How come Reagan won in a 49-state landslide in 1984?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Carter->Mondale, that's that general idea of the 84 election.

Needless to say, Mondale was more qualified to be President than Reagan (arguably more so than Carter). It's just the nature of our populous. Who's going to take a policy wonk from a Democratic administration that was successfully portrayed as a failure over Ronald Reagan™?

Mondale was not qualified to be the local dog-catcher.

Never one to elaborate, eh Libertas?

You didn't elaborate on why Mondale was more qualified than Reagan and Carter, so why should I have to?

I feel as though the my assertion is obvious. Mondale having an extensive political resume, including becoming Minnesota's AG at the age of 32, serving on several committees (and chairing several sub-committees) during his tenure in the Senate, and transforming the Vice-Presidency into a position of actual importance. This piled on top of the fact that Mondale was substantially more knowledgeable about issues than Reagan and it showed in the debates. Now, seeing as how I have elaborated on my position, would you like to do the same?

Reagan and Carter were both governors, giving them actual executive experience, so I fail to see where their lack of qualifications were.

Everything else you have said is your opinion. Mondale had no clue on the issues, and was an arrogant corporate buffoon. He had nothing to offer but stale old failed ideas. There's a reason he holds the distinction of being the only guy in history to be have been defeated for federal office in all 50 states.

[Mechaman]

The reason why Reagan did so well is because Walter Mondale campaigned like it was 1964 in 1984. Which is very ironic considering what happened in 1964.

[perdedor]

Carter->Mondale, that's that general idea of the 84 election.

Needless to say, Mondale was more qualified to be President than Reagan (arguably more so than Carter). It's just the nature of our populous. Who's going to take a policy wonk from a Democratic administration that was successfully portrayed as a failure over Ronald Reagan™?

Mondale was not qualified to be the local dog-catcher.

Never one to elaborate, eh Libertas?

You didn't elaborate on why Mondale was more qualified than Reagan and Carter, so why should I have to?

I feel as though the my assertion is obvious. Mondale having an extensive political resume, including becoming Minnesota's AG at the age of 32, serving on several committees (and chairing several sub-committees) during his tenure in the Senate, and transforming the Vice-Presidency into a position of actual importance. This piled on top of the fact that Mondale was substantially more knowledgeable about issues than Reagan and it showed in the debates. Now, seeing as how I have elaborated on my position, would you like to do the same?

Reagan and Carter were both governors, giving them actual executive experience, so I fail to see where their lack of qualifications were.

Everything else you have said is your opinion. Mondale had no clue on the issues, and was an arrogant corporate buffoon. He had nothing to offer but stale old failed ideas. There's a reason he holds the distinction of being the only guy in history to be have been defeated for federal office in all 50 states.

Ah, the old mantra that 'executive experience' translates into Presidential qualifications. By this logic, any CEO is more qualified to be President than a Senator or Representative, which is asinine. I would argue that a Governor is less qualified to be President as they are not connected to federal issues on a daily basis as their federal counterparts.

There is a reason that Reaganomics is widely considered to be an invalid and flawed theory and it's because we live with the aftermath to this day. Those 'failed' ideas you are referring to are the backbone of any reasonable economic philosophy (investment in infrastructure, not cutting federal revenue while simultaneously engaging in a massive dick measuring contest with the Soviet Union, etc). The reason Mondale failed as a candidate for the Presidency was because we have a populous that is fixated on  the celebrity of our elected officials and that cares not about the technical workings of running a government.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Carter->Mondale, that's that general idea of the 84 election.

Needless to say, Mondale was more qualified to be President than Reagan (arguably more so than Carter). It's just the nature of our populous. Who's going to take a policy wonk from a Democratic administration that was successfully portrayed as a failure over Ronald Reagan™?

Mondale was not qualified to be the local dog-catcher.

Never one to elaborate, eh Libertas?

You didn't elaborate on why Mondale was more qualified than Reagan and Carter, so why should I have to?

I feel as though the my assertion is obvious. Mondale having an extensive political resume, including becoming Minnesota's AG at the age of 32, serving on several committees (and chairing several sub-committees) during his tenure in the Senate, and transforming the Vice-Presidency into a position of actual importance. This piled on top of the fact that Mondale was substantially more knowledgeable about issues than Reagan and it showed in the debates. Now, seeing as how I have elaborated on my position, would you like to do the same?

Reagan and Carter were both governors, giving them actual executive experience, so I fail to see where their lack of qualifications were.

Everything else you have said is your opinion. Mondale had no clue on the issues, and was an arrogant corporate buffoon. He had nothing to offer but stale old failed ideas. There's a reason he holds the distinction of being the only guy in history to be have been defeated for federal office in all 50 states.

Ah, the old mantra that 'executive experience' translates into Presidential qualifications. By this logic, any CEO is more qualified to be President than a Senator or Representative, which is asinine. I would argue that a Governor is less qualified to be President as they are not connected to federal issues on a daily basis as their federal counterparts.

You are the one who started by attacking the qualifications of Reagan and Carter, not I. I don't care whether someone has held any political office at all, but that doesn't mean they will be considered "qualified" by public opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does Reaganomics have to do with Walter Mondale being a sh**tty candidate who deserved to lose? If the Dems wanted a real chance to change course, they should have nominated Hart.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not surprising at all. People are stupid.

[perdedor]

You are the one who started by attacking the qualifications of Reagan and Carter, not I. I don't care whether someone has held any political office at all, but that doesn't mean they will be considered "qualified" by public opinion.

A) I never attacked Carter's qualifications.
B) Public opinion is a bad gauge of whom is qualified to be President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reaganomics is one of many reasons that Reagan should NEVER have been President and the reason that 1984 is an embarrassing example of the way the American mind thinks. As for Gary Hart, lawl. Too much controversy, Reagan and his religious right cohorts would have made quick work of him in the smear campaign that would follow his nomination. Not to mention that Hart's platform was completely devoid of anything substantive.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A) I never attacked Carter's qualifications.
B) Public opinion is a bad gauge of whom is qualified to be President.

Carter->Mondale, that's that general idea of the 84 election.

Needless to say, Mondale was more qualified to be President than Reagan (arguably more so than Carter). It's just the nature of our populous. Who's going to take a policy wonk from a Democratic administration that was successfully portrayed as a failure over Ronald Reagan™?

And if Carter was qualified, why not Reagan?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was more the case with corporate shill Mondale than with Hart.

Reagan was a mediocre president, but the Democrats were dumb enough to nominate someone who would have been even worse.

[Bo]

You are the one who started by attacking the qualifications of Reagan and Carter, not I. I don't care whether someone has held any political office at all, but that doesn't mean they will be considered "qualified" by public opinion.

A) I never attacked Carter's qualifications.
B) Public opinion is a bad gauge of whom is qualified to be President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reaganomics is one of many reasons that Reagan should NEVER have been President and the reason that 1984 is an embarrassing example of the way the American mind thinks. As for Gary Hart, lawl. Too much controversy, Reagan and his religious right cohorts would have made quick work of him in the smear campaign that would follow his nomination. Not to mention that Hart's platform was completely devoid of anything substantive.

As much as I hate Reagonomics, another GOPer would have likely introduced it later if Reagan did not. Maybe someone like Bob Dole or Jack Kemp.

[Vepres]

Not surprising at all. People are stupid.

Well, no. In context, it makes perfect sense. You have the VP of an extremely unpopular administration running against the man who defeated said administration's President. Reagan represented a new (at the time) conservative ideology that correlated (caused is up to debate) the economic recovery. Plus, Mondale was seen as an old fashioned "new deal Democrat".

[hcallega]

You are the one who started by attacking the qualifications of Reagan and Carter, not I. I don't care whether someone has held any political office at all, but that doesn't mean they will be considered "qualified" by public opinion.

A) I never attacked Carter's qualifications.
B) Public opinion is a bad gauge of whom is qualified to be President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Reaganomics is one of many reasons that Reagan should NEVER have been President and the reason that 1984 is an embarrassing example of the way the American mind thinks. As for Gary Hart, lawl. Too much controversy, Reagan and his religious right cohorts would have made quick work of him in the smear campaign that would follow his nomination. Not to mention that Hart's platform was completely devoid of anything substantive.

As much as I hate Reagonomics, another GOPer would have likely introduced it later if Reagan did not. Maybe someone like Bob Dole or Jack Kemp.

Not Dole but definately Kemp. Really not a flawed economic philosophy in terms of tax policy. It's basic Keynesian economics combined with monetary policy. The only problem was the assinne Supply-Siders.

[memphis]

Mondale pledged to raise taxes. People don't like fiscal responsibility.

[Bo]

Mondale pledged to raise taxes. People don't like fiscal responsibility.

Didn't he say he won't raise them on people making $25,000 a year or less? $25,000 in 1984 would probably be more than $50,000 today due to inflation.

[Guderian]

Ah, the old mantra that 'executive experience' translates into Presidential qualifications. By this logic, any CEO is more qualified to be President than a Senator or Representative, which is asinine. I would argue that a Governor is less qualified to be President as they are not connected to federal issues on a daily basis as their federal counterparts.

Just compare the records of Presidents who came from primarily executive backgrounds to those who came from primarily legislative backgrounds. Executives win it in a landslide.

[sg0508]

I'm interested in knowing if Reagan actually did win MN because the margin was so tiny.  Maybe they pulled some strings there to avoid the sweep?

[Guderian]

I'm interested in knowing if Reagan actually did win MN because the margin was so tiny.  Maybe they pulled some strings there to avoid the sweep?

Mondale's margin of victory was provided by a blowout in the union-owned NE Minnesota, so who knows.

[Bo]

I'm interested in knowing if Reagan actually did win MN because the margin was so tiny.  Maybe they pulled some strings there to avoid the sweep?

Unlikely. If there was fraud in MN, it would have been discovered. Besides, why would Mondale do that?--a rigged win in Minnesota would have damaged his reputation much more than a loss in Minnesota would have.

[Ebowed]

I'm interested in knowing if Reagan actually did win MN because the margin was so tiny.  Maybe they pulled some strings there to avoid the sweep?

Mondale's margin of victory was provided by a blowout in the union-owned NE Minnesota, so who knows.

Indeed, and said blowout in the northeast of the state was replicated, even improved in some areas, by Dukakis and Clinton.  Nothing suspicious about it.

[perdedor]

Ah, the old mantra that 'executive experience' translates into Presidential qualifications. By this logic, any CEO is more qualified to be President than a Senator or Representative, which is asinine. I would argue that a Governor is less qualified to be President as they are not connected to federal issues on a daily basis as their federal counterparts.

Just compare the records of Presidents who came from primarily executive backgrounds to those who came from primarily legislative backgrounds. Executives win it in a landslide.

I don't think that 3 out 44 Presidents (Harding, Kennedy, and Obama) is a large enough sample to make this claim.

[DS0816]

Reagan was incredibly popular. Mondale wasn't challenging. Reagan doubled his 9-point margin (1980) for 1984 re-election, and flipped five states (of six) that actually held for an unseated Jimmy Carter: home state Georgia; Maryland; and West Virginia. Hawaii and Rhode Island (agreeing on all elections since the Aloha State's first vote in 1960) flipped and it was the second such case where even the Aloha State said no to the Democratic Party's candidate.

Minnesota barely carried for Walter Mondale (something like 5,000 votes). And in the weeks leading to up to Election Night 1984, Mondale realistically stood no chance and just shook hands nicely with voters. He's lucky he carried his home state — because it's the second time in the past 50 years the Dems put up a candidate who was unelectable (he lost not as badly as 1972 George McGovern, only in respects the U.S. popular vote and the margin … but it was essentially a write-off, sacrificial lamb kind of election).

1988 was more interesting.

[21st Century Independent]

Sure, the economy was good and hyperinflation was defeated, and also Reagan was charismatic. However, Mondale was a very experienced and qualified opponent. How come Reagan managed to win such a huge landslide that year? I would have expected Mondale to win at least several states due to his qualifications and the Democratic base voting for him. I mean, in 1972, Nixon managed to protray McGovern as an extremist, but Reagan enver tried to do that to Mondale (or so I think).

When voters looked at Mondale they saw someone who was Carter's V.P.  A flash from a disappointing past. Many voters didn't want to revisit that once again. They were thinking if Mondale won, it would be Carter all over again. It's psychological.

[Guderian]

I don't think that 3 out 44 Presidents (Harding, Kennedy, and Obama) is a large enough sample to make this claim.

Well, I did say "Presidents from primarily legislative background" not "Presidents elected to the White House straight from the legislature". So LBJ, Ford and Truman definitely count, and only one of them who can be considered a remotely successful President is Truman.

I'm not advocating a strict formula here, and ideally you would want someone who has a diversified background, but overall I'd say voters are correct when they but some extra value to the executive experience. Of course, it does matter what kind of experience we are talking about - was it successful, how well does it translate to the presidency etc.

[sg0508]

If you watch the 1984 election night videos on youtube, the race in MN was called rather quickly by ABC News and with 60% reporting on NBC (you can see the glee in Brokaw's eyes and hear the clapping in background).

[Bo]

I don't think that 3 out 44 Presidents (Harding, Kennedy, and Obama) is a large enough sample to make this claim.

Well, I did say "Presidents from primarily legislative background" not "Presidents elected to the White House straight from the legislature". So LBJ, Ford and Truman definitely count, and only one of them who can be considered a remotely successful President is Truman.

Obama is pretty successful so far. Also, LBJ and Ford were moderately successful--LBJ for passing many social programs and Ford for reducing the inflation rate, detente, and avoiding any serious foreign crises.

[Derek]

Mondale was a terrible candidate from the far left. He was also boring and unenthusiastic. When things are going well for the country, ppl tend to vote for the status quo. There were still enough older democrats who related to Reagan better than Mondale back then too.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He chose not to campaign in Minnesota.

that's not the way I remember it...I thought Reagan did make a late stop in Minnesota and in doing so cost him the state due to the fact that the people of Minnesota didn't like Reagan trying to rub Mondale's nose in it.

Is my memory wrong?