AHC: Mondale wins in 1984

[Red_Neptune]

Of course Reagan would have won decisively. I don't think being an Atari Democrat hurt Dukakis: if anything it was an advantage that gave him an initial polling lead. Rather Dukakis lost due to the good economy and his own missteps in the general election.

I think the problem that faced Atari Democrat -- and the reason why I think any of them would have faced similar problems as the Duke, esp. in the frenzied media environment of 1988 -- was a complete lack of emotional connection to the public at large. Much of Dukakis' initial lead was because a) Iran-Contra was still in many people's minds and b) GHWB was distrusted by conservatives after his attempting to position himself as a moderate Republican in 1980. Even Hart (who represented "new ideas") never convinced many people he was the neo-JFK he was trying to portray himself as. Indeed, in the NYT's coverage of the speeches at the 1984 DNC they said of Hart's speech:

Gary Hart put forward a speech to be played back in four years which was unsatisfying now; he tried to get in too many of his stump themes. Speech delivered at a constant pace and without break in tone, making delivery monotonous. ''Nostalgia is not a program,'' a good shot; but old-fashioned slams at a ''gang of greedy polluters'' and ''toxic terrorists'' marred the cerebral yuppie approach. Grade: B minus.

I think Hart himself recognized this, which is why three years later the NYT was talking about how Hart was becoming a more 'open' candidate.
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/03/magazine/garry-hart-the-elusive-front-runner.html

Hart being a more moderate Democrat would prevent Reagan from tying him to the Carter era, I also doubt that Hart would open his campaign by promising to raise taxes as Mondale did. However Hart would still lose.

Yes, Hart would definitely not pledge to raise taxes (I'm almost surprised that someone like Mondale, who didn't have an ounce of charisma, thought he could pull that off). I think he'd actually end up losing by an even bigger landslide -- Mondale mostly won Minnesota because of his home state advantage, and even that by an extremely narrow margin. Hart's home state of Colorado was a strongly Republican state; it voted for Reagan 63-35. Hart might actually only end up winning D.C.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Most people I know who lived during the Carter Years (including Democrats) think of him as a president who wrecked the economy and did nothing about the hostage crisis.

I think people were hurt and angry because the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on so long, and they felt Carter had embarrassed the country.

I like to look at it as Carter taking on the embarrassment himself and sparing the country. And sometimes I even believe it! But, all the same, he did play a steady eddie game, and all the hostages did come home safe.

And regarding the economy . . . what about the phrase Reaganomics?

 

[Amadeus]

Yes, Hart would definitely not pledge to raise taxes (I'm almost surprised that someone like Mondale, who didn't have an ounce of charisma, thought he could pull that off). I think he'd actually end up losing by an even bigger landslide -- Mondale mostly won Minnesota because of his home state advantage, and even that by an extremely narrow margin. Hart's home state of Colorado was a strongly Republican state; it voted for Reagan 63-35. Hart might actually only end up winning D.C.

I doubt that, he at least could have won MA or RI.

 

[Johnrankins]

I think people were hurt and angry because the Iranian hostage crisis dragged on so long, and they felt Carter had embarrassed the country.

I like to look at it as Carter taking on the embarrassment himself and sparing the country. And sometimes I even believe it! But, all the same, he did play a steady eddie game, and all the hostages did come home safe.

And regarding the economy . . . what about the phrase Reaganomics?

The fact is that the economy boomed under Reagan so , like it or not, Reaganomics worked.

 

[Electric Monk]

The fact is that the economy boomed under Reagan so , like it or not, Reaganomics worked.

Keynesian economics works, yes, even if less efficient in tax cut and military spending form.

 

[Amadeus]

The fact is that the economy boomed under Reagan so , like it or not, Reaganomics worked.

Correlation =/= causation.

 

[overoceans]

As a big fan of Scorsese's movies I've always felt that a successful Reagan assassination would have severely damaged his career since many people would blame him for Reagan's death. Jodie Foster might have quit acting altogether out of guilt, since Hinckley claimed to have shot Reagan in order to impress her.

Another huge Scorsese fan here. One thing I've always found interesting is that people always link Hinckley to Jodie Foster, but not so much to De Niro, even though it was De Niro whose actions he was directly imitating.

As for the effects on peoples' careers, I don't know if it would have finished off Scorsese: the Manson murders didn't make the Beatles(or even the White Album) disreputable, and I think those crimes shocked people about as much as a Reagan assassination would.

(Well, maybe a presidential death would shock people a little more, but still. Given that the Beatles suffered almost zero blowback, despite Manson being pretty much the most notorious murderer of all time, I think we can speculate that a dead Reagan would, at worst, keep Scorsese away from dark material for a few years.)

 

[GrandMaster]

Mondale makes Gary Hart his Vice President, and he argues for the reform of liberal politics, to counteract Reagan's conservative program.

 

[Amadeus]

Another huge Scorsese fan here. One thing I've always found interesting is that people always link Hinckley to Jodie Foster, but not so much to De Niro, even though it was De Niro whose actions he was directly imitating.

As for the effects on peoples' careers, I don't know if it would have finished off Scorsese: the Manson murders didn't make the Beatles(or even the White Album) disreputable, and I think those crimes shocked people about as much as a Reagan assassination would.

(Well, maybe a presidential death would shock people a little more, but still. Given that the Beatles suffered almost zero blowback, despite Manson being pretty much the most notorious murderer of all time, I think we can speculate that a dead Reagan would, at worst, keep Scorsese away from dark material for a few years.)

After 1981, Scorsese followed up Raging Bull with The King of Comedy and After Hours. Both very underrated, but they both bombed at the box office. In OTL they can be seen as "lighter" material after Scorsese made a very dark movie in Raging Bull, so perhaps you're right that maybe his career wouldn't be impacted that much. Maybe the storyline for the King of Comedy is changed to address the Reagan assassination in some way, since it already deals with celebrity obsession, stalking, etc.

 

[Red_Neptune]

Mondale makes Gary Hart his Vice President, and he argues for the reform of liberal politics, to counteract Reagan's conservative program.

Gary Hart suggested they do this -- the problem is that both were trailing Reagan badly, and the last thing Mondale wanted was someone who would overshadow him and also had a base of his own (which is why Presidential candidates don't often select their primary arch rivals as VPs). As for the 'reform of liberal politics,' in many ways that was what Mondale was trying to do it. The problem is that convincing people that they need change (esp. in the way Mondale tried to do) when things are going relatively well is not going to help you win a campaign.

 

[Amadeus]

Gary Hart suggested they do this -- the problem is that both were trailing Reagan badly, and the last thing Mondale wanted was someone who would overshadow him and also had a base of his own (which is why Presidential candidates don't often select their primary arch rivals as VPs). As for the 'reform of liberal politics,' in many ways that was what Mondale was trying to do it. The problem is that convincing people that they need change (esp. in the way Mondale tried to do) when things are going relatively well is not going to help you win a campaign.

Yeah. Even with a charismatic candidate like Mario Cuomo or Bill Clinton the Democrats would have lost under OTL conditions.

 

[GeographyDude]

The fact is that the economy boomed under Reagan so , like it or not, Reaganomics worked.

Canada Unemployment

Well, we did better than Canada! Which briefly had about 13.1% unemployment during the 1982 recession.

We in the U.S. “only” had 10.8% unemployment for both Nov. and Dec. 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

Sadly, now surpassed during the Covid recession.

(I think the above graph very clearly plots unemployment against major recessions!)

 

[Electric Monk]

Yeah that’s because NAFTA nuked our protectionist factories, particularly cars. All those well paying unionized jobs vanishing slammed Ontario until Quebec decided to double down.

The main reason Toronto escaped the fate of other Great Lakes manufacturing centres are the two Quebec referendums. Montreal was by far the First City in Canada. But the twin referendums saw a flood of business bail out to Toronto just in case. It’s like if New York bankers went to Chicago because of New England separatism.

 

[GeographyDude]

Keynesian economics works, yes, even if less efficient in tax cut and military spending form.

I do understand that military spending has less multiplier effects.

But tax cuts during a recession, I think are great! Especially if it changes withholding right then and there. A stimulus bill can go through Congress in a couple of weeks, plus another couple of weeks for company payroll departments to make the change, then more money in people’s hands being spent.

 

[Johnrankins]

Correlation =/= causation.

Whether it did or not is hard to say as economics is a soft science. If it were a Democrat who had the same results I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't be saying that.

 

[Johnrankins]

Mondale makes Gary Hart his Vice President, and he argues for the reform of liberal politics, to counteract Reagan's conservative program.

After which he loses. Reagan would have been difficult to beat in 1984, picking Carter's VP made it nearly impossible. BTW, nobody cares about VP picks.

 

[Johnrankins]

Canada Unemployment

Well, we did better than Canada! Which briefly had about 13.1% unemployment during the 1982 recession.

We in the U.S. “only” had 10.8% unemployment for both Nov. and Dec. 1982.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt

Sadly, now surpassed during the Covid recession.

(I think the above graph very clearly plots unemployment against major recessions!)

The election wasn't in 1982 but 1984 when it was considerably lower.

 

[Bomster]

Whether it did or not is hard to say as economics is a soft science. If it were a Democrat who had the same results I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't be saying that.

Well a democrat did pursue those neoliberal policies. That person was Bill Clinton, and while it added 23 million jobs in the short term in the long term it led to the continuation of increasing wealth inequality as well as laid the bedrock for the eventual Great Depression.

But I don’t really think we should be having this sort of political conversation outside of chat.

 

[overoceans]

After 1981, Scorsese followed up Raging Bull with The King of Comedy and After Hours. Both very underrated, but they both bombed at the box office. In OTL they can be seen as "lighter" material after Scorsese made a very dark movie in Raging Bull, so perhaps you're right that maybe his career wouldn't be impacted that much. Maybe the storyline for the King of Comedy is changed to address the Reagan assassination in some way, since it already deals with celebrity obsession, stalking, etc.

After 1981, Scorsese followed up Raging Bull with The King of Comedy and After Hours. Both very underrated, but they both bombed at the box office. In OTL they can be seen as "lighter" material after Scorsese made a very dark movie in Raging Bull, so perhaps you're right that maybe his career wouldn't be impacted that much. Maybe the storyline for the King of Comedy is changed to address the Reagan assassination in some way, since it already deals with celebrity obsession, stalking, etc.

Of the three films, I think only The King Of Comedy would remind people of Hinckley in any significant way. So if there's a backlash against Scorsese from Reagan dying, my guess is the film doesn't get made, or, as you seem to suggest, done in such a way that makes it seem like Scorsese is grappling with the issues raised, in a "socially responsible" way. Maybe the De Niro character is portrayed as more unambiguously evil, and the script avoids any suggestion that he might have a point about the arbitrary nature of TV gatekeeping.

And if Scorsese is known in some philistine quarters as "the man who killed Reagan", he probably doesn't get the backing to do an iconoclastic Jesus movie in the late 80s. Cape Fear might not get made either.

 

[GeographyDude]

Yeah that’s because NAFTA nuked our protectionist factories, particularly cars. All those well paying unionized jobs vanishing slammed Ontario until Quebec decided to double down.

The main reason Toronto escaped the fate of other Great Lakes manufacturing centres are the two Quebec referendums. Montreal was by far the First City in Canada. But the twin referendums saw a flood of business bail out to Toronto just in case. It’s like if New York bankers went to Chicago because of New England separatism.

Although it was probably in the works since the Reagan years, I’m pretty sure NAFTA was not signed and formalized until Clinton’s first year in 1993.

Prior to this, there were maquilladora factories along the Texas-Mexico factory. These were something like (?) 50 miles on either side of the border, often run by U.S. corporations hiring Mexican workers and paying Mexican wages.