You can't run a bad campaign when your chance of winning or even affecting the outcome is 0% no matter what you do. Baba's choice makes much more sense than yours.
I have to agree about Guiliani. He had the national profile, the executive experience, and the whole "mayor on 9/11" thing, and he blew it. He said some things I didn't agree with, but all in all, I think he would have made a decent President.
And as for my thoughts, while Giuliani did run a historically bad primary campaign, McCain also ran a historically bad general election campaign. McCain's campaign had no message discipline, little if any positive message at all, and tacked pretty hard to the right for the general election in a year when, with a shrunken Republican base, tacking right simply wasn't going to have any chance to win. McCain ran a worse campaign than did Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis, and that takes real talent. I give the nod to McCain over Giuliani because McCain fucked up the general election and also because Giuliani fucked up mostly just by being Giuliani, whereas McCain's fuck-ups were more in the realm of conscious decision making.
Guliani is one, his idea of not campaigning till Florida was a bad one. Fred Thompson is another major screwup. He had the votes, hearts and minds of the conservative base in his camp if he had any fire. Why he didn't,
I'd honestly have to say Ron Paul. He was the only candidate out of any party that knew what he was talking about and doing, but he didn't campaign well enough to get the message out and win the nomination.
That would be John McCain. I haven't seen a campaign wreck that bad so many times in all my years of watching tv.
Except the real problem with Thompson's campaign was that he didn't really run one at all. Well, that, and for an actor he had zero charisma. Anyway, I get the feeling he put his name in for the nomination mostly because people--not just Bear--were telling him to run because the field was so weak and someone needed to save the Republican party, and that he didn't really want to run at all.
A quick Google search says yes: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...icularly-interested-in-running-for-president/
McCain. I can't think of one thing he did right, and it was amazing that closed the gap in the polls for as long as he did. Goes to show that he actually had a strong chance, but dropped the ball at every opportunity.
There are a few House races that were run pretty poorly. Michelle Bachman for one, even though she ended up winning, she almost blew it.
He pulled a Kerry-esque move where he kept repeating something that everyone was tired of hearing about and he was being ridiculed constantly for. The thing that could (should?) have been a positive ended up being a huge negative. Guiliani : 9/11 :: Kerry : Purple Hearts
Admitting that you're willing to put your dick in baba's mother's mouth says more about you than it says about baba. Even Bill Clinton has better standards.
Ron Paul. Never did a candidate with such a groundswell of support and so much money utterly FAIL to get his message across.
Neither has any other candidate with any support or money at all been asked in a debate, "so you're saying we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"
