Mondale runs, not on deficit reduction, but instead on job creation in ‘84, closer election, ripples in future elections?

[GeographyDude]

“ . . By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds.

Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did. . ”

Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Brave words, but once Reagan hit upon the rebuttal that he would only raise taxes as a last resort, Mondale as a first resort, that was pretty much it.

But if Mondale instead runs on creating middle-income jobs to replace lost manufacturing jobs, runs a better campaign, still loses, but loses a much closer election, how will this ripple through American electoral politics in the future?

 

[overoceans]

Speaking as a non-American, I never really got the impression that Reagan's lopsided popularity had much to do with any specific economic issues, beyond that the overall economy was doing fine, relatively speaking, and people were maybe just associating Mondale with taxes, regardless of whether they were for deficit-reduction or job creation.

I remember Reagan in '84 saying "The Democrats are so far left, they've left the country", and that kind of rhetoric didn't seem to hurt him. If Mondale runs on some sort of full-employment platform, the GOP can easily spin that as "just one more big-government boondoggle that's not gonna help anyone".

 

[GeographyDude]

Speaking as a non-American, I never really got the impression that Reagan's lopsided popularity had much to do with any specific economic issues, beyond that the overall economy was doing fine, relatively speaking, . . .

I also remember Reagan saying the D in Democrats stood for doom, despair, defeatism, or something very similar to that. And in general, I agree that people focused on the economy being stabilized and/or better, without diving into policy specifics. But all the same . . .

Gary Hart found traction.

Mondale’s campaign was damaged from just the general aspect of getting bruised up in a primary fight. Plus, he came off looking like an old school, tax-and-spend liberal in comparison. In addition, the endorsements that Mondale had lined up, such as from labor unions, which would normally be a positive, ended up working against him. But I still ask . . .

Could Mondale have anticipated much of this and and acted to steal Hart’s thunder?

 

[Maeglin]

Could Mondale have anticipated much of this and and acted to steal Hart’s thunder?

If he had, he wouldn't be Walter Mondale.

Mondale winning requires a delayed economic recovery (and Reagan stumbling badly in both the debates), but I think you can mitigate a fair bit of the disaster. Letting Mondale run as the old-school New Dealer he always was, rather than a proto-Identity Politics person would be a start. Focusing on the states he could realistically win, rather than California, would be another. A better VP choice would help too.

If you can manage a respectable loss, that keeps the New Deal wing of the party a going concern for longer, which means you might well butterfly Bill Clinton.

 

[David T]

The problem is that unemployment had dropped from 10.1 percent in June 1983 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt So if job creation were the big issue, people thought the Republicans were doing OK in that department (yes, unemployment over 7 percent is still historically high, but it is the direction which matters more to voters--after all, unemployment in absolute terms was high in 1936 as well).

 

[Amadeus]

Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

Brave words, but once Reagan hit upon the rebuttal that he would only raise taxes as a last resort, Mondale as a first resort, that was pretty much it.

But if Mondale instead runs on creating middle-income jobs to replace lost manufacturing jobs, runs a better campaign, still loses, but loses a much closer election, how will this ripple through American electoral politics in the future?

They didn't call him Teflon Reagan for nothing.

Mondale still loses but not as badly. He could at least take Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This could effect some close races but I'm not sure it would change much in the long run. 1984 is a Reagan landslide, Dukakis is still nominated in '88, and Clinton is still nominated in '92 - taking the Democratic Party in a more moderate direction.

 

[Maeglin]

They didn't call him Teflon Reagan for nothing.

Mondale still loses but not as badly. He could at least take Massachusetts and Rhode Island. This could effect some close races but I'm not sure it would change much in the long run. 1984 is a Reagan landslide, Dukakis is still nominated in '88, and Clinton is still nominated in '92 - taking the Democratic Party in a more moderate direction.

Dukakis, yes, though it is very, very easy to butterfly Clinton.

 

[Amadeus]

Dukakis, yes, though it is very, very easy to butterfly Clinton.

He conquered a weak field. If a stronger candidate had gone toe to toe with Clinton, someone who could match his charisma, perhaps Clinton could be deprived of the nomination. I would usually say Cuomo, though to my knowledge he cited Dukakis' loss as a reason he didn't run in '92 so I don't think Mondale would impact that.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Letting Mondale run as the old-school New Dealer he always was, rather than a proto-Identity Politics person would be a start. . .

But Clinton was strongly pro-Civil Rights, and I’d argue easily and comfortably so. And politically successful.

Mondale could be both, right?

 

[David T]

But Clinton was strongly pro-Civil Rights, and I’d argue easily and comfortably so. And politically successful.

Sister Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector...

 

[GeographyDude]

The problem is that unemployment had dropped from 10.1 percent in June 1983 to 7.2 percent in November 1984. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt So if job creation were the big issue, people thought the Republicans were doing OK in that department (yes, unemployment over 7 percent is still historically high, but it is the direction which matters more to voters . . .

I agree that 7.2 beats the double-digit unemployment the last part of 1982, plus the entire first six months of ‘83. Like you’re saying unemployment was still 10.1% in June 1983. And yes, voters judge it by its direction.

But if Hart could find traction . . . seems like Mondale could, too.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . means you might well butterfly Bill Clinton.

. . . Clinton is still nominated in '92 - taking the Democratic Party in a more moderate direction.

Bill Clinton ran and won as an economic populist in 1992.

My fondest hope would be that if Mondale largely runs this way in ‘84, he helps to kick off a national conversation on these issues, and fellow citizens become smarter and more informed.

And then comes ‘92 and early ‘93, let’s say that Clinton and the Democratic Congress have five clear things to do which will be just as popular as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

FMLA being the first legislation Clinton signed in his presidency.

 

[raharris1973]

I actually think our professional politicians, on the Democratic side, yes, I'm talking about Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, were well-disposed to economic populism. It's just that you can't get the people who volunteer themselves to throw time, money, and effort into politics to be into it and stay into it, and you can't get the media to give it air play compared to cultural issues. And the low-information voters, who actually care more about these 'bread and butter issues', than political junkies, are apt to miss it when they are being discussed. They aren't as quick to reward or punish politicians as cultural or identity warriors of any stripe. Because they're low-information or intermittent receivers of info. Plus, demonstrative moves on cultural issues are much easier to make than initiatives that require spending. Spending is so easy to obstruct and can't be done unilaterally. So the feedback loops are all wrong for sustaining an economic populist emphasis.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . And the low-information voters, who actually care more about these 'bread and butter issues', than political junkies, are apt to miss it when they are being discussed. They aren't as quick to reward or punish politicians as cultural or identity warriors of any stripe. . .

You can crowdsource the playing Pong with a paddle that’s reflective Red on one side and reflective Green on the other.

——————————————————-

But . . .

I understand it’s much harder to do this as far as landing an airplane on a simulator. I think because not everyone understands when the plane’s on a good approach and when it’s not. That is, delayed and uncertain feedback.

And I maintain this has a lot to do with economics in a modern, complex society!

 

[raharris1973]

You can crowdsource the playing Pong with a paddle that’s reflective Red on one side and reflective Green on the other.

——————————————————-

But . . .

I understand it’s much harder to do this as far as landing an airplane on a simulator. I think because not everyone understands when the plane’s on a good approach and when it’s not. That is, delayed and uncertain feedback.

And I maintain this has a lot to do with economics in a modern, complex society!

I think the same applies to legislation and local government in a modern, complex democratic society. People aren't really mentally equipped to understand how it works, or how to really establish models of effective legislators being above or below "replacement level".

 

[David T]

Reality check: GDP was growing at 7.2% in 1984. https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/usa?year=1984 (GOP: "So you don't think our economy is growing enough, Mr. Mondale? Well, let's compare it with 1980, the last year of the Carter-Mondale administration..." Yes, there was the 1982 recession but even if the voters did not accept the GOP's attempts to dismiss it as a hangover from the previous administration before Reagan's tax cuts took full effect, 1983-4 economic performance is going to mean more to voters than 1981-2. )

Of course it was a mistake for Mondale to promise to raise people's taxes, but the economy was just not a winning issue for the Democrats in 1984.

1984	4,037,600M.$	7.2%
1983	3,634,000M.$	4.6%
1982	3,343,800M.$	-1.8%
1981	3,207,000M.$	2.5%
1980	2,857,300M.$	-0.3%

 

[GeographyDude]

Reality check: GDP was growing at 7.2% in 1984. . .

Amen, Brother! Several quarters were even above 7.5%.

GDP Growth

Real Gross Domestic Product

View the annual rate of economic output, or the inflation-adjusted value of all new goods and services produced by labor and property located in the U.S.

fred.stlouisfed.org

Anything above 3 or 4 percent for a modern economy is not sustainable.

Okay, as far as the election, the “service economy” was not delivering the goods as far as replacing all of the middle income jobs lost.

And I still come back to Gary Hart.

Hart won the New Hampshire Democratic primary in Feb. ‘84, won a bunch in the middle — as did Mondale — and then on June 5, won the California primary. Gary Hart also had a real chance to win New Jersey the same day if he hadn’t made a snide remark to reporters about toxic waste. Yes, it was shallow and superficial on the part of New Jersey voters. But all the same, damn, you don’t insult people you’re asking to vote for you!

 

[GeographyDude]

Hart got people interested in his “new ideas,” but unfortunately there just wasn’t enough substance behind it.