The Cause Endures: Teddy Runs in 1984

So What If Edward M. Kennedy followed the playbook of then President Reagan, following a tought primary/convention floor fight against a sitting President decides to run again in following presidential election? His concession speech at the Democratic Convention in 1980 is now considered to have be one of,if not the best speech of his career but what if he decided to follow up on the promises made within it.

Now let's say he spends the years following the '80 election much like Reagan did following the '76 election consolidating his base and sowing up the wounds of his divisive campaign. After declaring his candidacy in early in 1983, which convinces Mondale not to run in an increasingly crowded playing field battles it out with Gary Hart and Rev Jesse Jackson for the nomination to clinch the nomination.

Getting him the nomination is the easy part, having him win the General is the really hard part:D...So does the Liberal Lion follow a path simmiliar to OTL Mondale and choose a Woman/Minority to be his running mate(Dianne Feinstein, Martha Layne Collins,Tom Bradley, Henry Ciseneros and Andrew Young are all sound choices IMO) or would he try to balace the ticket by selecting someone like Lloyd Bentsen, John Glenn, Dale Bumpers, Bob Grahm or even Gary Hart?

After we could find him a solid Running Mate, what kind of General Campaign would Teddy run? Could he outperform Reagan in the debates? Will the Morning Again in America win out against a return to Camelot? Plus the youth and inexpierence line really wouldn't stick to the 52 year old, 5 term Senator lol. But Reagan would undoubtdly bring up Chappaquidick, the women and the booze. Finally what might the electoral picture differ from OTL? And what would be some potential longer lasting effects with Kennedy as the Democratic Nominee in 1984? Please discuss
 
it would actually be a bad if teddy had won the presidency or the nomination. Because in both instances Teddy is out of the senate. He has been such a force in the senate and a huge defender of women's rights, healthcare, education. Teddy out of the senate would mean a lot of bills that pass now fail and vice versa.
 
it would actually be a bad if teddy had won the presidency or the nomination. Because in both instances Teddy is out of the senate. He has been such a force in the senate and a huge defender of women's rights, healthcare, education. Teddy out of the senate would mean a lot of bills that pass now fail and vice versa.

All very true, But if Teddy deed indeed loose the race around the same margins as Mondale did(Which I don't think is to plausible, I think he would be able to better articulate the Liberal Message than the former VP) Since he is a sitting Senator(a la McCain in 2008), he can still serve out the rest of his term after the election, that is unless MASS, has some rule against it. But someone in the Mass DEM Party would undoubtdly try to take his place. Any other comments, I thought this POD has a lot of potential...
 
I always thought his best chance would have been 1988. No sitting President to contend with. Then again, I've really never understood the Kennedy appeal.
 
Kennedy's first best shot probably would have been in 1980 if the "Dump Carter" movement had succeeded.

As it is, I don't think any Democrat could have beaten Reagan in '84.
 
Kennedy's first best shot probably would have been in 1980 if the "Dump Carter" movement had succeeded.

The Dump Carter movement died exactly because the only plausible alternative was Kennedy… and at least half of the movement didn't want Kennedy either. Kennedy's best shot was no Iran-Contra crisis and/or a better run campaign in 1979-80.

The Dump Carter movement actually approached Mondale (the sitting Vice-President, let's remember), who—obviously—turned them down. That's how desperate they were to find someone who was neither Kennedy nor Carter.
 
As it is, I don't think any Democrat could have beaten Reagan in '84.
There's this whole move on the part of modern America to deify Ronald Reagan. You can think Reagan was an overhyped idiot who didn't do anything but take credit for other people's successes and none of the blame, and somehow come to say "well, Reagan was still awesome and no one could beat him ever". The matter is, Reagan's approval ratings during his presidency years were lukewarm on average, and between '83 and '84, he was moving between 38-40% to 55%. So there were many people who were not thrilled with Reagan, and he was still very much beatable in 1984. All that was needed was a strong candidate.
 
The matter is, Reagan's approval ratings during his presidency years were lukewarm on average, and between '83 and '84, he was moving between 38-40% to 55%. So there were many people who were not thrilled with Reagan, and he was still very much beatable in 1984. All that was needed was a strong candidate.

Alternatively, the 1982-83 recession continues an extra year and Reagan is turfed out on bad economic news.
 
Hmm, This is pretty interesting, Im not really that Interested in seeing Kennedy to tackle Reagan, but what effects might a relativley close loss(Not a Landside as per in OTL) might have on the 88 election. Well the dems go for the Southern Moderates or still go with another Massachusetss Liberal? Also under what conditions might we get a prolonged recession under Reagan?
 
Also under what conditions might we get a prolonged recession under Reagan?

That one is fairly easy. Carter appoints someone else to head the Fed instead of Paul Volcker.

Unlike Greenspan (who, in retrospect and at the time to some, was an idiot) Volcker was as close as we get to someone who handled the economy damn near perfectly. He believed in regulation[1] but was broadly speaking pro-free market, had solid ideas on how to handle inflation and successfully implemented them, and he garnered broad bi-partisan support.

So. Carter nominates somebody else who is either as good as Volcker but unacceptable to Republicans and Reagan replaces him with an idiot; or Carter nominates somebody who's an idiot and Reagan either keeps him or replaces him with another idiot.

The Fed then mismanages the economy, inflation stays high under Reagan, and the economic recession of '82-83 winds up lasting to the '84 election which is enough to take him down.



[1] Which is a key reason Reagan replaced him with Greenspan.
 
Top