What if Reagan carries all 50 states in 1984?

In your opinion then, do you think the Democrats would have likely nominated an Al Gore or a Gary Hart over a Dukakis in light of a greater Reagan victory in 1984?

No.

Seriously, this would change virtually nothing. Reagan would get some extra bragging rights, but the practical effects would be zilch.
 

Cook

Banned
It helps that we don't imprison as many of our senators nor do we usually kill them off...
Neither was the Soviet Union in that era. We aren't talking the Stalinist period. It is just a reality that incumbancy had a great advantage in American senatorial election.
 
In your opinion then, do you think the Democrats would have likely nominated an Al Gore or a Gary Hart over a Dukakis in light of a greater Reagan victory in 1984?

Nope. Keep in mind that Democrats didn't really know Dukakis was Dukakis during the '88 primaries; he ran as a technocratic governor and not as the "card-carrying member of the ACLU." Dukakis became the nominee for one reason: John Sasso.

Sasso masterminded the idea of using Dukakis' Greek heritage to raise money starting in 1986, and then (after Hart withdrew) created the Biden attack video showing Biden plagiarizing from Neil Kinnock and leaked it to the press. When the video was traced back to the Dukakis campaign, Sasso was inexplicably forced to resign -- why the ad was treated as unfair was beyond me -- and Dukakis replaced him with Susan Estrich, a complete neophyte.

POD away Sasso's firing and Dukakis never sits in a tank, releases inexplicable campaign ads ("The Packaging of George Bush," anyone?), or refuses to answer easily-answered campaign charges (on the pledge of allegiance, prison furloughs, and Boston harbor). With Sasso in charge, my guess is that we get President Dukakis in 1988.
 
However, while this is true, the fact that Senators stay on for a long time is not logically connected to fraudulent elections, and will not be any basis until duly connected.

??? Senatorial re-election rates are 67%. Its congressmen (House) who have the 98% return rate.
 
RogueBeaver

I see by your ID you've gone back to Romney/Jindal 2012. Front-runner!:p

But do you really think Romney will pick Jindal?:confused:
 
Only over my New Englander dead body! Besides, it would degenerate American elections into a battle for the cities.
Bullshit. Here are the populations of the ten largest cities in the United States:
New York City: 8 million
Los Angeles: 3.8 million
Chicago: 2.7 million
Houston: 2.7 million
Philadelphia: 1.5 million
Phoenix: 1.4 million
San Antonio: 1.3 million
San Diego: 1.3 million
Dallas: 1.2 million
San Jose: 0.9 million

The tenth-largest city in the USA has less than a million people living in it. And the combined population of those ten largest cities is only 7.9% of the country's total population. It would be impossible to win the presidency while ignoring rural constituencies.

Source.
 
Bullshit. Here are the populations of the ten largest cities in the United States:
New York City: 8 million
Los Angeles: 3.8 million
Chicago: 2.7 million
Houston: 2.7 million
Philadelphia: 1.5 million
Phoenix: 1.4 million
San Antonio: 1.3 million
San Diego: 1.3 million
Dallas: 1.2 million
San Jose: 0.9 million

The tenth-largest city in the USA has less than a million people living in it. And the combined population of those ten largest cities is only 7.9% of the country's total population. It would be impossible to win the presidency while ignoring rural constituencies.

Source.

Figures. Even while you and I tear each other new ones, we both are ignoring the suburbs.:eek: Shame on us.:eek::eek:
 
I would say, no difference at all. Butterflies are so small that Barack Obama may still become President. It makes no difference at all. Be you win 49 or 50 states, a landslide is a landslide - and after all he could not possibly carry DC without the evil involvement of ASBs.
 
As for the OP, from thsi side of the Atantic it is hard to imagine how President Reagan could have been more popular. His legacy is terrifyingly huge, however you want to spin it he and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. I can't think of a greater achievement since WWII.
 
Reagan was also the only President since 1945 to seriously propose the total elimination of nuclear weapons. His offer to share SDI with the Soviets was genuine, even if they didn't believe him.

The administration's strategy of a military build up so they could negotiate with the USSR from parity worked. After all why should the Soviets have reduced arms if they had more than the US?
 
The only difference it would have made is that, per the Constitution, Mondale would have had to attend the inauguration 'with out trousers or warm coat' and would have been subjected to 'No fewer than Five strokes of a Wicker cane, But no more than Ten strokes, cross his hind end, administered by The President Elect'.

See kids, that's what happens when you serve John Hancock's special rum punch at the Constitutional convention.

They didn't even realize they'd put that in there until 1820!

Came as quite a nasty shock to the Adams family...
 
Top