Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)

10. I strongly disagree on Carter. He was an excellent candidate in 1976.

Reply to Drunken Irishman (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:35 AM

Apr 2012

He carried the entire South, which had been totally lost by Humphrey and McGovern, other than Humphrey barely sneaking by in Texas. There may have been some who felt that Ford would be easy to beat, but he was the incumbent, and incumbents had won 11 of the preceding 13 contests where an incumbent was involved. Considering how much the Democratic Party had relied on its Southern base in the past, it's difficult to see how a candidate from the North could have won. Before Obama, Carter was the only Democratic candidate other than FDR and LBJ to get 50% of the popular vote since before the Civil War.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mitt Mondale: The agony of a Political Party bent on electoral suicide (April 5, edit) [View all] denem Apr 2012 OP

Mondale was honest. The voters were stupid. Some are still stupid. libinnyandia Apr 2012 #1

Mondale was an honest dud. denem Apr 2012 #2

He was not a dud. He was a good man and the American people believed the lies of the GOP like libinnyandia Apr 2012 #3

Good men can be duds politically... Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #6

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The wrong man for the time. denem Apr 2012 #7

I strongly disagree on Carter. He was an excellent candidate in 1976. bornskeptic Apr 2012 #10

No, he really wasn't and it became more apparent in '80 when he got his butt kicked... Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #12

Exactly. Why the Dems felt nominating the Veep to a perceived failed president is still beyond me... Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #5

Its funny because Mondale only carried Minnesota and D.C. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #13

Pretty much. Hart probably would have done better, IMO, than Mondale... Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #14

Good post. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #15

You're right...it could have set the party back even further... Drunken Irishman Apr 2012 #17

Here it is: NYT Gallup (9 Mar) : Hart/Reagan 52/43, Mondale/Reagan 45/50 denem Apr 2012 #18

Reagan was successful at convincing people that it's OK to be stupid. GeorgeGist Apr 2012 #4

In 1984 Mondale won 13 electoral college votes. denem Apr 2012 #8

Its always easy to look back and criticize candidates. In a country where people have knowledge of libinnyandia Apr 2012 #9

The electoral votes are misleading! How about Mondale 38.6% vs Goldwater 38.5% denem Apr 2012 #19

What Democrat would have beat Reagan? libinnyandia Apr 2012 #22

What's that got to do with the price of fish? denem Apr 2012 #25

just a few days ago I said this Douglas Carpenter Apr 2012 #11

That's a good post. aaaaaa5a Apr 2012 #16

Don't forget - the only sources for campaign coverage hedgehog Apr 2012 #20

Right. And another thing, our perceptions today denem Apr 2012 #21

Calling somone a dud is not a compliment. libinnyandia Apr 2012 #23

and it's not personal either, he was a dud candidate, denem Apr 2012 #24

Now, Ralph Nader , he was a dud candidate. libinnyandia Apr 2012 #26

Well ... as a suicide bomber in 2000 denem Apr 2012 #28

Mondale told the truth in '84; Reagan lied. baldguy Apr 2012 #27

38.6% - Lies or no lies - that is a catastrophe, denem Apr 2012 #29