Mitt Mondale: The agony of a Political Party bent on electoral suicide (April 5, edit)

[denem]

BLOWOUT 1984.


1984: Fritz - 'I will raise your taxes'.
2012: Mitt - I will cut my taxes and leave you eating dust.

Mondale was the establishment candidate, with largest number of party leaders supporting him, the most union endorsements and the most money. The media watched on with morbid fascination as the establishment nominee, who thrilled nobody, was forced down the throats of a sullen base. Bereft of charisma and ideas, no VP Pick could save Fritz.

Mondale's campaign cemented the argument that raising taxes upfront was electoral poison. Romney is guy who has to sell Paul Ryan's budget, the most toxic example, so far, of trickle down economics. The GOP could not have picked a worse candidate for the job.

Mondale was 1984's back to the future candidate.
It did not work then, and it won't work for Romney.

In early March I posted, if the economy springs back into life like 1984, (still unlikely), this GE can be a BLOWOUT. I firmly believe that.

If President Obama makes this election a referendum on trickle down economics, and the rights of women, it's on the cards. It is becoming clearer, week by week, that Obama will take to the task with genuine passion.

[libinnyandia]

1. Mondale was honest. The voters were stupid. Some are still stupid.

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

[denem]

2. Mondale was an honest dud.

You cant have a better 'Back to Carter', than choose Carter's VP.

Again, the establishment forced Mondale onto the base, with as much subtlety as Mitt's primary season. Hart might have done better, but Fritz was dead in the water without a shot being fired.

[libinnyandia]

3. He was not a dud. He was a good man and the American people believed the lies of the GOP like

so many believed the lies of the GOP and Nader in 2000. GFore was not a dud in 2000 as so many claim.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. Good men can be duds politically...

It's not easy running for president. It takes charisma, personality, strength, compassion and confidence.

The only thing that makes someone not a good person from those I listed is a lack of compassion - which, I don't think Mondale lacked. However, he did lack a few other basic characteristics that help elect presidents. Reagan was not a dud, but that doesn't make him any better a person, right?

Mondale was a bad candidate. Dukakis was a bad candidate. Carter was a bad candidate (which is why he almost lost to Ford after many felt the '76 election was almost impossible for the Dems to lose - then went on to a landslide defeat to Reagan in '80).

[denem]

7. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The wrong man for the time.

and a disastrous choice in that context.

[bornskeptic]

10. I strongly disagree on Carter. He was an excellent candidate in 1976.

He carried the entire South, which had been totally lost by Humphrey and McGovern, other than Humphrey barely sneaking by in Texas. There may have been some who felt that Ford would be easy to beat, but he was the incumbent, and incumbents had won 11 of the preceding 13 contests where an incumbent was involved. Considering how much the Democratic Party had relied on its Southern base in the past, it's difficult to see how a candidate from the North could have won. Before Obama, Carter was the only Democratic candidate other than FDR and LBJ to get 50% of the popular vote since before the Civil War.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. No, he really wasn't and it became more apparent in '80 when he got his butt kicked...

Carter had a 33-point lead heading into the meat of the campaign and dwindled it within months. Ford was an incumbent, but an unelected incumbent who was the VP to a president who had to resign. The Republicans were DOA heading into the '76 election and still almost pulled it off.

You're right, Carter did well in the South, and it's likely only George Wallace of the Democratic candidates would've done as well as Carter there. However, he did extremely poorly in the west and spotty in the NE.

Carter only won because he ran out the clock. That sounds harsh, but it's the truth.

The Democrats did all they could in '76 to lose that election. They won it, but not by much.

Had Brown or Udall been the nominee, I think the Democrats win the election by a far more comfortable margin.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Exactly. Why the Dems felt nominating the Veep to a perceived failed president is still beyond me...

Carter consistently, unjustly, of course, goes down as one of the worst presidents of the latter half of the 20th Century. Yet Democrats got it in their head that nominating his Veep would somehow, uh, win 'em the election?

Truth is, no Democrat was going to beat Reagan in '84, so, the party should have thrown up Jesse Jackson as a historical nod, since I don't think he would've done much worse.

[aaaaaa5a]

13. Its funny because Mondale only carried Minnesota and D.C.

Last edited Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And we know Jackson would have carried D.C. I believe Minnesota was only decided in Mondale's favor by about 10,000 votes. So the notion that Mondale was THAT MUCH more electable than Jackson or Hart really doesn't seem true. At least from an electoral college mathematical point of view.

It looks like from an electoral college point of view, the only difference between Jackson and Mondale in 1984 is about 10,000 votes in Minnesota! LOL

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Pretty much. Hart probably would have done better, IMO, than Mondale...

Jackson very well would've lost all 50 states, but won the District of Columbia, so, the EC would've 535-3 instead of 525-13. oooh, such a stark difference!

:/

Mondale is a good guy and I think he would've made a fine president. But he was a bad candidate. Dems should have just gone with Jackson solely for the historical implications.

[aaaaaa5a]

15. Good post.

The only problem is Jackson would have hurt the party in many different ways had he been at the top of the ticket in 1984.

No doubt democrats would have been killed down ballot with him at the top of the ticket. And the perception of the Democratic party as being the party of women and minorities would have further alienated the white working class. (Although one could argue that when it comes to white working class men, could it really get any worse anyway. )


So even though from an electoral college point of view, Jackson vs Mondale would not have made much difference, in every other social and political parameter, a Jackson nomination would have been disastrous. BTW, Geraldine Ferraro certainly didn't help the ticket much. She was a disaster in her own right.


Hart would have been the best choice. But ultimately, he would not have beaten Reagan in 84 either.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. You're right...it could have set the party back even further...

The Democrats were hemorrhaging support from the working class white voters and the nomination of Jackson very well could have cemented them in the Republican's corner for a generation. It also would have driven Jewish support away from the party.

I don't think Hart would've defeated Reagan, either, though one poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19841114&id=ExRQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=31UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1544,5292799) had him beating Reagan earlier in the campaign. He consistently out-polled Mondale against Reagan. If Hart had been the nominee, I think he could've carried Colorado, maybe California, flipped Washington, Michigan and maybe Vermont, though he probably would've lost Minnesota.

Either way, the EC map still would've been a landslide Reagan victory.

[denem]

18. Here it is: NYT Gallup (9 Mar) : Hart/Reagan 52/43, Mondale/Reagan 45/50

Hart up 9%, Mondale down 5% - at that point a 14% turnaround. (four days before Super Tuesday)

Not a big sample but, an unmistakable result.
The Democratic Party could not accept the message that a firm majority did not want to back to a Carter future,
as today's Republican Party can not accept that a firm majority does not want to go back to a Bush future (on steroids).

GALLUP'S SURVEY GIVES HART 9-POINT LEAD OVER REAGAN

The New York Times
March 9, 1984, Friday

Reports of a surge of support across the nation for Senator Gary Hart since his victories in New England Presidential primaries were bolstered today by a Gallup poll that showed him leading President Reagan in a national sample of voters. The new Gallup poll, taken by telephone among 719 registered voters from March 2 to March 6, confirmed what political specialists generally believe to be a very volatile situation among the electorate five days before Tuesday's primaries and caucuses in nine states. The poll found that in a trial heat for the Presidency, 52 percent said they favored the Colorado Senator to 43 percent for Mr. Reagan. When matched against Mr. Hart's two leading rivals in the poll, Mr. Reagan led former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, 50 percent to 45 percent, and Senator John Glenn of Ohio 52 percent to 41 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/09/us/gallup-s-survey-gives-hart-9-point-lead-over-reagan.html

[GeorgeGist]

4. Reagan was successful at convincing people that it's OK to be stupid.

Reagan was wrong.

[denem]

8. In 1984 Mondale won 13 electoral college votes.

The candidate, and the party, must share some of the responsibly for this utter catastrophe. He was the wrong nominee.

[libinnyandia]

9. Its always easy to look back and criticize candidates. In a country where people have knowledge of

the issues people don't vote for people like Reagan or Bush. Looking at the support GOP candidates are getting today, it is very possible for the GOP candidate to win. And using the electoral votes is misleading.

[denem]

19. The electoral votes are misleading! How about Mondale 38.6% vs Goldwater 38.5%

Reagan won the national vote by 60.8%, to Mondale's 38.6%
If this isn't evidence the party chose the wrong nominee, I don't know what is.

[libinnyandia]

22. What Democrat would have beat Reagan?

[denem]

25. What's that got to do with the price of fish?

I can't write alternative histories for you. What I can say, is as a matter of the historical record, Mondale could hardly have done worse.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. just a few days ago I said this

Former Vice President Mondale passed all the minimal requirements of the mainstream Democratic constituency ideological litmus test. The party establishment all wanted everybody to rally around him. The major constituency groups pretty much all endorsed him. But nobody was the least bit enthusiastic and what's more - nobody thought he was going to win. Unlike Goldwater for the Republicans or McGovern for the Democrats - neither Mondale then or Romney now has a band of devoted true believers who were prepared to at least fight the good fight and march into hell for the heavenly cause. There was and is no such thing as a Mondale Democrat anymore than there is any such thing as a Romney Republican

[aaaaaa5a]

16. That's a good post.

Think about this.

There is such a thing as a....

Clinton Democrat-Two term popular President

Obama Democrat-Soon to be two term popular President

Obama Republican- Same

Reagan Republican-Two term popular President

Reagan Democrat-Two term popular President

Goldwater Republican-Defined a movement

Wallace Democrat-Defined a movement

Rockafeller Republican-Defined a movement








However there is no such thing as a.... (Just to name a few)

Carter Democrat
Nixon Republican
Bush Republican
Mondale Democrat
McCain Republican
Romney Republican
Dukakis Democrat


That is a very interesting bench-mark to test a political candidates effectiveness and popularity.

[hedgehog]

20. Don't forget - the only sources for campaign coverage

back then were the local paper(s), whichever network you watched (not too many VCRs around) and Time, Newsweek and US News.

That said - I was angered that Carter seemed to back down on his promise for an honorable foreign policy. Then, Mondale came along, living in a gated community in Minnesota when such things were relatively rare, and seemed top campaign on a platform of ecological collapse. I'm not kidding - what I heard from Mondale was that we could no longer afford the New Deal entitlements and that we all better get used to spending more for less.

Now, I'm not saying that my perceptions of either man were accurate. I'm only saying that that's what came through to me at the time.

[denem]

21. Right. And another thing, our perceptions today

are a market, literally the spoils of marketing campaigns, where the playing field is titled a huge weight of money, vested interests, and the best techniques available.

Du'ers have read this OP as a personal attack on Mondale, it is not.

[libinnyandia]

23. Calling somone a dud is not a compliment.

[denem]

24. and it's not personal either, he was a dud candidate,

by any measure. I'm sure he was a decent human being. He followed up 1984 with losing Wellstone's Senate seat in 2002.

[libinnyandia]

26. Now, Ralph Nader , he was a dud candidate.

[denem]

28. Well ... as a suicide bomber in 2000

Nader did all, and more, than he could have imagined. Sometimes I imagine history splitting: JFK in 1963, Al Gore in 2000.

No Vietnam, no 9/11, no Iraq - you may say I'm a dreamer I guess

I'm reading Steven King's - 11/22/63: A Novel. I'm really enjoying it.

[baldguy]

27. Mondale told the truth in '84; Reagan lied.

The corporate media did everything they could to sell the lies to the American people - and they bit. Hard.

We've been reaping the consequences of that propaganda coup d'état ever since.

In 2012, Obama is telling the truth & Rmoney is the one who's lying. Hopefully, the people won't be buying the lies this time.

[denem]

29. 38.6% - Lies or no lies - that is a catastrophe,

which goes beyond familiar politics. It's a Goldwater mark.

I am not knifing Mondale. What I have been trying to say is that Romney is a deeply flawed candidate, who, much like Mondale, nobody really wanted, and there are the seeds of a catastrophic disaster for the GOP, if the cards fall as they may.