1984 - Did Reagan Win It? Or Did Mondale Lose It?

[NeverAgain]

Did Reagan win it for himself, or did Mondale lose it because of who he is? In other words, did Mondale try his hardest and still lost or did Reagan try his hardest and won it?

[/]

Reagan's own popularity was probably what gave him the election by such a margin, though Mondale could have operated substantially better campaign, in all honesty.

[KingSweden]

I'm not sure there was any Democrat who could beat Reagan that year, but I'm sure there existed a Democrat who could have done better than Mondale and won more than one state. I don't have any names off the top of my head, though.

[Blair]

I'm not sure there was any Democrat who could beat Reagan that year, but I'm sure there existed a Democrat who could have done better than Mondale and won more than one state. I don't have any names off the top of my head, though.

Kennedy, Glenn, Hart, maybe even Biden

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Poor Mondale was an old school New Dealer running in the era of privatization and Reaganonomics. The post war Keynesian consensus was over. Mondale was running like it was 1964, not 1984.

[Donnie]

In 1984 Ronald Reagan was simply unbeatable. Ted Kennedy would have won Massachusetts and Rhode Island, maybe Minnesota -that's it.

[Sumner 1868]

Perhaps it was simply too soon for another Democratic president after Carter, but Mondale has only himself to blame for losing states like RI, MA, and NY.

[sg0508]

One of the few races in which the incumbent party was stronger than the final polls showed.  It seemed like Reagan was going to win somewhere in the range of 13-15 points nationally, but won by 18.

One of the Democrats' biggest problems then is that the party didn't have a locational base.  The old southern base was gone, and the northern states were only starting to turn left.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Reagan won the election but the fact that Mondale only won one state by a minuscule margin was  his fault. I mean Taft and Landon won two states and Mondale even came closer to a 50 state wipeout then McGovern did in 1972

[sg0508]

1) The economy had re-emerged from a terrible decade in the 70s and then again, from the bad recession of '81-'82. While many minorities did not benefit, most Americans did. My parents' best years in business were by far from '83-90.

2) Reagan's charisma sold well.  We all know how a personality can do that. 

3) Mondale's boldness (i.e. "He'll raise your taxes and so will I"...nominating a woman for VP), etc. hurt him.  He was desperate to shake things up. It didn't work.  Ironically, much of what Mondale preached out concerning too much corporate power and top 1%/rich power has fallen true today.  Back then though, people didn't want to hear it.

4) The GOP was continuing to gain strength down south and was still very viable up north.  Reagan's showing in some of the northeastern and Midwestern states though did show some weakness. 

[Dancing with Myself]

Reagan was starting to be well liked by that point after 2 years of rough polling. 1982 was his dark point but things started on the up. Reagan compared to the President's before him felt like a leader to get behind.  The economy was out of the funk that it was in for a good while. My folks always tell me how much better things got for them and everyone in my area in late 83 and 84.  The fact that morale was starting to improve was a - for the dems.

Then Mondale added to the woes for the Dems. He was too bland and too honest. While he was the heir apparent following Carter no one particularly rallied behind him.  He didn't even win a majority of the primary states, he was just smart enough to focus on the big states and had enough to beat Hart. But at the end of the primary it was clear that Mondale was just the nominee for the moment, Hart and the moderate Dems were a growing force.

Mondale could have easily appeased the south and the moderates and picked Bentsen, or Bumpers, or even got Hart but he went the WTF route and got Ferraro. It was to shake things up but it failed miserably and it didn't help get any independents.  Mondale had some good ideas to attack the rich and Reagan's true base (super wealthy etc,) but no one have a crap. His commercials were lame and gimmicky (he had that lame Halloween esque piano tune in the backgound trying to scare people; while Reagan's were albeit cheesy they were great and got people in a good mood.)  Then he had the infamous "I'll raise Taxes," gaffe which hurt him similar to how the 47% got Romney.  Reagan had that bad debate performance but he came right back and Mondale more or less knew he had no shot.

So I'd say Reagan did what he had to do but Mondale did his party no favors. He ran a lame as can be campaign, picked a questionable VP, and was too out of touch for the day. He was too old school when the party was trying to evolve.  If he'd ran a more moderate campaign and not the old school approach that was dying out he could have done a little better but no one would have beaten Reagan in 84 with how much things were improving. No way.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I bet Mondale could have won if the election was in 1982, instead of 1984. You had the nasty recession that lasted from 81-82 that people were blaming Reagan for. Democrats gained 26 house seats that year, it was like a mini 1994 or 2010 in that sense. Most people forget how rough Reagan's first two years were as by 83-84 it was 'Morning in America'.

[Hydera]

I don't see how mondale could win in 1984 or even narrow the difference given the large economic rebound that happened by 1983. Considering the large margins that Reagan won, he could of been sleepwalking and still be sleepwalking to a 47 state blowout instead of 49.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I don't see many Republicans posting here on this thread.

[Young Conservative]

Reagan definitely won it. He rode high with popular approval ratings and had more charisma than any other man in recent history. (along with Bill Clinton)

[hopper]

It sounds like Mondale was Romney in 1984 and Reagan was Obama in 1984 from just reading the posts on this thread. Mondale and Romney both made bad mistakes in their respective campaigns.

[LLR]

Gary Hart sans-scandal probably could have won a few more states (Mass., R. I., Wisconsin?), but Reagan would've won north of 450/500 votes no matter what.

[tpfkaw]

Gary Hart was a terrible candidate who would've lost all 50 states.

Contrary to revisionist historical belief he ran to Mondale's left (albeit very vaguely, if you watch his TV ads it's easy to see why "where's the beef?" was such a devastating line - also speaks to how inept of a politician he was that he could be humiliated by Walter Mondale of all people).

The first shoe also dropped wrt his sex scandal during the 1984 campaign; it came out that he and his wife had separated on several occasions.

[Bojack Horseman]

Honestly, I think the Democrats could have nominated Jesus Christ in 1984 and they still would have lost. In my opinion, Romney was fatally damaged by the primary, his gaffes, and all his flip-flopping.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Geraldine Ferraro's husband scandle, just like the 1972 election, poisioned the well for Dems. But, Soviet Russia helped Reagan out. With threat of nuclear war. As did Vietnam did with Nixon. That's why age came up, and Reagan stood up to challenge. But, Reagan didnt tell the truth about raising taxes, he raised social security.

[Stan]

In 1984 Reagan would have won even if He went drunk to the presidential debate, in My opinion.

[ill ind]

  In 1984, as I remember, people felt much better about the economy and the state of the nation than they did in 1980.  1980 had the hostage crisis with Carter being blamed for a lack of leadership in resolving it, on top of economic woes.  The bad economy continued, and the GOP got pounded in the 1982 midterms but things changes and by 1984, the perception people had was much better.
  Mondale was a traditional Democrat, but he was hurt by his statement that he would raise taxes to fix the deficit, Geraldine Ferraro's husband's (John Zacarro IIRC) continuing financial issues, and just plain old malaise among the Dems who pretty much knew that they were going to lose, all added into the mix.

  Hart may have done better with young people, but would have had difficulty with old
 line New Deal and union Dems and minorities.

  Reagan would have won no matter what happened.

  My first involvement with politics happened that year as I volunteered to work for the Democratic candidate in the Wisconsin State Senate 14 election.

Ill Ind

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I actually think Mondale could have won it, if conditions had remained the same as they were in 1982-83.  Keep in mind that Reagan's job approval was pretty lousy for most of his first term (his lowest Gallup poll number came some time in 1983).  And because of that, Republicans got hit with some pretty devastating congressional losses in 1982.  I believe Bob Beckel said once that in mid- to late 1983, he had internal polls for Mondale that had him beating Reagan in over 30 states.  But by 1984, the economy was beginning to improve, and people began to take a second look.  I would not at all be surprised if we see a similar comeback for Bruce Rauner or Pat McCrory.

To make a long story short, as Reagan's tax cuts kicked in and helped the economy to slowly climb out of the 70s malaise, the economic improvement won it for Reagan.

Reagan definitely won it. He rode high with popular approval ratings and had more charisma than any other man in recent history. (along with Bill Clinton)

During his first term, Reagan's job approval was not very good at all.

[SingingAnalyst]

The 1984 election was the first I was able to vote in. I recall Mondale campaigning like crazy, really trying to win (and in the last weeks trying to avoid a landslide defeat). Reagan did not have to do much to win it; he did more than needed. Americans weren't going to have their 5th president in less than 11 years.