Mitt Mondale. The agony of a Political Party bent on electoral suicide

[denem]

Last edited Tue Mar 13, 2012, 03:45 PM - Edit history (7)

BLOWOUT 1984.


1984: Fritz - 'I will raise your taxes'.
2012: Mitt - 'I will cut my taxes'.

Three days before Super Tuesday, March 13, 1984, the NYT published a Gallup Poll.
The results spoke volumes:-

Gary Hart 52%, Ronald Reagan 43%
Walter Modale 45%, Ronald Reagan 50%
A +9% for Hart vs a -5% for Mondale.
A 14% turnaround.

Mondale, the presumptive front runner had a poor primary race. Faced with two enthusiastic Change! challengers, Gary Hart and Jessie Jackson, he limped home. He garnered 50% of the vote only once, at the death - 54% in West Virginia, on June 5, 1984.

Where Jackson wasn't strong, Hart scooped the pool, bettering 50% nine times. Where Jackson got more than 20% of the vote, Mondale won. Always. The party wanted change but could not manage it. The establishment pushed back hard. Many states had classic three way splits that Republicans are getting to know only too well.

State: Mondale, Hart, Jackson
Georgia 30% 28% 21%
Illinois 40% 35% 21%

Hart finished strongly but not well enough. 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 new ideas, no VP Pick could save Fritz.

Back to the future didn't work in 1984, and it won't work now.

Fritz 'I will raise your taxes' ; Mitt 'I will cut my taxes'

If the economy follows anything like the 1984 recovery,
if history is any guide, it's a BLOWOUT.

[RDANGELO]

1. We nominated the Vice President of the guy who lost 48 states in his reelection bid. n/t

[WI_DEM]

3. lost 44 states--but at least another 12 states were lost

because of the independent bid of John Anderson.

[WI_DEM]

2. Actually it can be argued that Mondale would have benefited from Jackson not being in race

Much of JJ vote was African-American. Mondale had a strong and consistent record on Civil Rights (he was there in the US Senate working for and voting for such things as the Voting Rights Act, etc) and was generally (believe it or not) more liberal on most issues than Gary Hart who was one of those 'new dems' who wanted to take the party more to the middle. Even with Jackson in the race, Mondale did pretty well with the African-American vote and had Jackson dropped out or not ran he would have done even better.

I would argue that the examples of GA and IL you give would have actually have seen Mondale's vote totals higher had Jackson not been in the race. In fact at the time it was much remarked in the press that Jackson was pulling down Mondale's vote--not Hart's which was more suburban, white and wealthy.

[denem]

4. The numbers speak for themselves. If Jackson go 20%+ Hart always lost.

Hart won every race where Jackson got less than 20% with two exceptions, the first - Iowa, and the last - West Verginia.

[WI_DEM]

5. That is pretty simplistic actually

It could also be said that the higher Jackson's vote was the lower Mondale's vote was. I edited my post above to include that Hart's vote was actually more suburban, white and wealthy. Both Mondale and Jackson were going after the same key democratic constituency--the corner stone of the democratic party: ethnic, urban, union and minority. The whole point of Hart was that he was a new democrat who could attract independents, suburbanites and wealthier people. Jackson hurt Mondale far more than Hart.

Actually Mondale and Jackson are more like Santorum and Gingrich in that they attract much the same constituency.

I don't argue that (perhaps) Hart might have done better than Mondale in the general (though he too wouldn't have beat Reagan).

[denem]

6. Look up the results - it's striking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1984

I would say that Mondale's was running a 'Back to the Future Campaign', and both Hart and Jackson where running on Change!

[WI_DEM]

10. but that still doesn't prove anything....

here are a few other things I have to help support my thesis that Jackson actually hurt Mondale not Hart in the primaries:

'polls say Jesse Jackson hurts front runner Walter Mondale more...'
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19831101&id=BJMsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mvsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6904,50551

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_7dTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5ocDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3902,2846143&dq=jackson+hurts+mondale&hl=en

'Four years ago Mondale eroded Jackson's support among black voters...' (indicating that had Jackson not been in the race Mondale probably would have won most of JJ black support)
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=UqgpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jO8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7064,5675726&dq=jesse+jackson+pulling+votes+from+walter+mondale&hl=en

In Philadelphia in 1984, Jackson won the city with Jackson receiving 15 out of 25 Philadelphia delegates with Mondale getting the other 10 and Hart none. This seems to indicate, again, that Mondale and Jackson were the overwhelming choices of Philadelphia, another urban, ethnic, city with a big minority population (overall Mondale won PA 46-34 and 18% for Hart).
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ttU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=VegFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4333,164437&dq=jesse+jackson+wins+philadelphia&hl=en

[WI_DEM]

11. here is another good article on the Mondale and Jackson fight for the black vote in 1984

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/28/us/battle-for-the-black-vote-is-over-before-it-started.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[denem]

13. Interesting. I'll do some further research

I actually appreciate being proved wrong

[denem]

12. There's no smoking gun in those links.

The polls quoted were 1983, before the race even began, then an opinion about the 1984 race from 1988.

The results in Philadelphia are equally consistent with tactical voting to defeat Mondale. Both Hart and Jackson were campaigning on a platform of a break with the past. so there could well have been some overlap between the groups. There was little general enthusiasm to revisit the Carter years.

[GeorgeGist]

8. I think's it Orwellian to observe that in 2012 ...

no one considered that Jackson could be President in 1984.

[denem]

9. A better analogy is few believe Gingrich can be President in 2012.

I am not judging Jesse Jackson's campaign. - The point I am making is in 1984 like 2012 an unpopular establishment frontrunner, having every insider advantage, was foisted onto an disgruntled base.

[Cosmocat]

14. MASSIVE difference in parties/incumbants

Reagen had that presence that drew in a lot of democrats in the time that was the 80s - hence the term "Reagen Democrats."

I think it is pretty safe to say that there will not be a widely used "Obama Republicans" phrase.

This is not a knock on Obama, just the reality that he is not going to siphon the number of republicans off that Reagen did democrats.

RELATED - the democratic party is MUCH more prone to splintering to the other side than the republican party. PARTICULARLY in this day and age, when the republican party is so tightly wound to hard right positions. And, more than anything, their rallying point is that all democrats are scum of the earth, spawn of the devil pukebags.

Yes, Romney will be the second tough pill for their base to swallow. But, make no mistake, they hate Barrack Obama more than anything that has ever existed.

It is likely that if the economy holds and there is no terrorist attack in the US, BO will win, but it absolutely, no ifs ands or butts, will be a 40+ state blowout.

Not going to happen.

[denem]

15. I respectfully disagree.

The Republican party is splintering as we speak, and people are deserting them, whatever veneer Fox News may provide.

We shall see.

[Cosmocat]

16. This cycle has existed for a century now

The Rs are deranged, power hungry scumbags who will NEVER give up.

The shiite that created this last economic downturn was the same shiite that led up to the great depression, and it was the same nonsense that allowed for them to unregulate the markets back then.

They just keep rehashing and recycling their BS until they find something that works.

You want to see things swing back their way INSTANTLY - a terrorist attack by Islamics in one of the 50 states.

The economy is on an a slow uptick, and likely will mean BO will win reelection and Ds will make some gains in the house.

But, once the dust settles, the Rs WILL start to focus on 2016. They will gin up something to tar BO with, the CORPORATE media will go wherever they lead them, and the addle minded people in this country will go along with it.

They are going no where.

I think it is instructive to look at 2010. The Ds made big gains in 06 and 08, and there was NO reason for the country to give any power back to the Rs. But, they ran around the country acting like lunatics at the tea party events, overran congressional town meetings, and the "liberal medai" touted how MAD they were.

We saw the biggest collection of complete and total dipshits since 94 put into congress. For NO REASON other than the republican party throwing a hissy fit.

They fd up going after women, and that has made it nearly impossible to stem the tide of a likeable incumbant president seeking reelection with a modestly improving economy.

But, if things play out the way they look to play out this year, the game will reset.

And, I cannot emphasize enough that we have 1) A corporate controlled media 2) An addle minded populace 3) A party that is RELENTLESS in trying to gain power, FAR more cut throat about it than the Ds are, and who WILL find something to get traction and on define the next four years.

[Dawson Leery]

7. kick