Given the benefit of another 26 years hindsight, I think the rapid response thing is just fighting the last war. Democrats thought that Dukakis not answering charges is what beat him, but it probably wasn’t that. Since 1988, candidates have ignored charges or responded ineptly and won anyway. Fundamentals are 90% of elections, a core message the remaining 10%.
To the extent the Clinton team was responsible for his win, it was the message, his positioning on the ideological scale, and his populism. No one understands the electorate better than Clinton and he knew exactly how to market himself to the electorate as it was in 1992. Democrats since then have been marketing themselves to an electorate they wish existed.
Also, the Republicans couldn’t just scream, “LIBERAL!” and have it stick to Clinton. The Republicans had gotten fat on that strategy, and it was easy to pin that label on Dukakis and Mondale, two men who looked like elitist college professors and were the type to tell you to eat your broccoli and like it.
And I still think that Clinton telling off Jesse Jackson early in the campaign helped seal it for him. I remember the news coverage in 1988 when Dukakis selected Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate. Was the coverage focused on Dukakis? No. Was the coverage focused on Bentsen? Again, no. It was focused on Jesse Jackson whining that he hadn’t been notified.
In terms of results, the worst might be William Howard Taft, who ran for re-election in 1912, and came in third place, behind Wilson and Roosevelt (his former mentor, they had a falling out).
I remember Goldwater’s campaign. Yes, some of his comments were, let’s say, “inartful.” But he was running against the ghost of JFK, and it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference if the Republicans had run Nixon, Rockefeller, Scranton or anyone else.
