Why did Reagan win so handily in '84?

[DSYoungEsq]

@Saint_Cad

Which is why I put it in quotes - it has EVs as if it were a state. But the fact remains Mondale won two of the 51 sovereign elections for electors.

So it’s a good thing the OP in his Post #1 didn’t claim that Reagan won 49 of the 50 “sovereign elections for electors”, isn’t it? :dubious:

[Shodan]

@BobLibDem

Nothing proven. Caution: the source below is the NYT. If you’re not a subscriber, keep in mind that you use up one of your monthly free views if you click:

Times article.

One of the accounts is provided by Gary Sick, a Middle East specialist who helped handle the Iranian hostage crisis as a member of the White House staff in the Carter Administration. Mr. Sick, in an article published Monday on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, says he has heard what he considers to be reliable reports that a secret deal involving the hostages was begun during two meetings between William J. Casey and the Iranian cleric in a Madrid hotel in July 1980.

Travel documents showed that Casey was in London at the time.

Regards,
Shodan

[UltraVires]

@Velocity

1992 was possibly the last unpolarized election in U.S. presidential history. In 1984 and 1988 it was even less polarized, and Reagan was able to capture the votes of millions of “Reagan Democrats.”

By 1996 the political battle lines were so deeply drawn that even a guy as unelectable as Dole managed to keep it “close” (relative to 1984) to the incumbent Clinton despite the great economy. Had Clinton vs. Dole taken place in 1984, it might have been a 50-state sweep.

And of course, as of last year, Trump could count on getting 90% of the Republican vote and Hillary could count on getting 90% of the Democratic vote. Had the election taken place three decades earlier, Trump might be getting less than half of the Republican vote.

Agree and disagree. Clinton had nowhere near the popularity of Reagan. In 1994, the GOP won Congress for the first time in 40 years. His popularity increased in his second term because of the smoking hot economy. So, even in 1984, I don’t see Clinton winning a 50 state sweep. Dole was a poor candidate, but would have made an acceptable president; enough so that reliably Republican states would have voted for him.

Also, even the most left leaning or right leaning states will elect someone from the other party when they are given a choice between a terrible candidate for the majority party, and a solid consensus builder from the minority party. LA, for example, elected a Democratic governor. SC did the same in 1998. WV elected a Dem governor in 2016 while voting 69% for Trump. NY has elected Pataki and D’Amato. CA elected Arnold. Maine has a solid right wing conservative governor.

In 1984, we had a candidate that was clearly superior to his vastly inferior opponent. I understand that there are Mondale voters on the board, but as you can see by their posts, they are on the far left of the spectrum to the point where they would vote for any Democrat versus any Republican.

Someone as conservative as me believed that the 2008 election was similar. I believe that Obama was so vastly superior to McCain that I voted for him. We were in the middle of a financial crisis, and everyone Democrat and Republican alike, said that we needed a massive amount of government intervention. If we need that, then I want a Democrat in charge.

TLDR version: I think a 1972 or 1984 election could very well happen today if the parties nominated a clearly superior candidate against an inferior one. And in this context “clearly superior” means as judged by middle of the road voters and not by the party faithful.

[DesertDog]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

My mother claims she’s an independent who always just votes for the best candidate regardless of party. She is, though, a staunch Democrat: she voted for Humphrey, for McGovern, for Carter (twice), for Dukakis, for Clinton (twice), for Gore, for Kerry, for Obama (twice), and for the other Clinton this past year. I don’t know who the Dems will put up in 2020, but I’d bet good money she’ll vote that way then.

But if, upon hearing this, you call her out as a Democrat – well, she’ll draw herself up to her full height and announce that she voted for Reagan in '84.

There is always an outlier. My dad was registered Republican and did vote the occasional Democrat except for president; that was Republican all the way until George W Bush.

You see, during WWII he flew in TBFs, same as Bush only in the Atlantic instead of the Pacific. A rumor swept through the fleet, even from the other side of the world, that his plane had gone into the sea and he’d let his crew drown. He voted for Dukakis and Clinton when they ran against Bush.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

…contrast the incompetent bumbling of the attempted Iran hostage rescue debacle with the invasion of Grenada.

People thought the invasion of Grenada was a positive?

[ElvisL1ves]

People thought the invasion of Grenada was *not *incompetent bungling, done hastily to distract from the incompetent bungling of the Beirut Marine barracks bombing? Or that the Iran hostage rescue was planned by *Carter *and not his military staff?

Amazing.

[ElvisL1ves]

@UltraVires

TLDR version: I think a 1972 or 1984 election could very well happen today if the parties nominated a clearly superior candidate against an inferior one. And in this context “clearly superior” means as judged by middle of the road voters and not by the party faithful.

Is that what happened in 2016?

[Shodan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

People thought the invasion of Grenada was a positive?

Yes.

A month after the invasion, Time magazine described it as having “broad popular support.” A congressional study group concluded that the invasion had been justified, as most members felt that U.S. students at the university near a contested runway could have been taken hostage as U.S. diplomats in Iran had been four years previously. The group’s report caused House Speaker Tip O’Neill to change his position on the issue from opposition to support

Cite. Keep in mind that we are talking about the US public in general, not liberals.

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

The proles will *always *cheer a military victory. Even one over a couple hundred Cuban bulldozer drivers that barely took a week.

A president just has to pick a beatable opponent, that’s all - especially if he needs one right now.

[Shodan]

You do know, don’t you, that the withdrawal from Lebanon was in 1984, and the invasion of Grenada was in 1983? And I am not sure I would refer to Tip O’Neill, nor the members of the congressional study group, as “proles”, but YMMV.

Regards,
Shodan

[DSYoungEsq]

In fairness, the “invasion” did accomplish one important foreign policy goal. It made it clear to the rest of the world that the United States had ended its self-imposed moratorium on use of military force to obtain foreign-policy objectives, which had been in place since the withdrawal from Vietnam. In light of the fact that 1983 had already seen the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut and the shooting down of KAL Flight 007, that might not have been a bad idea. And if you’re going to flex your military muscles, so to speak, ElvisL1ves is correct that an eminently beatable opponent is always a good opportunity.

[ElvisL1ves]

Wasn’t the stationing of 200 Marines in Beirut itself a good example of how America Is Riding Tall In The Saddle Again?

Until the bungling behind it had to be distracted from, that is.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

You do know, don’t you, that the withdrawal from Lebanon was in 1984, and the invasion of Grenada was in 1983?

The Marine barracks bombing was on October 22, 1983. The Grenada invasion started October 25, 1983.

Have you not heard of Wikipedia?

[k9bfriender]

I was too young at the time, around 6. I voted for Mondale in my “Weekly Reader” because I thought i was fair that he have a chance, since reagan had already gotten to be president.

My parents were aghast at this, when they found out, and spent several hours lecturing me that if mondale was elected, then criminals would rob us and we would lose our house to taxes. I think there was some other stuff in there as well.

I think that people really didn’t like Mondale.

[Shodan]

@ElvisL1ves

The Marine barracks bombing was on October 22, 1983. The Grenada invasion started October 25, 1983.

Reagan was responsible for the bombing of the barracks? I didn’t know that.

Regards,
Shodan

[Silver_lining]

@Reddy_Mercury

With regard to the two biggest landslides in American history short of Washington, I have to ask:

Why did Reagan win 49 out of 50 states in 1984? I understand that Mondale was a weak candidate, but why did no state seem to want him? Even Goldwater, who was tarred and feathered as a nutjob who’d start WWIII, won more than a single state.

What was it about that election year, or about the culture of 1984, that propelled Reagan so easily to such a landslide victory?

Also, was Reagan’s victory more of a vote of confidence in Reagan, or more a rejection of Mondale? It has been said, for example, that LBJ’s landslide victory in 1964 was less due the public’s love for LBJ and more their fear of Goldwater.

Reagan was a once in a germination type of talent. Tall, charismatic, an excellent commutator, and one with little or no visible questionable in his past.

I think he would be any president elected since 1980. It helped that he was running against Jimmy Carter, a weak president.

But you’re right, 49 out of 50 states? History won’t see that again.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Reagan was responsible for the bombing of the barracks? I didn’t know that.

At least as much as Carter was responsible for the helicopter crash in Iran. See your own posts above.

Now tell us again how Reagan showed his heroism that week.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Silver_lining

Reagan was a once in a germination type of talent.

Can’t argue with that!

[Reddy_Mercury]

@ElvisL1ves

Is that what happened in 2016?

2016 was basically 1976. The worse of two subpar candidates won by a slim margin.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Reddy_Mercury

2016 was basically 1976. The worse of two subpar candidates won by a slim margin.

Whatever else might be true about 1976, Carter was not a “subpar” candidate. He was a relatively conservative Democrat who ran a campaign based in large measure upon restoring trust to the American people (trust in their political institutions being at an all-time low). He was telegenic, he was able to show a human side (though that almost cost him the whole thing when the “human” side he showed came out in a Playboy interview :smack:), and he was well-versed in numerous aspects of governance (he was a very smart man, as were all admittees to the Navy’s nuclear submarine program).

The fact that he only barely scraped by President Ford had much to do with the fact that unseating an incumbent is hard, even an unvoted upon incumbent. The President was a less telegenic figure, and his line about Poland and Eastern European countries not being dominated by the Soviet Union probably cost him the election (I wonder if he felt vindicated in 1990). But his campaign was ably handled, and I recall well the fact that it wasn’t until the wee hours of the morning on Wednesday that everyone knew that Carter had won. In my opinion, sadly (I maintain to this day Carter was wasted as President; his skill set had better uses).