"The 1980 convention was one of the nastiest on record"

[hfojvt]

I am remembering a cartoon I have from 1980. It shows Ted Kennedy as a boxer who lost to Carter, who is surrounded by reporters. And Ted says "I know when I'll take him out, when he's talking to Cosell."

There was no internet in those days. In fact there were still rotary phones. And as a young Republican (when I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish) I was not paying that much attention to the party I called the "Dumbocrats". Carter was lambasted so much by the media, that I was surprised that Kennedy didn't beat him, and I remember Kennedy calling for some procedure or other that would benefit him.

Wiki provides more details than my spotty memory, including my title phrase:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Democratic_Party

"Carter was still able to maintain a substantial lead even after Kennedy swept the last batch of primaries in June. Despite this, Kennedy refused to drop out, and the 1980 Democratic National Convention was one of the nastiest on record. On the penultimate day, Kennedy conceded the nomination and called for a more liberal party platform in what many saw as the best speech of his career. On the platform on the final day, Kennedy for the most part ignored Carter.

The delegate tally at the convention was in part:

Jimmy Carter – 2,129.02
Ted Kennedy – 1,150.48
Hugh Carey – 16
William Proxmire – 10
14 others – 40.5
In the vice presidential roll call, Mondale was re-nominated with 2,428.7 votes to 723.3 not voting and 179 scattering.

The popular votes in the primaries were:<7>

Jimmy Carter (inc.) - 10,043,016 (51.13%)
Ted Kennedy - 7,381,693 (37.58%)
Unpledged - 1,288,423 (6.56%)
Jerry Brown - 575,296 (2.93%)
Lyndon LaRouche - 177,784 (0.91%)
Cliff Finch - 48,032 (0.25%)"

So Ted Kennedy behaved very badly in the primary and the convention. Yet, he is still justifiably respected by members of this party. However, we all remember how the 1980 general election turned out.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

It was the worst shellacking of an incumbent President in US history. Carter lost every state except his home state Georgia, his veep's home state Minnesota, and West Virginia, Maryland, DC, Rhode Island and Hawaii. Okay, Hoover took one fewer state and got beaten worse in the popular vote than Carter did (39.65% compared to 41.01%) but Carter got beaten worse in the electoral college taking 9.1% to Hoover's 11.1%. You might also say that Taft got beaten worse, taking only 23% of the popular vote (thank you Dave Leip for the above link/source!) and a mere 1.5% of the electoral college but that's a fluke since TR's third party candidacy took a large part of his base and put another incumbent President in the mix.

Just a note to Hillary. Remember our history, so we will not be doomed to repeat it. You will be fine, no matter what happens in this election, but the country will not be if it is cursed with another four years of Republican mis-rule. Be a :patriot: :patriot:

[rpannier]

1. I remember Carter having to go over to Kennedy and raising his hand

and Kennedy looking like he was going to throw-up.

It was not a pretty sight.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Refresher. It is the Obamas who have made threats about taking their voters home with them

if they do not get the nomination. Hillary has never suggested that she will not support the nominee. It is Barack who has suggested that his voters might not support Hillary. He may get cute and say he was talking about the voters choice and not his choice, but voters take their lead from the their candidate. And in particular, there was the implied threat that he might not accept a VP position if offered.

So, I am puzzled about why this thread was started, except that it copies the Rovian tactic of accusing your enemy of something that you yourself are guilty of.

One of the worst things that Obama has done this campaign, IMO is to threaten to act like Kennedy in 1980 or McCarthy in 1968, knowing that those two candidates cost the Democrats elections and lead to the Reagan and Nixon administrations respectively.

I think Rove does it in order to take the heat off himself and turn it on his opponent.Is that why you are doing it for Obama?

[hfojvt]

4. at this point, it is Clinton who is behind, who has lost 11 straight

and who is almost mathematically eliminated. It is she who is attacking him for "dishonest fliers" and mocking his candidacy, and it is she who is promising to take this all the way to the convention.

As far as him being veep, I think it would be foolish for either one of them to pick the other as veep.

Since I am not Obama, nor an advisor or employee of the Obama campaign, the Rovian accusation seems kinda ludicrous.

[apocalypsehow]

9. That entire post is one giant pile of unsubstantiated piffle.

I'm sure you've got links to credible sources that substantiate that Senator Obama has made "threats" about not supporting the Democratic nominee? Or that he intends to "act like Kennedy in 1980 or McCarthy in 1968" if he doesn't get the nomination, right?

And I don't mean some vague "someone somewhere with an Obama sticker was overheard by my next door neighbor's third cousin saying this," I mean specific quotes from the Senator himself, linked to credible sources reporting it. I'll be eager to read the articles published by credible sources substantiating your charges about Senator Obama, once you get around to posting links to them.

Because you do have such proof of your charges, right? Right?

[apocalypsehow]

11. Still waiting on the slightest shred of verifiable proof for this post.

Something tells me I'll be waiting a good long while....

[Muzza]

3. Your implication...

You imply that just because this nomination went all the way to the convention that this is the sole reason Jimmy Carter lost the election. Perhaps it was simply that the nation at that time didn't want Jimmy Carter?

[LSdemocrat]

5. Heck, Carter probably would have won if he could have got the hostages released before election day

The race was actually pretty close until election day due to a large number of undecided voters, all of whom seemed to swing to Reagan in the final days of the campaign.

There are a few videos on YouTube featuring election night coverage, and it seems obvious that the scale of Carter's loss was quite unexpected.

[hfojvt]

8. I was not expecting it.

In 1976 I stayed up until 11 PM or so and went to bed not knowing who had won between Carter or Ford. I expected the same thing in 1980, turned on the TV at 7 PM or so and they were already announcing that Reagan had won, and I think polls were still open in California and Washington and other western states.

[izquierdista]

10. And why didn't that happen??

People should know of the back door negotiations being carried on by the Repub VP candidate with the Iranians to make sure that they held onto the hostages as long as possible. He was quite experienced in carrying out secret, underhanded missions from his days at the CIA.

[LSdemocrat]

12. Check 3:40 of this election night clip showing that Kissinger "predicted" an inaugural day release

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3OMrIRMZWM

[hfojvt]

7. nobody said anything about souls

The implication is that a bitter primary and convention, does not make for a strong general election. Four years of the press bashing Carter and Reagen essentially bribing the American voter certainly also played a part. A "simply" explanation does not appeal to me.

[Benhurst]

6. Carter was able to get a majority of the votes in the primary.

Does either Clinton or Obama have a chance of doing so?

Will either get the required 2025 votes without resorting to help from super delegates?

Does this mean neither is as strong as Jimmy Carter going into the general election?

:shrug: