- (if he wins)
5. Romney
6. Dole
7. Trump 2020
7.5. -Trump 2024- (if he loses)
8. G.H.W. Bush 1992

[Ferguson97]

Ask me again after November 5.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ask me again after November 5.

Do you agree with the rest of my ranking

[Podgy the Bear]

I would definitely not put Bush 2000 at the top. 

W came out of the 1998 Texas gubernatorial re-election as the likely Republican presidential nominee for 2000 and the mild favorite for the general.  Al Gore was simply not popular-- he was a fool not to use Clinton's popularity to his benefit.  Bush was running 3-4 points ahead of Gore in summer 2000 and much of October as well.  Add the Nader effect, and it should have been an fairly easy win for Bush.

But Bush got super cocky--going to California a week before the election when it was obvious he had no chance and largely leaving Florida to his brother.  And then the DUI arrest revelation a week before Election Day cost him votes.  He didn't run a good campaign but again had the fortune to run against an unlikeable Al Gore and have the Ralph Nader presence.  He almost blew it and became President thanks to a Republican machine--and James Baker who was superfocused on getting his friend's son to the presidency in the 36 days leading to Bush v Gore.

[Podgy the Bear]

Trump 2016 is the clear winner here.  He was totally underestimated for the Republican nomination and then the general, and his victory remains the biggest electoral upset. 

For whatever reason, he connects with a substantial segment of the electorate.   And perhaps it will work again this time.

[Fascism Must Be Defeated]

Not ranking Bush Sr., Dole, and W's first election because I don't really know them well enough.

Bush 2004
Trump 2020 (he turned what could have been a landslide defeat into a narrower one)
Trump 2016
McCain 2008
Trump 2024 (there was a window at several points for Trump to totally run away with the election, but he seems to have missed it, even if he has a clean sweep of swing states)
Romney 2012

[Red Willow]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

Few questions :

How is Trump 2024 higher than Trump 2016. Hillary Clinton was succeeding a popular Democratic  president and was the wife of a popular Democratic president as well while this time Kamala is succeeding and is the vice president to an unpopular democratic president . If 2016 Trump was the nominee this time , Trump very much could have won 320+ EV especially given the fact he has far more institutional support this time as well .


Also how is Bush 2004 higher than Bush 2000. Bush in 2000 won despite the fact the democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President at a time when 67% of people approved of the president , 70%+ approved of the economy and was relatively a very peaceful time . There is no way the incumbent party should have lost that election given the fundamentals and they still did . In the other hand in 2004 , Bush was a wartime president who rarely was criticized by the media for 2.5 years after 9/11 , and yet it was a close election when it should have been a clear win for him . Bush winning in 2000 was absolutely more impressive than him winning in 2004

How is Romney 2012 more impressive than McCain 2008. Romney only picked up the two states McCain lost barely and failed to pick up the state McCain lost by 2-3 points so I can’t say how his campaign was more impressive. McCain faced insanely bad fundamentals for a being the nominee of an incumbent party and despite that he was tied with Obama in the polls pre Lehman .

I'm ranking them on how effective I think their messaging was, and I don't use the final results as the sole criteria for that. Sometimes candidates can run a flawless campaign but get screwed by events out of their control. On the other hand some candidates can run an awful campaign but get lucky.

2000-Yes Clinton and the economy were popular in 2000, but in prosperous times people vote on more on vibes and charisma and Bush crushed Gore in that area. I feel Gore coming as close as he did considering the polls throughout 1999 and early 2000 is more impressive than Bush winning.

2004-I disagree that Bush should have done better in 2004. Bush's approvals had sunk to around 50% in late 2003 (though they had a temporary rebound when Saddam was caught). The Iraq insurgency was raging, there was no WMDs and Bush admitted no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The fact that an entire year later he won the PV is a major accomplishment IMO. He also had the most effective advertisements since 1984, the John Kerry windsurfing ad and "Wolves".

2008-I doubt that McCain would have won without the financial crisis. The surprise Palin pick gave him a temporary lead, but the shine was already wearing off on her by the time the crisis was in full swing. His choice of someone he had clearly not vetted properly, not to mention someone that counteracted his chief argument of experience all reflect very poorly on his campaign.

2012-Romney idiotically repeated Kerry's 2004 mistake of not responding forcefully enough to early attacks. Paul Ryan was also a disastrous pick as he reinforced the perception of Romney as an enemy of the working class. However, I still don't view him as bad as the Palin pick. He also attacked Obama in the first debate far more effectively than McCain ever did.

Trump's 2016 campaign was much more erratic than 2024 to me. I feel his attacks on Kamala's record have been much more consistent and effective, and the McDonald's stunt was genius.

[dw93]

I really don't think any Republican post 1988 ran a strong campaign, but Here's mine:

1. Trump 2016
2. Bush 2000
3. Bush 2004
4. Dole 1996
5. Trump 2020
6. McCain 2008
7. Trump 2024
8. Romney 2012
9. Bush 1992

Some Notes:

1. Dole's 96 campaign ranks as highly as it does because he really didn't make any major errors, while every campaign ranked below his did in one form or another, and when you consider that the GOP pretty much abandoned his campaign financially in the name of keeping control of Congress he had a strong finish.

2. Bush 2000 would've ranked #1 if not for the DUI arrest leaking and the campaign in general taking the race for granted in the home stretch. Even with the stock market crash in the spring of 2000, the overall economy (at least on the surface) was still strong and Clinton's job approvals were north of 60 almost the entire year. Even with the Gore campaign being historically weak, a mediocre (at best) candidate like Bush shouldn't have been able to overcome the strong fundamentals for the incumbent party, meaning that, for all his faults, the campaign certainly struck more good notes than bad. 

3. Trump's 2024 campaign up until the convention was arguably the strongest of his three campaigns and if Biden stayed in and Trump picked Burgum, Haley, or even Mr. Ruboto to be his running mate, if it continued as it had and he went on to win by some of the margins he was polling at in early to mid July, that campaign would likely rank #1. From the minute he picked Vance on, the campaign was a dumpster fire, and whatever boost he's gotten in recent weeks has more to do with Harris losing momentum not Trump doing anything to gain it. It'll rank higher if he wins the race, but possibly lower if he loses.

4.

4. McCain 2008(without Lehman this could have been number 1 but he did falter after that)

I disagree with this. Their picking Palin without vetting her at all was a ticking timebomb waiting to explode. Palin's interview with Katie Couric was almost as damaging to the campaign as Lehman Brothers collapsing was. Vetting would've prevented the pick and would've likely produced someone that would've fired up the base like Palin did while not scaring everyone outside of the most partisan Conservative Republicans.

[Pericles]

Bush 2004 was clearly the best and it's not particularly close.

[7,052,770]

How can anyone possibly rank these before November 5?

[GregTheGreat657]

1. Trump 2024 if he sweeps all of the swing states or all but 1
1. Trump 2016
2. Bush 2000
3. Bush 2004
3,5, Trump 2024 if he wins narrowly
4. Dole 1996
4,5 Trump 2024 if he loses narrowly
5. Romney 2012
6. Trump 2020
7. McCain 2008
7.5 Trump 2024 if Harris sweeps all of the swing states or all but 1
8. Bush 1992

[OSR stands with Israel]

My new ranking would be :

1. Bush 2000
2. Trump 2016
3. Trump 2024
4. Bush 2004
5. McCain 2008
6. Trump 2020
7. Dole 1996
8. Romney 2012
9. Bush 1992

[Reactionary Libertarian]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

Few questions :

How is Trump 2024 higher than Trump 2016. Hillary Clinton was succeeding a popular Democratic  president and was the wife of a popular Democratic president as well while this time Kamala is succeeding and is the vice president to an unpopular democratic president . If 2016 Trump was the nominee this time , Trump very much could have won 320+ EV especially given the fact he has far more institutional support this time as well .


Also how is Bush 2004 higher than Bush 2000. Bush in 2000 won despite the fact the democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President at a time when 67% of people approved of the president , 70%+ approved of the economy and was relatively a very peaceful time . There is no way the incumbent party should have lost that election given the fundamentals and they still did . In the other hand in 2004 , Bush was a wartime president who rarely was criticized by the media for 2.5 years after 9/11 , and yet it was a close election when it should have been a clear win for him . Bush winning in 2000 was absolutely more impressive than him winning in 2004

How is Romney 2012 more impressive than McCain 2008. Romney only picked up the two states McCain lost barely and failed to pick up the state McCain lost by 2-3 points so I can’t say how his campaign was more impressive. McCain faced insanely bad fundamentals for a being the nominee of an incumbent party and despite that he was tied with Obama in the polls pre Lehman .

Why is Bush 2000 so highly ranked he was supposed to easily win and he lost the PV and he barely won the EC (questionable if he even should have won that). I guess Bush 2000 was “good” in that he managed to legally steal the election from Gore. Way more impressive than January 6!

[OSR stands with Israel]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

Few questions :

How is Trump 2024 higher than Trump 2016. Hillary Clinton was succeeding a popular Democratic  president and was the wife of a popular Democratic president as well while this time Kamala is succeeding and is the vice president to an unpopular democratic president . If 2016 Trump was the nominee this time , Trump very much could have won 320+ EV especially given the fact he has far more institutional support this time as well .


Also how is Bush 2004 higher than Bush 2000. Bush in 2000 won despite the fact the democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President at a time when 67% of people approved of the president , 70%+ approved of the economy and was relatively a very peaceful time . There is no way the incumbent party should have lost that election given the fundamentals and they still did . In the other hand in 2004 , Bush was a wartime president who rarely was criticized by the media for 2.5 years after 9/11 , and yet it was a close election when it should have been a clear win for him . Bush winning in 2000 was absolutely more impressive than him winning in 2004

How is Romney 2012 more impressive than McCain 2008. Romney only picked up the two states McCain lost barely and failed to pick up the state McCain lost by 2-3 points so I can’t say how his campaign was more impressive. McCain faced insanely bad fundamentals for a being the nominee of an incumbent party and despite that he was tied with Obama in the polls pre Lehman .

Why is Bush 2000 so highly ranked he was supposed to easily win and he lost the PV and he barely won the EC (questionable if he even should have won that). I guess Bush 2000 was “good” in that he managed to legally steal the election from Gore. Way more impressive than January 6!

2000 should have been a decisive win for Gore . He was literally the incumbent VP at a time when :

- the incumbent president had approvals in the mid to upper 60s

- over 70% approved of the economy

- no major foreign crises at all


Like it should have been another 1988 and Gore should have glided to victory

[Mr. Smith]

1. G.W. Bush 2000
2. Trump 2016
3. G.W. Bush 2004
4. McCain
4.5 -Trump 2024- (if he wins)
5. Romney
6. Dole
7. Trump 2020
7.5. -Trump 2024- (if he loses)
8. G.H.W. Bush 1992

Given the gravity of the win for the circumstances as of late, I'd now say..

1. G.W. Bush 2000
2. Trump 2016
3. Trump 2024
4. G.W. Bush 2004
5. McCain
6. Romney
7. Dole
8. Trump 2020
9. G.H.W. Bush 1992

[Reactionary Libertarian]

1.Bush 2004
2.Trump 2024
3.Bush 2000
4.Trump 2020
5.Trump 2016
6.Romney 2012
7.McCain 2008
8.Bush 1992
9.Dole 1996

Few questions :

How is Trump 2024 higher than Trump 2016. Hillary Clinton was succeeding a popular Democratic  president and was the wife of a popular Democratic president as well while this time Kamala is succeeding and is the vice president to an unpopular democratic president . If 2016 Trump was the nominee this time , Trump very much could have won 320+ EV especially given the fact he has far more institutional support this time as well .


Also how is Bush 2004 higher than Bush 2000. Bush in 2000 won despite the fact the democrats nominated the incumbent Vice President at a time when 67% of people approved of the president , 70%+ approved of the economy and was relatively a very peaceful time . There is no way the incumbent party should have lost that election given the fundamentals and they still did . In the other hand in 2004 , Bush was a wartime president who rarely was criticized by the media for 2.5 years after 9/11 , and yet it was a close election when it should have been a clear win for him . Bush winning in 2000 was absolutely more impressive than him winning in 2004

How is Romney 2012 more impressive than McCain 2008. Romney only picked up the two states McCain lost barely and failed to pick up the state McCain lost by 2-3 points so I can’t say how his campaign was more impressive. McCain faced insanely bad fundamentals for a being the nominee of an incumbent party and despite that he was tied with Obama in the polls pre Lehman .

Why is Bush 2000 so highly ranked he was supposed to easily win and he lost the PV and he barely won the EC (questionable if he even should have won that). I guess Bush 2000 was “good” in that he managed to legally steal the election from Gore. Way more impressive than January 6!

2000 should have been a decisive win for Gore . He was literally the incumbent VP at a time when :

- the incumbent president had approvals in the mid to upper 60s

- over 70% approved of the economy

- no major foreign crises at all


Like it should have been another 1988 and Gore should have glided to victory

It’s very hard for a party to win three consecutive terms. Many people thought Bush would glide in the PV, EC was the only question. Bush underperformed.

[dw93]

I really don't think any Republican post 1988 ran a strong campaign, but Here's mine:

1. Trump 2016
2. Bush 2000
3. Bush 2004
4. Dole 1996
5. Trump 2020
6. McCain 2008
7. Trump 2024
8. Romney 2012
9. Bush 1992

Some Notes:

1. Dole's 96 campaign ranks as highly as it does because he really didn't make any major errors, while every campaign ranked below his did in one form or another, and when you consider that the GOP pretty much abandoned his campaign financially in the name of keeping control of Congress he had a strong finish.

2. Bush 2000 would've ranked #1 if not for the DUI arrest leaking and the campaign in general taking the race for granted in the home stretch. Even with the stock market crash in the spring of 2000, the overall economy (at least on the surface) was still strong and Clinton's job approvals were north of 60 almost the entire year. Even with the Gore campaign being historically weak, a mediocre (at best) candidate like Bush shouldn't have been able to overcome the strong fundamentals for the incumbent party, meaning that, for all his faults, the campaign certainly struck more good notes than bad. 

3. Trump's 2024 campaign up until the convention was arguably the strongest of his three campaigns and if Biden stayed in and Trump picked Burgum, Haley, or even Mr. Ruboto to be his running mate, if it continued as it had and he went on to win by some of the margins he was polling at in early to mid July, that campaign would likely rank #1. From the minute he picked Vance on, the campaign was a dumpster fire, and whatever boost he's gotten in recent weeks has more to do with Harris losing momentum not Trump doing anything to gain it. It'll rank higher if he wins the race, but possibly lower if he loses.

4.

4. McCain 2008(without Lehman this could have been number 1 but he did falter after that)

I disagree with this. Their picking Palin without vetting her at all was a ticking timebomb waiting to explode. Palin's interview with Katie Couric was almost as damaging to the campaign as Lehman Brothers collapsing was. Vetting would've prevented the pick and would've likely produced someone that would've fired up the base like Palin did while not scaring everyone outside of the most partisan Conservative Republicans.

Updated:

1. Trump 2016
2. Bush 2000
3. Trump 2024
4. Bush 2004
5. Dole 1996
6. Trump 2020
7. McCain 2008
8. Romney 2012

Given the margin and PV win, Trump 2024 goes from 7th in my Oct. 27th ranking to 3rd in this one.