Mondale kicked Reagan's ass in the debate in 1984

[JI7]

i was watching a cspan replay of the reagan/mondale 1984 debate. i think it was the last(third) debate they had and it has been said that mondale won both of those earlier ones.

but even in this last one mondale was on point, he came off as someone who knows what he is talking about, someone who is quick in his answers without making mistakes. he did a great job defending himself against reagan's criticisms.

and reagan was NOT charismatic. the great communicator ? mondale came off much better. reagan seemed slow, out of it, and weak. but this was the debate where he gave that one liner when asked about whether he was too old and he responded by saying he will not exploit his opponents youth and inexperience. the line was good. but it just amazes me that line alone turned things onto his side. it must have been the media replays of just that part over and over again which did it. because within the context of the entire debate it was one small moment. it's not like it was a turning point in the debate when he started to do well either. he sucked after that line also.

can those who were old enough to remember this campaign describe it a bit more.how did the media react to the debates ? i was about 5 years old then so wasn't paying much attention back then.

[Toronto Ron]

1. Not sure that I agree

I watched most of it too, last night. True, Raygun came across as anything but a great communicator, bumbling his way through several tough questions. But he didn't come across as idiotic as a more recent White House occupant we all know & despise.

Mondale, while clearly demonstrating he knows his shit, did not, in my opinion, have a sufficiently forceful delivery, especially for a challenger. I think Kerry is much stronger in this regard. And what's with the terrible bags under Mondale's eyes? He looked terrible.

[Leilani]

2. The only way I can explain it is

although Reagan is pretty much hated here at DU, he was a very popular president. People liked him...its as simple as that.

I think it goes to show that the best debater does not always win.
The person with the most facts does not always win. That was obvious in the Gore/Bush debates. We had a thread about that 1st debate.

It seems to be if the person is judged competent, then the thing that wins is who do the people like the most...who seems the most presidential.

I really think it is a perception thing. It is not debating points.

Edited to add: Reagan was the incumbent...people were happy with him...it was hard for Mondale to defeat him.

Bush, on the other hand, is not well liked, & people are not happy with him.

[JI7]

7. true, one thing Reagan did not come off as is unlikable

even i kind of felt sorry for him . so if people already personally liked him there was probably already a feeling of them wanting him to do well which made that one liner all the more powerful.

gore on the other hand in 2000 came off as unlikable to some. i can see some people who didn't vote for him just because they felt this way. so it had less to do with bush being likable or anything else about bush but more about voting against gore.

i think one of the things kerry needs to do is avoid coming off the same way that's why i often say he should be strong and critical of bush without coming off as arrogant or mean. bill clinton was the best at this. i still remember how he defended bob dole in 1996 on the attacks on his age. clinton said how there is nothing wrong with bob dole's age. and he would also praise bob dole on his positive areas such as his war service. by doing this he would force the debate to be on the issues. and every single criticism was on the policy rather than on the person.

[Leilani]

9. Exactly!

I never heard Clinton or Reagan say a mean thing about anyone.

They were both very optimistic, & good with people. That came through with both of them, in times of tragedy: Space Shuttle explosion, Oklahoma City.

Bush, on the other hand, has a mean streak & a short fuse. If Kerry keeps pressure on him, he may lose it.

I think Kerry will be firm, but respectful. I think he knows he has to score points, yet not appear mean.

[papau]

3. GE/NBC's praise Reagan and avoid issue disscussion continued

Indeed that was their mode ever since Reagan turned uber-American at the House UnAmerican Activities meeting, with GE giving Reagan jobs in the early 50's - I swear he was on the GE/NBC payroll through the 90's.

[YEM]

4. The reason Mondale lost...

He never was able to live down the comment at his convention when he said. "We will both raise taxes. He won't tell you, I just did."

That was the end for Mondale. Plus the Ferraro stuff with her husband's finances didn't help either.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. That was pre-9/11

That was before Americans understood the importance of foreign diplomacy; before Americans understood that you couldn't compensate for your own deficiencies by surrounding yourself with a cabinet of experts.

[Leilani]

6. You can t compare Reagan & Bush...

Reagan & Gorbachov did some pretty good negotiating...

And when Reagan traveled, he was not protested or hated. I remember him getting a huge reception in Ireland...a complete contrast to Shrub.

[bluedonkey]

8. I didn't see the c-span program

but I remember Mondale/Reagan debates.Reagan clearly had the advantage,knowing how to play for the cameras.Mondale knew what he was talking about and made his point,but he had no chance.Reagan was just better looking!And taller!
One of the things I will never understand why Americans are so obsessed with looks,especially when it comes to politics!
What difference does it make how a politician looks or how tall he is?

[WI_DEM]

10. I remember that debate well

It was the first of two debates (that is all RR would agree to) and Reagan was not his usual bouncy self. Mondale himself said that when he came on stage that the usual sparkle in RR's eye wasn't there. He tripped Reagan up many times including turning "There you go again" against him. Then in RR's closing summary when he got lost on the Pacific coast hwy--it was almost as if early Alheimers was exhibiting himself. After the debate, reportedly, Nancy Reagan came up to RR's handlers and said, "What have you done to him!" Mondale actually got a bounce out of the debate, but in the second debate--he was back to his usual self and after Reagan was questioned about his age (because after his faltering performance in the first debate people began to ? if he was too old to be president) he quiped, "I won't bring my opponents youth and inexperience into this" even Mondale knew the jig was up then.

[Julien Sorel]

11. You are focusing on the wrong thing.

Content is essentially ignored; what people pay attention to is style and demeanor, and especially any "clever" one-liners. So Reagan's line, "I'm not going to take advantage of my opponent's youth and inexperience," meant more than all the rest of what he'd said put together.

The Bush people understand this. That's why they feed him several scripted answers which he uses for all questions: no one pays attention to his actual words, and whether or not he answers the questions, so why bother loading him down with information? What's important is that he sounds like he's on top of things, not that he actually is. He "won" the Gore-Bush debates, taken as a whole, because he came across as friendly and projected a sense of humor. When I read the transcripts of the debates themselves, some the things he says are horrifying when he departs from the script, but the public doesn't read transcripts.


Kerry's big opportunity in the debates is to allow people to see how presidential he looks standing next to Bush, the commanding presence he can project. Bush has spent close to 100 million dollars telling people Kerry is weak and effeminate; the talking head circuit have been spinning like hashish-crazed dervishes to reinforce that image. Kerry has the opportunity, in just a few hours, to flush all that down the toilet with a forceful, commanding presence during the debates.

[mconvente]

12. that is absolutely correct

It's so true. The Shrub campaign has been nailing Kerry on being weak on every issue during this election. All Kerry has to do is show that he indeed has firm positions on issues (we all know this already but somehow some people don't...) and deflect back all the Bush criticisms. I think Kerry can definitely do this.