Why did Reagan win so handily in '84?

[Lorne_Armstrong]

Mondale was a very weak candidate. And even he knew he had no chance to beat Reagan. I don’t think anyone could have beat Reagan in 1984.

[asahi]

@BobLibDem

He deserves ZERO credit for this. They were released before the Inauguration parade started. What he did was convince the mullahs not to release the hostages before the 1980 election, promising they would get a better deal from him than they would Carter. As it was, they were right as Reagan gave them weaponry that Carter wouldn’t have.

Sorry, I left the thread and didn’t see this until it’s resurrection.

I agree, Reagan doesn’t deserve credit for a lot of things, but it happened on his watch and that’s what beer guzzling blue collar guys in Michigan and Ohio saw on TV. Reagan’s money supply policies also pretty clearly intensified the economic recession of 1982, but by 1984, those problems were history. Nobody was going to beat Reagan that year. Mondale’s flaws as a candidate just guaranteed that it would be a blowout loss, rather than just a loss.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

One factor that should not be ignored is that Mondale, already a weak candidate, ran a pretty horrible campaign. To whit:

1. His slogan, stolen from a Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the Beef?” got him through the primaries against his opponents, who did have some rather vague platforms. But when he tried to turn that on Reagan it fell flat since, for good or for bad, there was beef to Reagan’s policies.

2. Admitting he would raise taxes. This just wasn’t going to go over well. Why he expected to be rewarded for this honesty is a head-scratcher.

3. All campaigns in history get a boost from their National Conventions. After that you have to campaign hard to maintain that surge and strike when the iron is hot. Mondale went fishing (no, really!)

4. Liberalism had been turned into a dirty work in the early 80s, and Mondale tried too hard to play himself away from what could have been an important base. Late in the campaign when he embraced being a liberal more effectively he actually did have a rise in his polls, but it was far too little, far too late.

[RTFirefly]

@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)

“Relative to 1984,” every election since has been a squeaker. And Clinton won in 1996 by a bigger popular vote margin (percentagewise) than any other candidate since the 1984 blowout.

FWIW, Clinton won a half-dozen states in 1996 that no Dem has won since: Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

[pkbites]

@asahi

I agree, Reagan doesn’t deserve credit for a lot of things, but it happened on his watch

And the exact same thing can be said for Bill Clinton.

[DSYoungEsq]

@pkbites

And the exact same thing can be said for Bill Clinton.

The exact same thing can be said for every President we’ve had, with the possible exception of the one who died within his first 100 days. :smack:

What is the point you are making?

[Quartz]

To what extent did the Falklands War affect the 1984 election? Both in itself and as part of the reinvigoration of the West (q.v. Grenada).

[E-DUB]

@Shodan

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

Regards,
Shodan

We’re talking about the Director of the CIA here. I don’t think that the veracity of travel documents is a given.

[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 life time politician.

He was charismatic, good on television and a master communicator with the ability to sell his points softly in a way that did not insult anyone. Sunny. Optimistic. Visionary. Strong in his beliefs.

Carter was a disaster. A stark contrast was made. And the people were spoken.

It is my belief that Reagan could have defeated any Democrat alive in 1984 and currently living now. He was that good.

Of course, the demographics changed a bit since 1984, take note Reagan won the State California.

[JohnT]

IMHO, the landslide came because it no longer felt like the 70s.

[pkbites]

@DSYoungEsq

The exact same thing can be said for every President we’ve had, with the possible exception of the one who died within his first 100 days. :smack:

What is the point you are making?

Not in the same degree as under Clinton. He notoriously took/was given credit for things that simply would not have happened had he not had both sides of Congress controlled by Republicans during his last 6 years in office.

[JRDelirious]

@Quartz

To what extent did the Falklands War affect the 1984 election? Both in itself and as part of the reinvigoration of the West (q.v. Grenada).

Not very much from the vibe got around me in '84, and if anything more on the latter aspect. The perception by many in the US populace was part “why of course the Brits beat the Tango Boys, what did you expect” and part “that’s how you do it, you don’t let any tinpot potentate in a fancy hat kick you around, that old broad has guts” but they hardly were talking about it by election time; besides they had little idea of WTH was the matter with Argentina and those islands anyway. Grenada was much closer to the election*** and*** it involved actual Americans kicking the arse of actual Cuban commies (however much we may have outnumbered/outgunned them – later we learned that operationally it was a hot mess).

[DSYoungEsq]

@pkbites

Not in the same degree as under Clinton. He notoriously took/was given credit for things that simply would not have happened had he not had both sides of Congress controlled by Republicans during his last 6 years in office.

I repeat: what is the point you are making? What contribution to the ongoing discussion are you attempting with your assertion?

[pkbites]

@DSYoungEsq

I repeat: what is the point you are making? What contribution to the ongoing discussion are you attempting with your assertion?

I was responding to asahi post about Reagan getting credit for things he wasn’t responsible for but that happened under his watch.