Wrong. 99% of the crap spewing from Trump’s vomit-hole is lies, but one thing he is correct about is that the U.S. President is chosen by the Electoral College system. It was essential for the D’s to focus on Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states. (This isn’t hindsight — In 2016 I emphasized this repeatedly at SDMB and was laughed at for it.)
That the Hillary campaign couldn’t figure out what was obvious to this hermit in rural Thailand is a shameful tribute to stupidity.
But I have yet to see in this thread any specifics about what she did wrong, specifically. Can you give examples of things that she should have done differently?
She wasted time in states that she really had only a marginal chance (Arizona!) while ignoring the industrial heartland. Instead of trying to run up the score she should have worked harder on securing the blue wall. Still, when you get the most popular votes, you can’t have had the worst campaign.
So, who did?
Romney? Maybe. His remarks caught on tape didn’t help his cause. He spent too much time whining about whether Obama did or didn’t call something an act of terrorism.
McCain? His pick of Palin was a joke, but essentially he was doomed by party connection to Bush.
Kerry? Maybe. He failed to respond adequately to the Swift Boat Liars For Bush and set him up by making a big ass deal about his own military service.
Gore? Not allowing Bill Clinton to serve as a surrogate and also failing to carry his own state was fatal. This was a winnable campaign.
Dole? Not sure that he could or should have done anything differently.
Bush Sr? Not so sure his race was winnable. Hard for a party to win 4 straight.
Dukakis? As awful as the tank photo op was, he was done in by the dirty trick Willie Horton ad.
Mondale? Not a chance. Which was what he had.
Carter? No, had the rescue succeeded he would have won. Still, without Reagan sabotaging the hostage negotiations, he would have won.
I think the best case can be made for Gore. It was a winnable race (leaves Dole, Mondale, and McCain out of the running) Failing to win his own fucking state was inexcusable and I think entirely avoidable.
It was bad but she was facing some serious headwinds that would have impacted any democratic incumbent, including Biden. She also had baggage, some of which was unfair. Ditto Jeb Bush, who might have performed better in a 2004 or 2008 political environment but was thrashed in the anti-incumbent environment of 2016.
Hillary Clinton was a vulnerable candidate going into the race, as was Donald Trump. If you want to look at a poorly-run presidential campaign, though, I think you have to look at races featuring a strong challenger losing to a weak incumbent. Maybe John Kerry’s 2004 loss to George W Bush is actually a better example of an inexplicable loss. How does a Vietnam war vet lose to draft dodger lite in the middle of an unpopular war based on lies? I guess nobody in Kerry’s campaign ever figured out a way to make Kerry look anything other than a Muppet.
Palin was a stupid stunt, but she gets unfairly blamed for McCain’s fall. Let’s be clear: McCain screwed McCain and nobody else. The Palin stunt was the first clue that he was not up to the job. But talking about troop surges incessantly while the financial crisis was unfolding was the biggest hint to voters - even Republicans - that this guy had no idea what he was doing.
McCain was doomed because he had absolutely no response to the economic meltdown that was scaring the shit out of the country. When the financial system is on the brink of collapse, when people his age are wondering if they’re going to be forced out of retirement and into a soup kitchen, and when people my age (then) are wondering if they’ll have a job after grad school or instead be forced to pay back tens of thousands in loans with no job…you’d better damn well have something in mind to say to the camera. He just kept talking about Iraq and foolishly suspended his campaign to participate in senate debate but without absolutely any plan or proposal mapped out. That kind of obliviousness has few parallels.
Some excellent candidates put forward in this thread. Let me add the time that Adlai Stevenson, when told that “all the smart people are voting for you”, famously replied, “That’s not enough, I need a majority!”. Clever remark, serious case of shooting yourself in the foot.
Yes to all this, when the financial crisis was reaching panic mode, Bush (to his credit) invited both Obama and McCain to the table to join in the talks on how to resolve it. Obama contributed, McCain sat in a corner and pouted. He was a one trick pony- foreign policy only at a time when the economy was crashing.
Gore lost due to GOP shenanigans in Florida. The election was stolen, pure and simple.
Of course that asshole Nader was also a big cause.
Yes, Florida was stolen and yes, Gore wound up paying for Nader’s ego trip (just as Hillary paid for Stein’s), it’s still true that had Gore simply carried his own home state, Florida would have been irrelevant.
I will give you that.
But to be fair, Tenn. has gone down the rabbit hole of racism, rednecks and Southern “pride”.
I agree. I’m not sure what it would take for another Democrat to take this state, it certainly seems out of reach of anyone that I can think of that’s in the mix of names bandied about for 2020.
I can’t think of a way to accurately describe how entertaining it is to me that there are still people out there that believe this. “Immensely” doesn’t quite do it justice.
Or Nevada, Ohio, Arizona, New Hampshire or any one of the other states that Clinton won and Gore lost.
In recent history, I’d say Dukakis, 1988.
Statistics back me up. After controlling for incumbency and the state of the economy, Dukakis vastly underperformed expectations, at least according the Fair model. Either that or GHW Bush ran an awesome campaign. Which he didn’t, though it was ok.
Mondale got slaughtered in 1984, but didn’t do too badly once incumbency and the state of the economy are factored in.
Hillary Clinton received 51.1% of the two party vote share, which outperformed what the Fair model expected by a hefty margin. This was notwithstanding Comey’s unprecedented breaking of Justice Department guidelines and Putin’s meddling in the election.
Martin Van Buren, 1840. He went into it so confident. He was already renowned as the “Little Wizard,” the top political strategist America had ever seen. His re-election was totally blindsided by the upstart Whig campaign that invented populist politics and transformed American campaign strategies forever.
That William Henry Harrison’s actual administration was the worst flop ever seen, especially after he was replaced by John Tyler, who pissed off all the other Whigs in addition to the Democrats, is beside the point that Harrison utterly pwned Van like a boss in the election.
No love for Pat Paulsen?
*“Magician,” not Wizard.
And then he bullheadedly refused to wear a hat to the Inauguration.
Another vote for Stevenson.
In 1952 he had the gall to run against Ike’s military career just 7 years after he helped defeat the Nazis.
Then in ‘56 he picked Kefauver as his running mate. Qualified but a man so boring he makes watching paint dry with Al Gore seem like a wild Saturday night!
Your memory was right. He checked his watch several times.