|
Edited on Tue Oct-14-08 07:11 PM by karynnj
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.
|