Democrats only: Walter Mondale vs. Michael Dukakis

[darklordoftech]

Battle of the post-Carter, pre-Clinton Democratic nominees.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Mondale by a hair

[Mr. Smith]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

[Cory]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

[YE]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

[darklordoftech]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

Why?

[junior chįmp]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

Why?

Mondale was the last pre-death gasp of the New Deal coalition. Matter of fact....the day after the 1984 election, syndicated columnist Joseph Kraft wrote:

"....the repudiation of Mondale was a repudiation of the Democratic Party that had emerged from the old Roosevelt coalition."

Its purely a symbolic thing

[dw93]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

Why?

Mondale was the last pre-death gasp of the New Deal coalition. Matter of fact....the day after the 1984 election, syndicated columnist Joseph Kraft wrote:

"....the repudiation of Mondale was a repudiation of the Democratic Party that had emerged from the old Roosevelt coalition."

Its purely a symbolic thing

This is why I chose Mondale in this poll. He was the last "New Deal" Democrat to get nominated. Dukakis was the transition from "New Deal" to the Rockefeller Republicanism that Bill Clinton ushered in the Democratic party. Hopefully the Democrats will have a return to "New Deal" democratic politics.

[Mr. Smith]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

Why?

Mondale was the last pre-death gasp of the New Deal coalition. Matter of fact....the day after the 1984 election, syndicated columnist Joseph Kraft wrote:

"....the repudiation of Mondale was a repudiation of the Democratic Party that had emerged from the old Roosevelt coalition."

Its purely a symbolic thing

Nah, Mondale had a blithering obsessiveness over "muh deficit" and other DLC bits.

No, I base my choice on how the campaigns went considering the circumstances.

Mondale was pretty much screwed from the outset of 1984, but he still, nonetheless, however misguided at parts, he went for the jugular. And while obviously bad in retrospect, Ferraro was at least a memorably bold choice.

Dukakis on the other hand, despite a far more compelling case and story, he was worse than Hillary or Dewey regarding the emptiness. In turn, he allowed Bush Sr to walk all over him. He was the epitome of Michelle's "We go high" stupidity a whole generation before. And he chose the on-paper pick of Lloyd Bentsen instead of someone more compatible [and I don't mean ideologically], or at least more charismatic [and no, one debate line doesn't count].

[junior chįmp]

Dukakis on the other hand, despite a far more compelling case and story, he was worse than Hillary or Dewey regarding the emptiness. In turn, he allowed Bush Sr to walk all over him. He was the epitome of Michelle's "We go high" stupidity a whole generation before.

Regarding the negative ads of that election.Political scientist John G. Geer (footnote 1 on pg 1) has debunked the conventional view of the 1988 campaign, demonstrating that Dukakis attacked Bush as early and often as Bush attacked him, and more importantly that Bush had overcome the challenger’s early lead in the polls before any of this negative campaigning began.

Unfortunantley, the mythology of that campaign has become accepted historical convention that no one questions. Then again....I dont think negative ads work anyway.

[😥]

Mondale, and it isn't even close.

[TDAS04]

Mondale.

[Lechasseur]

Didn't vote in the poll as I'm not a Democrat, but Dukakis easily. I've always had a soft spot for him and I think had the GOP nominee in 1988 been anyone other than Bush I would have probably voted for Dukakis that year.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Mondale for sure.

[S019]

I didn't vote, but Dukakis, Mondale was a left-wing crazy