If you look at politics as a sport, who are the most skilled athletes (basically- how good are they at winning elections, taking all aspects of a campaign into account)?
This is how I see it among recent presidents and selected candidates:
A+: Bill Clinton
A: Ronald Reagan, JFK
A-: Obama, Nixon
B: George W. Bush, LBJ, Hillary Clinton
C+: Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush
C: John Kerry, Bob Dole, John McCain
C-: Gerald Ford
D: Mitt Romney, Dukakis
F: Mondale
When I was in school, getting caught cheating meant you got an automatic F. For that reason, I would put Nixon down with Mondale. I’ll have to think about the others some more…
I’d rate McCain higher. He was pretty good at schmoozing the press, and played the “moderate” card as well as anybody. His 2008 campaign was a mess, but I think that has more to do with the fact that it was doomed by external events (Bush and the financial crisis) and so he ended up making a bunch of Hail Mary passes, rather then his own lack of skill.
I’d rate Hillary lower. She got a free ride into a Senate seat because Gulliani had to withdraw for health reasons, and then managed to squander a substantial advantage in the '08 primary.
I think Hillary actually ran a pretty good campaign- but Obama just ran a way better campaign (maybe one of the best primary campaigns ever), and is a more gifted politician. And she still came very close.
Hillary Clinton’s been elected exactly once, in a safe seat, where she was pretty much coronated into the nomination. It’s ridiculous to even put her on the list. There are people who’ve won a half dozen Senate elections, or held the same House seat for two generations. Rick Perry’s won three elections as governor in Texas. Or how about Joe Biden, who won what, six elections to the Senate in a row? Or was it seven? And then got elected VP? That’s not bad.
Twice
I may be projecting how I think Hillary will do if she runs in 2016. Where do you think Biden belongs on the list? And where should I have put Hillary?
Winning elections in Texas isn’t exactly the same skill set. It’s more like passing an entrance exam–to an insane asylum.
The ability to prevent people from even trying to run against you may be the highest superpower of a political athlete.
I would say that the better a radical politician does at getting people to vote for them, the higher grade they deserve.
Clinton was/is a great politician no doubt, but he wasn’t trying to sell a radical position whatsoever, so it isn’t hard to get people to vote for you when you’re moderate.
In this respect, I’d say Reagan was the most effective political athlete in modern times. His platform was so out-there that even fellow conservatives referred to it as voo-doo, yet he won in landslides. He deflected questions about his age with humor. He weathered the Iran-Contra scandal and is still one of the most revered politicians. So Reagan gets an A+.
I believe Johnson also deserves to be pretty high up on the list, considering that he pushed through a very radically liberal agenda for his time. I’d give him an A or an A+ too.
I agree with you on LBJ. He got a tremendous amount of legislation passed because he completely knew the inner workings of Congress and how to get guys like Dirksen on his side. His downfall was Vietnam and unfortunately that’s his legacy to a lot of people.
His party also had the largest Congressional majorities in the last 80 years. No doubt LBJ’s political know-how helped (especially on issues like Civil Rights that split his party) but I think people tend to overstate the role of his political prowess verse the simple fact that its a lot easier to get things passed when your party has a lock in Congress.