Interesting pre-autopsy of Mondale's doomed 1984 campaign

...this article could have described the Trump campaign. Funny how the help of a foreign government can make a big difference in the outcome.

to get excited and organize on behalf of pondscum like tЯump.

The foreign meddling put pondscum over the edge.

Is that a quote from someone in the campaign?

But there's nothing else to support the narrative.

...that of assuming that EVERYONE agreed that Reagan was a terrible President and of course would vote against him regardless of whom the Democrat was. One of Mondale's campaign lines was that he'd fire everyone Reagan hired, and hire everyone Reagan fired.

We consider our assumptions so self-evident we don't get why anyone would vote for an idiot like Reagan or Trump to begin with. Maybe we should stop assuming it's self-evident that any Democrat would be better?

is the way anyone else views Trump.

the Stupid on the left is overwhelming; the hatred of Trump is so severe that even normally rational people are forgetting that you should
*NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT.

NEVER

particularly when you hate them, think them a manipulated, corrupt and incompetent little man.

Anyone who underestimates their opponent deserves to lose.


Mondale's team utterly discounted Reagan in every way, and paid the price (as did we all).

ALWAYS assume your opponent is smarter, better organized, better staffed and more ruthless than you are.

candidates can beat Trump. It is not true. We are in real trouble. If we don't rebuild the blue wall, we have no path to the presidency...the Senate map indicates the issues we face-the senate makes me want to weep in terms of of our chances to actually advance policy by winning the senate rather than just stop the Pugs...sure we might get Texas, Georgia and Arizona...but we haven't in years and how long will it take? We don't have the time to wait.

We really have to compete everywhere. We did that in 2018 and eve solid red districts that we lost swung blue. If we do it again in 2020, they will swing bluer and we could pick up states we have not won in years.

However. there is little-likelihood that we will take statewide elections in red states...our only really chance playing the odds is to take PA, WI and MI...Joe Biden can do this. I see no evidence any of the other candidates could.

If you haven't done so already, I invite you to look at this thread: https://democraticunderground.com/1287133162

It explains exactly why Texas CAN be in play for 2020. There is a candidate who already has an army of supporters ready and willing to volunteer again. Republicans would have to spend a MASSIVE amount of money to attempt to defend it. That is less money they have to defend elsewhere. A campaign and movement like we saw in Texas on a nationwide level would scare the daylights out of the GOP and Trump. It's foolish not to give this the consideration it merits.

election, but Cruz won...all the pie in the sky red states that we might take or are in play are long shots...but with Biden we take one of those three states Trump must have to eke out an electoral college win...we could maybe take more but not counting on it...we have to take out Trump. Our very republic is at stake. We could take Arizona, Georgia and Texas in 20 or it could be years away...we have no consistent path to the presidency realistically without the blue wall states.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

or legislature...not state wide races...we must get rid of Trump and what you provided kinds of proves my point. We simply can't count on Texas to vote for a Democrat in the presidential race.

Because there is little if any inspiration or motivation to get out and knock on doors and volunteer when you are voting AGAINST someone. You vote against someone out of duty but you are less likely to donate or volunteer.

When you vote FOR someone you volunteer and donate. "Safe" candidates often lose because they don't energize and excite voters.

"assuming that EVERYONE agreed that Reagan was a terrible President and of course would vote against him regardless of whom the Democrat was."

...wake me up when it is over is what they called it...plenty of Democrats voted for Reagan...a sad thing in our history as a party-maybe because he got shot has something to do with it.

from Reagan...an unmitigated disaster for this country and our party. Part of the problem we have is lack of discipline...vote for the Democratic candidate always.

The ones who need convincing to vote Democratic. They won't vote for someone they don't like or who doesn't address their real concerns. I fear we are making that mistake again.

take office? I don't buy it...they are Democratic Party haters.

I know hateful people who voted for Clinton. People are not simply divided into the haters and the lovers. That's too simple a division and always ends up being too flattering to ourselves.

you imagine they pull the wings off flies in their spare time. Or something like that.

I do know Trump voters I care about very deeply. They have their flaws. So do we all.

voted on manufacturing are semi-OK...but still they overlooked the rampant racism and sexism...so maybe not..the rest of them are not good folks especially if they still support the bastard.

not just as voters, and what sort of information they have, and so why they, as human beings, make the choices that they make.

Anyone who approves of babies in cages and is OK with child deaths at the border is as much a monster as Trump.

And what it means to be "OK" with something or even know that it is happening are also different. Are YOU okay with one million babies being murdered (aborted) every year? I know, you probably don't think those are real babies, but if you believed they were, anyone who condoned that would be a "monster" wouldn't they?

If you are not able to imagine that in the eyes of some, we are the monsters and they are the saints, they you do not understand them. You only think you do.

as the economy was booming. It was a different story just a year before: Reagan was in big trouble.

those days...our side sabotaged Mondale...same as with Gore, Kerry and Clinton.

Mondale never broke above 46% in the polls in the entire year of 1984, while Reagan never fell below 50% and most often was often around 55%
[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1984_United_States_presidential_election|

But the big problem was that the economy really started to heat up in 1984 and Reagan's favorability was over +10% favorable the whole year and mostly +15%.

Reagan's favorability had hit a low the year before in January 1983: 41% approve vs 47% disapprove (-6%). I was sure he would lose, as were many of those running, such as Hart and Mondale.

By October 1994 a month before the election Reagan's favorability was 58% approve, 32% disapprove (+26%). There was nothing Mondale could do. His only hope was that Reagan would stumble again after the first debate where Reagan seemed like he had Alzheimer's, but it didn't happen.

[link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iEl565M1mICTubTtoxXMdxzaHzAcPTnb3kpRndsrfyY/edit?ts=5bd7f609#gid=1957483948|

I contend even if Mondale had run a perfect campaign, and there was much to criticize, he still would have lost in a landslide, because such strong favorability numbers essentially guarantee the incumbent the win.

Reagan's biggest advantage was that looked and sounded good on TV and Mondale didn't. Reagan was really the first President to master the use of television, as FDR was the furst to master radio.

If we had elected someone who was more exciting than Mondale, and ran a better campaign, things might have turned out differently.

Which is why I'm backing a candidate who looks good on TV and can write a good tweet.

after the Democratic convention. Then the media went after Ferarro and her husband and Mondale nominated Bert Lance to be Chairman and that got a lot of Flack as well. By the time of the GOP convention he was down by double digits again.

I don't care if Attila the Hun is running...if there is a D next to his/her name than fucking vote for him/her.

He was, to me, so non-noteworthy and mediocre. A nice guy. Maybe good on policies. But you gotta have that "it" factor. I was very disappointed when he won the nomination. Then again, no one had much of a chance against Reagan, I think.

I remember more about Ferraro. I watched her in a debate and giving speeches. I noticed the attacks on her were biased because of her gender. I think they probably knew they wouldn't win, so took the opportunity to name a "game changer" as VP, but I thought most people in the country wouldn't vote for a woman at that time. I also remember thinking that it's the pits that she is second on the ticket because of her gender, when the ticket positions should have been reversed.

But Reagan was popular, the economy was good....I figured he'd win, although I didn't imagine him sweeping almost the entire country like he did. Ouch.

He was the first modern Vice President. The office grew in stature to a very important function of the executive branch on a day to day basis. He had the Washington experience Carter and those in Carter's Georgian circle did not. Mondale was very smart and effective. Especially on foreign affairs with Europe. But he was not very visible to the public eye. I think after 1980 people wanted someone who can take the oratory fight to Reagan. Someone who could make soundbites and presence to beat Reagan at his own game - Ted Kennedy.

I thought back then he'd have a decent chance of winning. I thought he should be the nominee against Reagan instead of Carter. I knew Carter wouldn't win, either. The economy was in horrible shape, and he was unpopular. He was an extraordinary person. I loved him. But I remember standing in my room ironing, watching Reagan on tv, and thinking, "Oh oh." But instead of letting Kennedy be the nominee, he insisted on running for re-election. The rest, as they say, is history.

Mondale may have been a good politician and government player. But it takes something different to be the leader. People are looking for leadership qualities. Leaders stand out in the crowd. They have charisma. And excellent communication skills. People don't expect the leader to be good with details; he hires experts for that. Poor Mondale looked like he was out of his element, and melted into the wallpaper, almost. It wasn't his fault. He just didn't have those qualities.

The current crop of candidates may or may not be popular, but most of them are anything but forgettable, thank goodness.

I was just voting age.

Reagan caught the post Vietnam malaise at the perfect time. It was total Jingoism but that can work at times. And he started the republican playbook of running up the deficit to fire up the economy all the while rejecting the Keynesian model of economics while using it to his benefit. Same as trump is doing. Great economy on the surface, huge debt is the result.

It’s what they do!

!) With today's demographics Walter Mondale is not Walter Mondale. That shouldn't have to be explained here
2) Walter Mondale received 91% of the African American vote.* They didn't see him or his running mate as racist
3) Reagan was hovering around 60% approval in the Fall of 1984** If Trump is at 60% approval in the Fall of 2020 we're in trouble but I doubt he will be at 60% approval.





*https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1984
**https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx