Why was Mondale even considered a candidate in 1984?

[retromike22]

I mean, he had lost the 1980 election with Carter. It's like Quayle being the GOP nominee in 1996.

[TDAS04]

Mondale is not Quayle.

Also, he did have an advantage in that he had some appeal to both the Jimmy Carter Democrats, and to the more liberal Hubert Humphrey Democrats. 

[barfbag]

He was probably the best they had to offer with the exception of maybe Gary Hart. There was no way the Democratic Party was going to beat Reagan though despite the heavy lead they had early in the election year.

[Mister Mets]

There was a lack of strong opposition. Ted Kennedy decided he didn't want it. And Jerry Brown had lost a bid for Senate.

Mondale's reputation also wasn't as bad as Quayle's. He wasn't personally unpopular nor was he blamed for Carter's historic loss.

[Indy Texas]

Because the Democrats were unwilling to accept or admit that the New Deal Coalition was dead and that the Humphrey-Muskie-Mondale brand of Democrats was not in strong demand in 1980s America. Gary Hart would have lost too but he would likely have done much better than Mondale.

[buritobr]

In other countries, a difference between 58,77% and 40,56% would be considered a wide margin, but NOT a very wide margin. American races are usually close.

Well, even in the USA, there were other reelections with wide margin. The margin of victory of the incumbent candidates in the popular vote in 1936, 1964 and 1972 were wider. In 1956, it as almost as wide as it was in 1984.

The difference is that in 1984 there was no geographic concentration of votes, and that's why Reagan won almost all the Electoral College.

[bedstuy]

Please don't compare Walter Mondale to Dan Quayle.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I mean, he had lost the 1980 election with Carter. It's like Quayle being the GOP nominee in 1996.

Lol. First of all, Mondale wasn't blamed by anyone for Carter' defeat. Second, he wasn't an utter embarrassment while VP, much on the contrary; he was probably the most popular member of the administration. Third, when he became Veep, he already was in the party's first tier, while Quayle was a random dude when picked by GHWB.

[bballrox4717]

Mondale was a credible establishment politician who wouldn't embarrass the party in what was sure to be a Reagan victory. Kennedy had finally accepted he would never become president, Glenn never discovered his voice and Jackson would have been an even worse McGovern-style disaster for the party. Hart probably should have been the nominee, but he wasn't taken seriously until he started winning.

I'd say Walter Mondale has more in common with Paul Ryan than he does with Dan Quayle.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Democratic party had buyers remorse over nominating a pragmatist like Carter again, so they reached back and brought back the liberal, which they thought they should have nominated in Teddy Kennedy. But it was the Geraldine Ferraro husband's scandle that brought the ticket down. Plus Reagan was an excellent debator. There were no more Kennedy's left to nominate either.

[Phony Moderate]

The 1984 Democratic field is really only seen as being weak due to the incumbent being so strong.

Walter Mondale was a well-liked liberal in the mould of Hubert Humphrey.

Gary Hart was the charismatic rising star of the party who greatly appealed to younger voters (it could be said that was a white Obama of his day).

John Glenn was an American hero and ideologically inoffensive.

Had Reagan's approvals been below 50%, any of the above would have probably won, or at least run it very close.

[WalterMitty]

big labor.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Quayle was considered in '96...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Quayle was considered in '96...

Considered? Yes. A lot of folks are being "considered" each season. He wasn't viewed as a frontrunner at any point before 1996 and, frankly, was more likely to run for Governor, which he ultimately decided against out of health problems.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In other countries, a difference between 58,77% and 40,56% would be considered a wide margin, but NOT a very wide margin. American races are usually close.

Well, even in the USA, there were other reelections with wide margin. The margin of victory of the incumbent candidates in the popular vote in 1936, 1964 and 1972 were wider. In 1956, it as almost as wide as it was in 1984.

The difference is that in 1984 there was no geographic concentration of votes, and that's why Reagan won almost all the Electoral College.

Indeed. Dole won 40.7% of the popular vote (only 0.1% more than Mondale) in 1996, yet captured over 159 electoral votes (and the pv gap between him and Clinton was similar to 1984. Goldwater had 38.5%, yet had his support concentrated in the Dixie (with Arizona being, amusingly, the narrowest of all states).

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Because he had just been the Vice President of the United States, presumably.

[old timey villain]

The electoral map makes Mondale's loss worse than it really was. He lost 49 states but in many of those he was at least competitive. He even did respectably in states like West Virginia and Tennessee.

In many landslide elections, the loser dominates in one region or one state but is blown out of the water everywhere else, like Goldwater. 1984 was different because Mondale did well in a lot of states, just not well enough to Beat Reagan in any of them.

[Liberalrocks]

The electoral map makes Mondale's loss worse than it really was. He lost 49 states but in many of those he was at least competitive. He even did respectably in states like West Virginia and Tennessee.

In many landslide elections, the loser dominates in one region or one state but is blown out of the water everywhere else, like Goldwater. 1984 was different because Mondale did well in a lot of states, just not well enough to Beat Reagan in any of them.

Yeah he came within a couple of points of Reagan in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island getting over 48% of the vote respectively. 47% in Maryland. He wasnt completely blown out of the water in the statewide vote in every state which is generally the narrative because it was the 49 state loss.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The electoral map makes Mondale's loss worse than it really was. He lost 49 states but in many of those he was at least competitive. He even did respectably in states like West Virginia and Tennessee.

In many landslide elections, the loser dominates in one region or one state but is blown out of the water everywhere else, like Goldwater. 1984 was different because Mondale did well in a lot of states, just not well enough to Beat Reagan in any of them.

A Democrat doing well in West Virginia wasn't unusual then, and Reagan did as well then as McCain would later when the state had gone much more Republican (though in a much worse year for Republicans).  While Goldwater was somewhat competitive in much of the West and Plains and was left far behind in the Northeast, with Mondale it was the reverse.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The electoral map makes Mondale's loss worse than it really was. He lost 49 states but in many of those he was at least competitive. He even did respectably in states like West Virginia and Tennessee.

In many landslide elections, the loser dominates in one region or one state but is blown out of the water everywhere else, like Goldwater. 1984 was different because Mondale did well in a lot of states, just not well enough to Beat Reagan in any of them.

A Democrat doing well in West Virginia wasn't unusual then, and Reagan did as well then as McCain would later when the state had gone much more Republican (though in a much worse year for Republicans).  While Goldwater was somewhat competitive in much of the West and Plains and was left far behind in the Northeast, with Mondale it was the reverse.

True. For example Idaho in 1964 was close.

[ElectionsGuy]

Perhaps he was the only person the democrats had at the time.

[barfbag]

Someone had to do it.

[Dr. Cynic]

Perhaps he was the only person the democrats had at the time.

Gary Hart (pre-affair) and John Glenn would disagree with that.

Actually, Mondale would not have been a bad President. It was just his bad luck to go against Reagan when Reagan was popular.

[Badger]

He was a liberal with all the party organization, labor, and other liberal interest groups sewn up the minute Ted Kennedy bowed out. The fact his expected major primary rival, John Glenn, ran an awful campaign that utterly imploded tells just what an utterly gargantuan feat Hart had to upset him in the marathon nomination race. The fact Hart was a handful of ill-timed gaffes away from possibly doing so also says what an empty suit, ableit a decent person, Mondale was.

[barfbag]

I've never been too impressed with candidates who run against incumbent presidents. Not too many people have been either I'm taking it. It could be the incumbency of the White House sets a glamour to the president which causes opposition to pale in comparison.

1956 Stevenson- courtesy re-run against a very popular president
1964 Goldwater- good philosophy but bad timing and somewhat crazy on foreign policy
1972 McGovern- no need for an explanation
1984 Mondale- very dull and not attractive
1996 Dole- very dull and past his prime
2004 Kerry- Did you know he was in Vietnam? too many gaffes and too serious
2012 Romney- not enough political experience, but damn did he have a phenomenal presence

Yes I left out Reagan and Clinton because they won and they're rarities in regards to this group. When looking at the above names, posters should get what I'm saying. So, Mondale wasn't really as far off from challengers as many might think. He was severely outmatched and ran against an incumbent.