Why did the Democrats nominate Mondale in 1984 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 08:44:04 AM
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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did the Democrats nominate Mondale in 1984  (Read 4160 times)
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


« 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
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


« Reply #1 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
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


« Reply #2 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.