Why did the Democrats nominate Mondale in 1984
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:23:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why did the Democrats nominate Mondale in 1984
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did the Democrats nominate Mondale in 1984  (Read 4133 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 16, 2015, 12:50:14 AM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2015, 01:59:35 AM »

He won the most convention delegates, you see.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2015, 03:51:22 AM »

He had the Beef
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2015, 10:30:40 AM »

The "beef" was actually the right answer.  Would Gary Hart have done any better? Maybe a little, but probably not so much in the end.  It is hard to believe that some thought Mondale had a chance after the first debate...then after the Reagan "age" answer in debate #2, it turned into a near 50 state sweep.

Democrats weren't winning in '84 given the economic improvement from early '83 right through '84. 
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2015, 12:15:08 PM »

The "beef" was actually the right answer.  Would Gary Hart have done any better? Maybe a little, but probably not so much in the end.  It is hard to believe that some thought Mondale had a chance after the first debate...then after the Reagan "age" answer in debate #2, it turned into a near 50 state sweep.

Democrats weren't winning in '84 given the economic improvement from early '83 right through '84. 

And yet after 1982, Reagan was as widely viewed as roadkill, just like Clinton after 1994 and Obama after 2010.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,781
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2015, 12:20:35 PM »

Teddy Kennedy was gone, and they really thought that by putting Geraldine Ferraro would help them with the womens' vote. But with her husband's scandle, it just made people remember the scandles of the Carter administration.

Absent of the Ferraro husband scandles, the problems of the Carter admin, wouldn't have been put to the forefront.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2015, 12:22:48 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2015, 03:46:10 PM by Hydera »

He was a sacrificial lamb just as Bob Dole was in 1996. Any party, Knowing they can't win and/or a good candidate didnt appear yet. They tend to throw their lamest candidate against people who were going to find themselves under a landslide.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,350


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2015, 12:46:51 PM »

The "beef" was actually the right answer.  Would Gary Hart have done any better? Maybe a little, but probably not so much in the end.  It is hard to believe that some thought Mondale had a chance after the first debate...then after the Reagan "age" answer in debate #2, it turned into a near 50 state sweep.

Democrats weren't winning in '84 given the economic improvement from early '83 right through '84. 

And yet after 1982, Reagan was as widely viewed as roadkill, just like Clinton after 1994 and Obama after 2010.

Even right after 1982 and 2010 I would have predicted Reagan and Obama to win reelection .Clinton after 1994 though I would expect him to lose.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2015, 02:31:54 PM »

Teddy Kennedy was gone, and they really thought that by putting Geraldine Ferraro would help them with the womens' vote. But with her husband's scandle, it just made people remember the scandles of the Carter administration.

Absent of the Ferraro husband scandles, the problems of the Carter admin, wouldn't have been put to the forefront.

What "scandals of the Carter administration"? Say what you will about Carter's political skill or his policies, but his Presidency was one of the most squeaky clean ethically in history. In fact, I would argue he was way too honest, and this ultimately cost him reelection, but that's a topic for a different thread.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2015, 03:48:58 PM »

The "beef" was actually the right answer.  Would Gary Hart have done any better? Maybe a little, but probably not so much in the end.  It is hard to believe that some thought Mondale had a chance after the first debate...then after the Reagan "age" answer in debate #2, it turned into a near 50 state sweep.

Democrats weren't winning in '84 given the economic improvement from early '83 right through '84. 

And yet after 1982, Reagan was as widely viewed as roadkill, just like Clinton after 1994 and Obama after 2010.

Even right after 1982 and 2010 I would have predicted Reagan and Obama to win reelection .Clinton after 1994 though I would expect him to lose.

IDK why people think Clinton would of lost in 1996. The booming economy and the steps he took to euthanize the right wing by signing DOMA, Welfare reform. Assured him victory.


Mid-term defeats have happened to Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton and Obama and they still won re-election.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2015, 08:09:21 PM »

The economy wasn't in solid shape until the second half of '95.  You also had the healthcare reform failure and the gov't shutdown.  Then, on his watch, the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. Most figured how in the hell is going to get anything done now?

But, Clinton moderated, the economy improved and he was very effective at letting others take the fall for some of his own scandals (i.e. Slick Willy).
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2015, 08:15:14 PM »

When Ted Kennedy declined to run in 1984, that put Mondale in the driver's seat for the nomination.  Gary Hart probably picked up a lot of the Kennedy '80 vote but not all of it.   After all, Kennedy did endorse Mondale.

Hart made a good race of it (winning several late primaries such as California and Ohio), but Mondale was just too strong with the unions--helping him with the nomination but of little benefit in the general election.

Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2015, 09:49:32 PM »

The economy wasn't in solid shape until the second half of '95.  You also had the healthcare reform failure and the gov't shutdown.  Then, on his watch, the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. Most figured how in the hell is going to get anything done now?

But, Clinton moderated, the economy improved and he was very effective at letting others take the fall for some of his own scandals (i.e. Slick Willy).


Actually the economy was growing really fast and jobs increased dramatically from 1993Q1-1995Q2. Slowing down in 1995Q3-Q4. And going back up at a faster but moderate past.





I think people didn't felt the economy was improving by the 1994 midterms even though it was. But other reasons caused the loss. From the failed healthcare reform, passing gun control, and dont ask don't tell being implemented which was considered quite liberal back then. Which caused enthusiasm amongst conservatives both social and economic to use 1994 was a payback. Helped by the perot voters.
Logged
sg0508
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,053
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2015, 09:47:51 AM »

The economy wasn't in solid shape until the second half of '95.  You also had the healthcare reform failure and the gov't shutdown.  Then, on his watch, the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. Most figured how in the hell is going to get anything done now?

But, Clinton moderated, the economy improved and he was very effective at letting others take the fall for some of his own scandals (i.e. Slick Willy).


Actually the economy was growing really fast and jobs increased dramatically from 1993Q1-1995Q2. Slowing down in 1995Q3-Q4. And going back up at a faster but moderate past.





I think people didn't felt the economy was improving by the 1994 midterms even though it was. But other reasons caused the loss. From the failed healthcare reform, passing gun control, and dont ask don't tell being implemented which was considered quite liberal back then. Which caused enthusiasm amongst conservatives both social and economic to use 1994 was a payback. Helped by the perot voters.
When Americans "feel it".  That was the argument Clinton made at the '12 convention.  The numbers were improving, but Americans weren't feeling it yet (the lag factor).  George Bush tried to make the same point in 1992.  The recession was over by late '91 and GDP was positive again, but Americans weren't "feeling it" yet.  It took until late '95 I believe when most Americans (poll-wise) said the economy was getting better.
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2015, 09:59:07 AM »

The economy wasn't in solid shape until the second half of '95.  You also had the healthcare reform failure and the gov't shutdown.  Then, on his watch, the Democrats lost control of both Houses of Congress. Most figured how in the hell is going to get anything done now?

But, Clinton moderated, the economy improved and he was very effective at letting others take the fall for some of his own scandals (i.e. Slick Willy).


Actually the economy was growing really fast and jobs increased dramatically from 1993Q1-1995Q2. Slowing down in 1995Q3-Q4. And going back up at a faster but moderate past.





I think people didn't felt the economy was improving by the 1994 midterms even though it was. But other reasons caused the loss. From the failed healthcare reform, passing gun control, and dont ask don't tell being implemented which was considered quite liberal back then. Which caused enthusiasm amongst conservatives both social and economic to use 1994 was a payback. Helped by the perot voters.

There have been plenty of midterm elections where an improving economy was overshadowed by other fiascos. You could even add 2014 to the list.
Logged
tinman64
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 443


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.57

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2015, 12:20:03 PM »

Mondale won the nomination in '84 in much the same way as Nixon did in '68. As former Vice Presidents, they called in their markers. People owed them favors.

Both had spent the intervening years campaigning heavily for candidates for governor, senator, etc. Both raised a lot of money for their respective parties. By doing this, they retained the loyalties of key groups in their parties (especially Mondale with unions). By '68, Nixon was owed for his campaign help (especially in the '66 midterms) and so was Mondale in '84.
Logged
ak482
Newbie
*
Posts: 11
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2015, 08:43:00 PM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.

While he was Carter's VP, he still had strong ties to the Democratic coalition.  I think that coalition had buyers remorse after the failed Carter presidency (they never trusted him but fell in line in 1976 against Ford) there was a feeling to return to business as usual.  That combination of old & stale Democratic ideas vs. a "morning in America" of Reagan combined to doom Mondale.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2015, 07:37:17 AM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.

While he was Carter's VP, he still had strong ties to the Democratic coalition.  I think that coalition had buyers remorse after the failed Carter presidency (they never trusted him but fell in line in 1976 against Ford) there was a feeling to return to business as usual.  That combination of old & stale Democratic ideas vs. a "morning in America" of Reagan combined to doom Mondale.

Mondale's problems stemmed from his open advocacy of raising taxes, his poor pick of a VP candidate, his being stuck as the candidate of "special interests" and the rise of Jesse Jackson during the primaries, who never failed to remind swing voters of what they didn't like about the Democratic party.

The main issue that sunk Mondale, however, was the embracing of a unilateral Nuclear Freeze.  This was a bad idea that Mondale endorsed because the liberal Democratic base (who was extremely far out from the mainstream in 1984) wanted to just stop increasing our nuclear arsenal, regardless of what the Soviets did.  This was not where America was at, and this was, oddly enough, an area where Reagan was proven right and where his legacy was shaped.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2015, 04:57:42 PM »

The only candidates who wouldn't have alienated Mondale's supports and thus kept MN Democratic were McGovern, Glenn, and Udall(if he had ran). Everyone else was way too negative against Mondale. Hart would have flipped 3.67-3.75% of the vote to himself, thus winning MA & RI, but would have lost MN unless he chose Mondale as his running-mate or keynote speaker. McGovern would have made SD a lot closer and would have won MA, RI, & MN. He might have managed to flip both the Dakotas if he "healed" himself in the eyes of the moderate non-establishment progressives.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2015, 11:10:32 PM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.

While he was Carter's VP, he still had strong ties to the Democratic coalition.  I think that coalition had buyers remorse after the failed Carter presidency (they never trusted him but fell in line in 1976 against Ford) there was a feeling to return to business as usual.  That combination of old & stale Democratic ideas vs. a "morning in America" of Reagan combined to doom Mondale.

Mondale's problems stemmed from his open advocacy of raising taxes, his poor pick of a VP candidate, his being stuck as the candidate of "special interests" and the rise of Jesse Jackson during the primaries, who never failed to remind swing voters of what they didn't like about the Democratic party.

The main issue that sunk Mondale, however, was the embracing of a unilateral Nuclear Freeze.  This was a bad idea that Mondale endorsed because the liberal Democratic base (who was extremely far out from the mainstream in 1984) wanted to just stop increasing our nuclear arsenal, regardless of what the Soviets did.  This was not where America was at, and this was, oddly enough, an area where Reagan was proven right and where his legacy was shaped.


78 percent of Americans supported the freeze in a September 1984 Gallup poll.
Clearly it can't have hurt Mondale whatsoever.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2015, 11:23:02 AM »

A big state democrat wasn't going to win in 1984, in the same way that a Labour politician wasn't going to be Thatcher.

Mondale was just the generic new dealer who could build up a coalition, and was the next in line after being Mondale's VP. As others have said what were the other options...
Logged
Hillary pays minimum wage
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 716
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2015, 07:08:11 PM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.

While he was Carter's VP, he still had strong ties to the Democratic coalition.  I think that coalition had buyers remorse after the failed Carter presidency (they never trusted him but fell in line in 1976 against Ford) there was a feeling to return to business as usual.  That combination of old & stale Democratic ideas vs. a "morning in America" of Reagan combined to doom Mondale.

Mondale's problems stemmed from his open advocacy of raising taxes, his poor pick of a VP candidate, his being stuck as the candidate of "special interests" and the rise of Jesse Jackson during the primaries, who never failed to remind swing voters of what they didn't like about the Democratic party.

The main issue that sunk Mondale, however, was the embracing of a unilateral Nuclear Freeze.  This was a bad idea that Mondale endorsed because the liberal Democratic base (who was extremely far out from the mainstream in 1984) wanted to just stop increasing our nuclear arsenal, regardless of what the Soviets did.  This was not where America was at, and this was, oddly enough, an area where Reagan was proven right and where his legacy was shaped.


78 percent of Americans supported the freeze in a September 1984 Gallup poll.
Clearly it can't have hurt Mondale whatsoever.

It helped him sooooooooo much didn't it!
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2015, 07:39:33 PM »

That made no sense as Mondale was the vice president to Jimmy Carter who was very unpopular and was voted out in a landslide. So you would think that they would try to go to someone who wasnt associated with Carter to run vs Reagan in 1984. Yah they would still lose big but it would be more like 1988 then 1984.

While he was Carter's VP, he still had strong ties to the Democratic coalition.  I think that coalition had buyers remorse after the failed Carter presidency (they never trusted him but fell in line in 1976 against Ford) there was a feeling to return to business as usual.  That combination of old & stale Democratic ideas vs. a "morning in America" of Reagan combined to doom Mondale.

Mondale's problems stemmed from his open advocacy of raising taxes, his poor pick of a VP candidate, his being stuck as the candidate of "special interests" and the rise of Jesse Jackson during the primaries, who never failed to remind swing voters of what they didn't like about the Democratic party.

The main issue that sunk Mondale, however, was the embracing of a unilateral Nuclear Freeze.  This was a bad idea that Mondale endorsed because the liberal Democratic base (who was extremely far out from the mainstream in 1984) wanted to just stop increasing our nuclear arsenal, regardless of what the Soviets did.  This was not where America was at, and this was, oddly enough, an area where Reagan was proven right and where his legacy was shaped.


78 percent of Americans supported the freeze in a September 1984 Gallup poll.
Clearly it can't have hurt Mondale whatsoever.

It helped him sooooooooo much didn't it!

Stop being ridiculous, Derek sock. The point is the assertion that the poster made is obviously untrue, as seen by the poll I showed.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.