Could anyone have beaten Reagan in '84?

[ATFFL]

Another ticket probably wouldn't have set back the cause of a female on the ticket another 30 years.

What set back the cause of a female on the ticket is that Mondale, under public pressure from the feminists, picked a woman who was unsuitable, and would have been laughed right out of the convention hall had she been a man.

First off, she was a 3-term congresswoman.  That's it.  Nowhere near the qualifications that would be required from a male candidate.

And she was from New York, not only from the state, but from a New York City borough.  That's the kiss of death.

Her husband has suspected mob connections, and her father was in the mob.  If your name ends in a vowel, you need to be squeaky clean not to arouse people's suspicions of mafia connections in middle America, and she sure didn't do that, and her New York background only magnified it.

So when you pick candidates like that to fill a quota, it sometimes backfires.  She was picked only because she was a woman.  Period.  That's the completely wrong reason.

Do you blame everything on feminists?

You call him on it the time when he actually has point?

[Gustaf]

If 1996 had been more competitve more people would have voted and Clinton would probably have done better.

And, no, not in my opinion.

[afleitch]

Mario Cuomo could have ran Reagan closer than Mondale did, but Regean was 'on message' - talking about prosperity and economic advancement even if it wasn't that way for everyone. Reagan tapped into hopes and aspirations; 'morning in America' etc and that was what the electorate wanted to hear.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't think anyone would've had even a remote shot at Reagan, unless you had a really popular Democrat like FDR or HHH or JFK come back from the dead in 1984. Of the candidates presented, I ran through my simulator, and Senator Hart came the closest, followed by Senator Glenn, and finally a REALLY young Governor Clinton.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I don't think anyone could've.  Who is HHH?

[nclib]

Who is HHH?

Hubert H. Humphrey

[dazzleman]

Mario Cuomo could have ran Reagan closer than Mondale did, but Regean was 'on message' - talking about prosperity and economic advancement even if it wasn't that way for everyone. Reagan tapped into hopes and aspirations; 'morning in America' etc and that was what the electorate wanted to hear.

I think Mario Cuomo's potential candidacy was never more than a bunch of hot air.  And the fact that he never chose to run proves that he knew it.

Cuomo was nothing more than a garden variety contemporary liberal who could utter high-sounding platitudes that meant nothing.  He wouldn't have done well outside of the metropolitan northeast.

Reagan had the relatively rare ability to even get some people who opposed his policies to vote for him.  I think you hit the nail on the head when you spoke about his tapping into hopes and aspirations.

For those who didn't live through the period, it's hard to explain the level of hopelessness, helplessness and sense of decline that had beset the US, and really the entire west, in the years leading up to Reagan's election in 1980.  People had little faith in the future, and had been conditioned to believe that the best we could hope for was a controlled decline.

Reagan was like a ray of light in a room that had been dark for a very long time.  There was something about people's reaction to him that transcended their political views.  He made many people, myself included, believe, some for the first time, that the future might be good, and allowed us to view it with hope rather than foreboding.  And he made people feel good about their country in a way that no president since possibly JFK had.

I wish there were somebody like Reagan on the horizon for 2008.  Maybe there is, and we'll find out later.  Nobody predicted before Reagan came into office that he would have the effect on the country's morale that he had.  I hope for somebody like Reagan to be our next president -- somebody who can get us to transcend petty differences, and get at least some people to think about what they like and love more than what they hate.

Nobody could have beaten Reagan in 1984.

[Rob]

Had the presidential election been held in 1982, even Mondale would have beaten Reagan. In 1984, no one could have defeated him. However, a stronger candidate could have made a respectable showing.

Let's say that Cuomo- an eloquent, charismatic figure- wins the nomination, and chooses Gary Hart as his running mate. His message is similar to Kennedy's in 1960; to wit, "We can do better."

Notwithstanding Reagan's theme of "Morning in America", there was a lot of discontent that Mondale failed to properly exploit. The farm belt was going through one of its periodic crises, as family farmers were being forced off the land in record numbers. Blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt were pissed at the rampant union-busting and factory-closing. Mondale did quite well (comparatively speaking) in these states.

Reagan vs. Cuomo:

Cuomo holds the President to 56 percent of the popular vote; the EV is 412-126.

[dazzleman]

Rob, I think you're right about 1982 versus 1984.  In politics, timing is everything.  Just imagine if the 1992 presidential election had been held in 1991 instead.  Election results are snapshots at a point in time.

Iowa is a good example of what you're talking about.  It was one of the states where Reagan performed most poorly in 1984.

Had the presidential election been held in 1982, even Mondale could have beaten Reagan. In 1984, no one could have defeated him. However, a stronger candidate could have made a respectable showing.

Let's say that Cuomo- an eloquent, charismatic figure- wins the nomination, and chooses Gary Hart as his running mate. His message is similar to Kennedy's in 1960; to wit, "We can do better."

Notwithstanding Reagan's theme of "Morning in America", there was a lot of discontent that Mondale failed to properly exploit. The farm belt was going through one of its periodic crises, as family farmers were being forced off the land in record numbers. Blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt were pissed at the rampant union-busting and factory-closing. Mondale did quite well (comparatively speaking) in these states.

Reagan vs. Cuomo:

Cuomo holds the President to 56 percent of the popular vote; the EV is 412-126.

[Akno21]

I don't think anyone could've.  Who is HHH?

Hubert H. Humphrey

[Michael Z]

Mario Cuomo could have ran Reagan closer than Mondale did, but Regean was 'on message' - talking about prosperity and economic advancement even if it wasn't that way for everyone. Reagan tapped into hopes and aspirations; 'morning in America' etc and that was what the electorate wanted to hear.

I think Mario Cuomo's potential candidacy was never more than a bunch of hot air.  And the fact that he never chose to run proves that he knew it.

Cuomo was nothing more than a garden variety contemporary liberal who could utter high-sounding platitudes that meant nothing.  He wouldn't have done well outside of the metropolitan northeast.

Reagan had the relatively rare ability to even get some people who opposed his policies to vote for him.  I think you hit the nail on the head when you spoke about his tapping into hopes and aspirations.

For those who didn't live through the period, it's hard to explain the level of hopelessness, helplessness and sense of decline that had beset the US, and really the entire west, in the years leading up to Reagan's election in 1980.  People had little faith in the future, and had been conditioned to believe that the best we could hope for was a controlled decline.

Reagan was like a ray of light in a room that had been dark for a very long time.  There was something about people's reaction to him that transcended their political views.  He made many people, myself included, believe, some for the first time, that the future might be good, and allowed us to view it with hope rather than foreboding.  And he made people feel good about their country in a way that no president since possibly JFK had.

I wouldn't say Reagan's Presidency was solely one of optimism, bearing in mind that his entire first term and some of his second term was overshadowed by the distinct threat of nuclear war, and one which many people was aggravated by some of his policies and rhetoric. Plus Reagan's implementation of trickle down economics had a detrimental effect on some in the lowest income groups.

But I can definitely agree with you in that Reagan installed a "can do"-spirit which many of his predecessors had patently failed to do.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right, I think that's what is desperately needed right now. If the Clinton- and BushII eras will be remembered for anything, I suspect it will be for the constant bickering between liberals and conservatives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

[dazzleman]

I wouldn't say Reagan's Presidency was solely one of optimism, bearing in mind that his entire first term and some of his second term was overshadowed by the distinct threat of nuclear war, and one which many people was aggravated by some of his policies and rhetoric. Plus Reagan's implementation of trickle down economics had a detrimental effect on some in the lowest income groups.

Mike, having lived through Reagan's term as a young adult, I think the nuclear war threat of which you speak was overblown.  The media and Hollywood played it up to try to encourage opposition to Reagan's policies, but most people didn't actually have a fear of imminent nuclear war.  There was the whole nuclear freeze movement, which was another liberal stupidity (what good would a freeze do when there were already massive numbers of nuclear weapons in existence?), but that fizzled out as the Soviet Union weakened.  Still, most people were not waking up every day in fear of nuclear war, though in retrospect, we may have come closer than we realized at the time, due to the insane paranoia of the sclerotic Soviet leadership.

There was definitely a perceived darker side to Reagan, but most people overlooked it.  The sunny side overshadowed the perceived darker side for most people.  Still, Reagan was strongly disliked by certain segments of society, much in the way Roosevelt was, despite his sunny demeanor and high popularity.  No president can be universally popular.

[Michael Z]

I wouldn't say Reagan's Presidency was solely one of optimism, bearing in mind that his entire first term and some of his second term was overshadowed by the distinct threat of nuclear war, and one which many people was aggravated by some of his policies and rhetoric. Plus Reagan's implementation of trickle down economics had a detrimental effect on some in the lowest income groups.

Mike, having lived through Reagan's term as a young adult, I think the nuclear war threat of which you speak was overblown.  The media and Hollywood played it up to try to encourage opposition to Reagan's policies, but most people didn't actually have a fear of imminent nuclear war.  There was the whole nuclear freeze movement, which was another liberal stupidity (what good would a freeze do when there were already massive numbers of nuclear weapons in existence?), but that fizzled out as the Soviet Union weakened.  Still, most people were not waking up every day in fear of nuclear war, though in retrospect, we may have come closer than we realized at the time, due to the insane paranoia of the sclerotic Soviet leadership.

There was definitely a perceived darker side to Reagan, but most people overlooked it.  The sunny side overshadowed the perceived darker side for most people.  Still, Reagan was strongly disliked by certain segments of society, much in the way Roosevelt was, despite his sunny demeanor and high popularity.  No president can be universally popular.

I suppose so. However, I remember everyone in West Germany being really edgy about the nuclear threat, which probably wasn't helped by the occasional siren test (which would always drove my grandmother into the cellar, as this is what she did whenever she heard a siren raid during WW2 - I don't think I've ever met a single German from that generation who isn't traumatised, but that's another subject entirely). But then Germany was right in the firing line during the Cold War and, had it come to hostilities, would have been the first place to go, so admittedly I'm looking at this from a somewhat culturally biased perspective, and equally people there had somewhat different sensibilities and were probably prone to overreact (which is also comparable to the way Bush's hostile rhetoric towards North Korea was perceived in South Korea). But I always thought it was weird. My parents used to complain about this guy Reagan when just saw him as that friendly old man on the television.

But speaking of you being a young adult in the 80s - were there any particular fashion crimes you comitted back then? Like a mullet? Everybody had one of those.

[dazzleman]

I suppose so. However, I remember everyone in West Germany being really edgy about the nuclear threat, which probably wasn't helped by the occasional siren test (which would always drove my grandmother into the cellar, as this is what she did whenever she heard a siren raid during WW2 - I don't think I've ever met a single German from that generation who isn't traumatised, but that's another subject entirely). But then Germany was right in the firing line during the Cold War and, had it come to hostilities, would have been the first place to go, so admittedly I'm looking at this from a somewhat culturally biased perspective, and equally people there had somewhat different sensibilities and were probably prone to overreact (which is also comparable to the way Bush's hostile rhetoric towards North Korea was perceived in South Korea). But I always thought it was weird. My parents used to complain about this guy Reagan when just saw him as that friendly old man on the television.

But speaking of you being a young adult in the 80s - were there any particular fashion crimes you comitted back then? Like a mullet? Everybody had one of those.

I think nuclear war was much more feared in Europe than in the US.  What I never really understood about the attitude of many Europeans was why they thought Reagan would be the one to start a nuclear war, rather than the Russians, when it was the Russians who initially targeted intermediate-range missiles directly at Europe in the mid-to-late 1970s.  Then, at the behest of the European leaders in 1979, NATO agreed to deploy opposing missiles in Western Europe, and this is what seemed to bother many Europeans far more than the initial Russian missiles targeted at them.  And Ronald Reagan was then 'blamed' for a decision to counter previously-placed Russian missiles that was made by their own leaders together with Jimmy Carter.

Europeans felt about Reagan what many feel now about Bush.  They don't like either president's style, and they don't like either man's bluntness or aggressiveness.  But sometimes these qualities are necessary.

I never had a mullet, because my hair tends to get curly and wiry when long, and just didn't lend itself to a mullet.  But I'm sure I'd cringe if I looked at pictures from back then.  I can't really remember what I wore, other than the typical jeans/shirt combinations.  I don't think I was particularly well dressed, or badly dressed.

[Dr. Cynic]

I don't think anyone could've.  Who is HHH?

HHH is Hubert Horatio Humphrey... I quote him in my profile... Oh and as for the HHH you thought he is over 35... I know this because I am also a wrestling fan from waaaaayyyyyy back.

[MarkWarner08]

John Glenn might have. Even so, it was a lost cause from the beginning.

[ATFFL]

Only Reagan could have beaten Reagan in 1984.

[Dr. Cynic]

John Glenn might have. Even so, it was a lost cause from the beginning.

That's probably the best guess, although Hart might've perfomed well as well.

[Reignman]

Nope.