Why did Walter Mondale get destroyed so badly in 1984?

[Redban]

Wasn't that the election with the "Morning in America" advertisements?

[Calthrina950]

Wasn't that the election with the "Morning in America" advertisements?

Yes.

[Agonized-Statism]

Most people had turned against the New Dealers by then. It would be like the GOP running Dick Cheney today.

[Red Wall]

Mondale was seen as a socialist.

[Real Texan Politics]

Reagan was probably the sole reason for everything. Also Mondale was weak and he was Carter's VP so that didn't do him any good.

[Alben Barkley]

Reagan offered stability, which is something people were desperate for after the tumultuous 60s and 70s. Changing presidents yet again is not something people wanted, as noted, but there was more to it than that. Reagan was a charismatic leader with a sunny and optimistic disposition who made people feel good about America again; even if that was shallow and had little to do with policy, it resonated with people. That "Morning in America" ad really sums it all up.

Mondale, in contrast, outright promised to raise taxes as a bold gamble that it would make him look "honest" compared to Reagan. Didn't work, to say the least. His selection of Ferraro, also intended to shake things up, was met with indifference. He was not very charismatic at all; Reagan outshone him easily in the debates. He was tied to Carter, who the voters had just rejected for Reagan, except he was not as likable and didn't have any appeal to the South. Carter himself probably would have done better running again.

Basically, the election was framed as one between people who believed America was great and can do anything, and people who wanted to pour cold water on all that and take America back to where it was four years ago when the economy wasn't as good.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Two reasons:

1. Reagan's approval was 59% on election day which is exactly what his PV was

2. Reagan support was relatively very very uniform meaning it wasnt concentrated in any one region so that 59% support meant more Geographic Support.

[Calthrina950]

Two reasons:

1. Reagan's approval was 59% on election day which is exactly what his PV was

2. Reagan support was relatively very very uniform meaning it wasnt concentrated in any one region so that 59% support meant more Geographic Support.

Looking at the 1984 election results, I'm always astonished by how uniform Reagan's landslide victory was. There were several states (i.e. Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.) that he won with ~60% of the vote. In no state did he receive lower than 51% (aside from Minnesota, the only state that he lost) nor higher than 75% (Utah). The county results flow very well, and clearly demonstrate the broad appeal which he had.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Two reasons:

1. Reagan's approval was 59% on election day which is exactly what his PV was

2. Reagan support was relatively very very uniform meaning it wasnt concentrated in any one region so that 59% support meant more Geographic Support.

Looking at the 1984 election results, I'm always astonished by how uniform Reagan's landslide victory was. There were several states (i.e. Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.) that he won with ~60% of the vote. In no state did he receive lower than 51% (aside from Minnesota, the only state that he lost) nor higher than 75% (Utah). The county results flow very well, and clearly demonstrate the broad appeal which he had.

The 1980s were arguably the least geographic polarizing decade we have had and I think though much of that had to do with how the suburbs voted in the 1980s as they basically wiped out the margins the Democrats were putting up in the cities so due to that really how rural a state was determined how Republican it was(Appalachia was an obvious exception to the rule and in 1988 the farm crises complicated this too)

[Calthrina950]

Two reasons:

1. Reagan's approval was 59% on election day which is exactly what his PV was

2. Reagan support was relatively very very uniform meaning it wasnt concentrated in any one region so that 59% support meant more Geographic Support.

Looking at the 1984 election results, I'm always astonished by how uniform Reagan's landslide victory was. There were several states (i.e. Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.) that he won with ~60% of the vote. In no state did he receive lower than 51% (aside from Minnesota, the only state that he lost) nor higher than 75% (Utah). The county results flow very well, and clearly demonstrate the broad appeal which he had.

The 1980s were arguably the least geographic polarizing decade we have had and I think though much of that had to do with how the suburbs voted in the 1980s as they basically wiped out the margins the Democrats were putting up in the cities so due to that really how rural a state was determined how Republican it was(Appalachia was an obvious exception to the rule and in 1988 the farm crises complicated this too)

You're correct. Reagan dominated suburbs almost everywhere-Orange County, Arapahoe County, Collin County, Johnson County, Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Chester County, DuPage County, and Maricopa County are among the notable suburban counties where he received more than 70% of the vote, and he swept the remaining Collar Counties of Chicago and of Philadelphia, along with the suburbs of Denver, Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Northern Virginia with more than 60% of the vote as well. But urban centers were not as heavily Democratic then as they are now, either; Reagan won King County, Clark County, Dallas County, Marion County, and several other metropolitan counties outright, often by landslide margins, and got over 40% of the vote in Denver County, Cook County, and Hennepin/Ramsey Counties as well. Demographic shifts and coalition changes in that time have been considerable.