Rank the last 10 Democratic GE campaigns in order, from best to worst.

[Bicoastal]

Here's my ranking:

1. 1996) Make no mistake--Bill Clinton absolutely creamed Bob Dole in every respect.

2. 2008) This may be premature, but Obama's well on his way to doing to McCain what Clinton did to Dole. And if wasn't for the race factor, who knows?

3. 1992) I would have ranked this higher, if not for the Perot factor and the many bimbo eruptions. As Prince sang, "Con-tro-ver-sy!"

4. 1976) I'm glad Carter won, but come on--after Nixon resigned in disgrace, nonentity Gerald Ford shouldn't have been able to keep it so close.

5. 2000) I give Gore credit for probably winning, but it shouldn't have been a squeaker--a future Noble prizewinner against you-know-who. Plus, (shudder) Lieberman.

6. 1980) A lot of stuff happened in this election that really wasn't Carter's fault--if it weren't for the hostage situation, history might have been different.

7. 1988) Give him a break--Dukakis was facing the VP of one of the most popular Republican Presidents ever. Plus, you gotta love Bentsen smacking down Quayle.

8. 2004) John Kerry should have beaten Bush on the Nation Security Platform. He wasn't the most charismatic of candidates, but that's no excuse.

9. 1972) McGovern lost in a landslide to a crook--but then, Nixon had Robert Novak and his other Dirty Tricksters on his side. Otherwise, he'd be on the bottom.

10. 1984) When you lose 525 electoral votes to a doddering 73-year-old, you've really got nothing to brag about.

[blue_onyx]

1. This is only my second presidential election....

in which I could vote. I didn't really follow politics much during the 2000 election (when I was 16) but I knew enough to know Bush was an idiot. So I can't really make a list but I'm sure Obama would high on the list

[MannyGoldstein]

2. If Obama Wins It Should Be #1 In All US History

He's black.

He beat two Clintons.

He beat Rove.

He didn't pander, lie, or mislead.

He's fighting for the middle class, and freely admits it.

He spoke to us honestly, as adults.

[Bicoastal]

4. He hasn't won YET. And I don't know if he could top FDR, who won 4 elections.

Also JFK, who won against the VP of an immensely popular Republican president.

[book_worm]

18. Yes, but that VP was Nixon who was not nearly as popular as Ike

and the economy in 1960 was in recession and still JFK only won by 112,000 votes. Without LBJ he would have lost.

[Curtland1015]

29. Well he did say IF... (nt)

[ClarkUSA]

12. What he said.

:yourock:

[ecstatic]

21. exactly! and that's why some rethugs are adding

a supernatural aspect to Obama's amazing success (smears that I won't repeat). Nobody thought Obama would make it out of Iowa much less the democratic primaries...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. 96, 92, 04, 08, 76, 80, 84, 88, 00, 72

When you pick a VP who has to drop the next week...

Kerry ran a hell of a good campaign. I expected him to lose by 8%. People who thought there was anything easy about beating Bush in 2004 were high.

Kerry would have won by 10% this year and Obama would have lost by 10% in 2004... these comparisons are not all apples to apples.

I am rating Obama relatively high for discipline and the ground-game stuff, but his national media/message campaign isn't all that.

[Bicoastal]

5. Interesting--Why's 2000 so low? Gore won the popular vote.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Clinton would have beat Bush easily and Gore didn't have Clinton's baggage.

Whatever it was he sure did something wrong!

Not putting away an actual moron with no experience... Bush wasn't much above the Palin line in 2000.

[Marsala]

28. Clinton WAS Gore's baggage

Gore had to escape from Clinton's shadow, distance himself from the embarrassment of Clinton's impeachment and still associate himself with Clinton's success. It was a very awkward situation.

[blm]

9. Bush had to steal 2004 BIG....he stole 2000 WITHOUT the power of the WH behind him

and without 9-11.

Kerry took on BushInc at its MOST POWERFUL. Clinton faced his election when BushInc was at its WEAKEST and most exposed and needed to lose....thanks to......John Kerry's uncovering of IranContra and BCCI.

Try adding some CONTEXT to the reality of these elections.

[karynnj]

15. I love your answer

Elections are not like duplicate bridge where you are dealt the same cards. The hard thing in ordering them is exactly what you speak of. It is also hard because after an election, there is a tendency of the media airbrushing out the errors of the winner and highlighting the mistakes of the loser. For the loser, this is most severe and painful when it was close because every small error is listed (reasonably) as a possible reason for the loss.

Here is my list:

2008, 2004, 1996, 2000, 1976, 1992, 1984, 1980 1988, 1972
From the bottom:
The last three were awful - though I loved McGovern and liked Dukakis - both honorable men with dishonorable opponents.

1984 was completely impossible, so I put Mondale a bit higher than those three.

1992, I know I will be hit for putting this winning campaign so low - but, starting in early 1992, Bush fell below 40% approval - and ended up at 33%. I know the war room, book and movie, turned it into mythology but the campaign was not that well run when in mid summer, Clinton was running third due to constant bumps in the road. Had Perot not dropped out of the race with a weird paranoid story, it is not clear who would have won in the 3 way split. If Clinton had run in 1988 or 2004, he would have lost. (The fact is Kerry gave the media 100% proof on his service, the war room put out at least 2 or 3 stories on each Clinton problem, often backtracking and admitting that denied charges were partially right.)

1976, This was another Democratic year. The pardon of Nixon tied Ford to the Nixon years. Ford really was an "accidental President" The Carter campaign did have the right theme for a country fed up with corruption, but there were times that it nearly derailed. It shouldn't have been close.

2000, Gore had a tougher race because many people had Clinton fatigue. How else does a man the media knew when he was a mean drunk at 40 get to run on bringing back honor and decency to the White House. The campaign Gore ran in 2000 would have won in 1992. In fact, he would have contrasted better with Bush and had none of the "baggage"

1996, This was almost a non election. Dole was so awful and people were pretty content in their lives - Clinton did the right thing in not doing anything controversial or even interesting in this campaign.

2004, In December 2003, generic Democrat lost to Bush by double digits. After Kerry won a few primaries and was seen in that light and in the coverage of him re-uniting with Rassman, who he saved in Vietnam he was competitive with Bush. That image - being strong and saving people was powerful and likely why they attacked his service not his protesting.)
The reason I rank this so high was that there was the potential of another election of an election that was not close and which would have left a very demoralized party. This also was the election when things became much more hostile in the media for Democrats. Had there been enough voting machines in Ohio, had the media acted as they had in any past election on the SBVT, had the OBL tape not appeared as it did, or had Scheiffer asked an energy or environmental question - hitting the area Kerry was best on - Kerry would have pulled off an amazing upset, which I don't think any Democrat on this list would have done. (I went back and forth between saying this was tied with 2008 - Kerry was a better primary candidate than Obama and I think Kerry is the most exceptional person and leader who has run in my lifetime, but in the general election, Obama has been an exceptional candidate.

2008, The Obama campaign is not perfect, but it is very very good. It is also clear that they took seriously the lessons learned in 2004. He has earned the affection of people which allows him to get passes for the type of minor errors that Kerry and Gore were bashed by the media for. Like Kerry, he improved amazingly over time. This is a Democratic year - almost 80% of the country think the country is going in the wrong direction He has the advantage of not running against an incumbent.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. great post

[blm]

6. Why was Clinton on TV supporting and defending Bush during his summer2004 book tour if Bush was

expected to be beatable by the Dem powerstructure?

If Kerry ran such a bad campaign, how did HE win decisively every debate and why did BushInc have to resort to vote purges, vote suppression and vote rigging to stay in power? Especially, at the same time the last Dem president was so PUBLICLY supportive of Bush?

And further - Bush1 NEEDED to lose in 1992 and ran a shitty campaign because he expected to be IMPEACHED after the Dec 1992 release of the BCCI report - not to worry Bushfans, Jackson Stephens had his boy in Arkansas ready to step into the WH and deepsix all the outstanding matters in BCCI for Poppy Bush, which he did throughout the 90s.

[politicasista]

10. It's something to think about n/t

[Bicoastal]

11. I have to give the edge to candidates who actually WON--if Kerry was such a good campaigner,

he could have pulled out a victory. I agree, he did do splendidly in the debates, but he wasn't able to turn that into a towering advantage--and really, Obama has. That's the difference between good and bad campaigning, pure and simple.

[blm]

13. Try the difference between post9-11 election and postKatrina - IraqCivilwar - RecordHomeForeclosure

election with a DNC that has worked for four years on the 50 state strategy.


Of course, you are welcome to tell us how well Obama would have done in 2004 against Bush at his most powerful and with Clinton and most other wellknown Dems publicly siding with Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, including Biden, and don't forget he'd be stuck with Terry McAuliffe's weak-ass DNC who for FOUR YEARS oversaw the collapse of party infrastructure in crucial states all over the country. Or doesn't REALITY matter?

[politicasista]

14. Good question. People are still missing that

The times Kerry and Obama ran (or are running in) are different. Had it not been for Senator Kerry (and Senator Durbin), we would not be hearing of Senator Obama.

[karynnj]

22. That assumes all races are equal - they aren't

Carter was NOT a better campaigner than Kerry - he ran in a year when the Democrat started with enormous advantages. Clinton had far more errors - and bigger ones in 1992. He was caught lying, which magnified the bumps in the road. He was running against a President with a 40% approval rating and in mid summer he was third out of three.

Give Clinton, the media Kerry or Obama had and he would have lost in a Democratic year. You mention campaigning. Kerry brought out bigger crowds (by a large margin) than Clinton and they were enthusiastic - but to see that you needed to watch CSPAN. Kerry's rallies did not get the coverage showing the enthusiasm that Clinton's did, which hurt.

[politicasista]

24. Nah, they were ABB or just wanted to see The Boss or Clinton

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Excellent factual post. :thumbsup:

[karynnj]

25. Also, if Kerry was so bad how did he win all those primaries

when the media had Dean, the Clark, then Edwards as their favorite. Kerry's treatment by the media until he won the early primaries was awful - they mainly spoke of when he would drop out. The reporter for the Boston Globe attacked him as not having been honest when he was given the first question in a press conference when he announced that he had cancer and was going to have surgery. Why, because he waited about a month and half while he had more tests and decided what he was doing before telling him. You can't get meaner coverage than that.

Had he been the party favorite, he would not have had to lend himself money. (Also Clark was clearly the Clinton's favorite and Gore endorsed Dean. Gephardt had most of the unions. Jimmy Carter had not appreciated Kerry continuing to push BCCI when people like Bert Lance were involved. Kerry had veterans and firefighters and a lot of MA elected officials.

[politicasista]

27. Good question too

Interesting no one wants to answer it. But I guess he stole Iowa, that's what I heard. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

In a sarcastic mood. :)

[anonymous171]

8. Dukakis's problem was that he wouldn't fight back.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. 75% of the election outcome is about fundamentals

The greatest campaign in history would probably not have dislodged Reagan in '84. Even a fairly inept Clinton campaign in '96 would have won against Dole.

2004 was always a race that had a slight Bush lean. It was winnable -- but it also didn't need to be close. So I'd give Kerry mid-ranking marks. Not the best, but not anywhere near as bad as people claimed afterwards. A truly bad campaign in 2004 would likely have lost by 5-7 points.

Gore's campaign had issues in 2000, but open-seat races tend to be close with a narrow out-of-party advantage (even when the incumbents are popular) and people were relatively disengaged that year. For that matter, Bush's campaign wasn't brilliant -- they were playing catchup for weeks after the Dem convention, they grew overconfident, failed to energize any new voters, and wound up underperforming their polls. In the end, both campaigns that year did some things wrong, some things right and my feeling is that in the end, the fact that it was an open-seat race without much intensity made it revert back to being a near-tie. Had 300 votes in Florida gone the other way, we'd be talking about what a great campaign Gore ran.

In the end, I have to say that I think Dukakis in '88 was probably the worst. GHW Bush was NOT a popular or compelling candidate. Though Reagan was popular, there were major economic problems in most of the industrial Midwest and the farm states. Democrats could have won that race. At the very least, it could have been a close race. Instead it was a Republican blowout.

[book_worm]

17. From worst to best

10. McGovern 1972--truly a bad campaign worse than Mondale/Ferarro--flubbed up VP pick, among other things.

9. Mondale '84--his pledge to raise taxes in his acceptance speech was just plain dumb politics.

8. 1980--Carter--he underestimated Reagan as all Reagan's opponents did. He should never have agreed to a debate so close to the election.

7. 2004--Kerry should have attacked much quicker on the swift boat thing than he did, plus his convention avoided attacks on Bush.

6. 1988--Dukakis--he blew a 17-point lead, but he also won states that the Dems hadn't for years: Wisconsin (first time since '76) Iowa (first time since '64), Washington (first Dem to win since '68) and Oregon (first Dem victory there since '64). He lost California, Pennsylvania and Illinois by very close margins--had he won those states teh electoral vote would have been much higher. He also got 46% of the vote, better than Carter (80) Mondale or Clinton in '92 did.

5. 1996--Bill Clinton: He was an incumbent president with a strong economy against a weak opponent it wasn't such a spectacular victory. He didn't even get over 50% of the vote.

4. 2000--Al Gore: He should have done better given his opponent and the economy. Yes, he won, but he should have won by more than 550,000 popular votes--it should have been bigger given conditions that he would win by a margin of at least 2-3 million more than could be stolen.

3. 1992--Bill Clinton--his first victory against an incumbent president and a third party candidate who attracted 19% of the vote (as opposed to Perot's 8% in '96) and his discipline "It's the economy stupid, and don't forget health care" was impressive.

2. 1976--Jimmy Carter--a one term former governor/ peanut farmer who came out of nowhere and beat the establishment in the primaries and general election is truly impressive.

1. Obama--yes if he wins it would be the absolute best.

[blm]

19. Bush1 NEEDED to lose because he expected to be impeached after Dec1992 release of BCCI report

Not to worry, Bushlovers, Jackson Stephens had his boy in Arkansas ready to step in and spend his terms deep-sixing BCCI matters for Poppy and himself, and Dubai and Saudi royals.

Does ANYONE put these elections in CONTEXT? Bush1 had the power to win...and absolutely had the power to pull off a steal. He didn't.

[crankychatter]

20. If I get this right, does that mean I can go home? or do I still have to stay for "observation?" NT

[TayTay]

26. ok. 2008 not included cuz it ain't over yet

in order of best to worst in order of corruption

2004
1976
1980
1984
1992
2000
1988
1980
1988
1996
1968
1972

Yes, 1996 is my third worst. I do not like dirty money and there was a lot of it floating around that year.

To tell you the truth, I still have the jury out on 2004 to boot. It isn't so much first as, not yet decided.