Who Would've Been the Strongest Democratic Candidate Against Reagan in 1984?

Amadeus

In 1984 Ronald Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning nearly 59% of the popular vote and 49 out of 50 states. However, this was not always a foregone conclusion. In 1982 early polls showed a competitive race between Reagan and Mondale and the President's approval rating as as low as 35%. Only after the economy recovered did Reagan's position in the polls begin to soar. Further, the nomination of Walter Mondale - the former VP to a widely unpopular President who himself had been crushed by Reagan four years earlier - only boosted Reagan's chances.

In retrospect, the Democrats would've done better to nominate a stronger candidate. But who in 1984 could've done better than Mondale?
 
Last edited:

jacobk

The change in the Democrat candidate would have had to tank the market and get Reagan blamed for it.

US GDP growth in 1982 by quarter was -2.19%, -1.01%, -2.56%, and -1.44%.

US GDP growth in 1983 by quarter was 1.43%, 3.27%, 5.74%, and 7.9%.

US GDP growth in the first three quarters of 1984 was 8.58%, 8%, and 6.9%.

That's while inflation went from around 14% when Reagan was inaugurated to under 5% for all of 1984.

There was a reason Republican candidates spent the next thirty years trying to tie themselves to Reagan.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Given the strength of the economic recovery in 1984, the popular perception of the Soviet threat, Reagan's charisma and the skill of his campaign team, there isn't any of the primary candidates who had a shot at beating Reagan. Some would have fared even worse than Mondale, in fact.

Out of the primary candidates, Hart likely would have fared best, at least if he could keep his zipper problems out of the media limelight - followed closely by Glenn.
 

Johnrankins

Athelstane said:
Given the strength of the economic recovery in 1984, the popular perception of the Soviet threat, Reagan's charisma and the skill of his campaign team, there isn't any of the primary candidates who had a shot at beating Reagan. Some would have fared even worse than Mondale, in fact.

Out of the primary candidates, Hart likely would have fared best, at least if he could keep his zipper problems out of the media limelight - followed closely by Glenn.
Click to expand...

Who, possibly could fare even worse than Mondale? He was the VP of the widely despised Jimmy Carter Administration. Short of Khomeini ;) there were few out there that could have been a worse pick.
 

KaiserWilhelm

I think if Scoop Jackson had lived longer he would’ve been the best pick, and I think he could’ve actually won if he appointed a good VP such as Dale Bumpers
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Johnrankins said:
Who, possibly could fare even worse than Mondale? He was the VP of the widely despised Jimmy Carter Administration. Short of Khomeini ;) there were few out there that could have been a worse pick.
Click to expand...

Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, and Alan Cranston all ran in 1984.

Hard to think all of them wouldn't have been clobbered even harder than Mondale.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Johnrankins said:
Of the three only Jesse Jackson had a serious shot at the nomination though.
Click to expand...

Jackson made a splash, but he had a hard, hard ceiling. None of them, honestly...had a serious shot once Mondale was in the ring.

But the OP didn't ask for only those with a serious shot at the nomination, so I thought that at least everyone who ran in the primaries was fair game.
 

Johnrankins

Athelstane said:
Jackson made a splash, but he had a hard, hard ceiling. None of them, honestly...had a serious shot once Mondale was in the ring.

But the OP didn't ask for only those with a serious shot at the nomination, so I thought that at least everyone who ran in the primaries was fair game.
Click to expand...

He was a solid third place , which makes him somewhat of a contender, the other two were far from that.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
jacobk said:
US GDP growth in 1982 by quarter was -2.19%, -1.01%, -2.56%, and -1.44%.
Click to expand...

E93C7B34-2E54-4A49-9446-4F7CA9E8CF2B.png

fred.stlouisfed.org

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

The gray lines are recessions, and both 1975 and 1982 were big ones. If you go to the graph and hoover your arrow, you can get quarterly GDP growth (or contraction) to one decimal point.

jacobk, where do you get your data to two decimal points?
 
Last edited:
Steve Brinson

Steve Brinson

Glenn had a serious charisma deficit, so I tend to agree with those who're putting Hart forward - he could at least convincingly claim to be a new kind of Democrat, not like the old tax-and-spenders. Maybe some Southern Governor with a good record - Reubin Askew if he hadn't been out of office for five years, or maybe Richard Riley, though I can't see him running. Or someone like Brendan Byrne, a well-respected good-government type?
 

Curtain Jerker

Gary Hart is probably the best bet but Reagan is winning unless he's found with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy" no matter who the Democrats run against him in 1984 baring a major seismic change.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Curtain Jerker said:
Gary Hart is probably the best bet but Reagan is winning unless he's found with the proverbial "dead girl or live boy" no matter who the Democrats run against him in 1984 baring a major seismic change.
Click to expand...

In the postwar era, probably only 1964 belongs in the conversation of presidential elections so obviously foreordained six months out from Election Day.

Just as I can't think of any leading Republican who could have avoided a sound thrashing by LBJ in '64, I can't think of any Democrat - especially not among primary candidates - who could have come within single digits of Reagan.

Hart could have shaved a few points off the margin of defeat (barring any Monkey Business revelations).

Of course, all this was less obvious to Demcoratic contenders in the spring and summer of '83, when the final dip of the recession was still in effect, Grenada had yet to happen, and the Gipper's approval ratings were slumping in the 40's. By November '83 Reagan had shot above the 50 mark in Gallup, and never looked back.
 

Curtain Jerker

Athelstane said:
In the postwar era, probably only 1964 belongs in the conversation of presidential elections so obviously foreordained six months out from Election Day.

Just as I can't think of any leading Republican who could have avoided a sound thrashing by LBJ in '64, I can't think of any Democrat - especially not among primary candidates - who could have come within single digits of Reagan.

Hart could have shaved a few points off the margin of defeat (barring any Monkey Business revelations).

Of course, all this was less obvious to Demcoratic contenders in the spring and summer of '83, when the final dip of the recession was still in effect, Grenada had yet to happen, and the Gipper's approval ratings were slumping in the 40's. By November '83 Reagan had shot above the 50 mark in Gallup, and never looked back.
Click to expand...

Yep. Sometimes it just isn't your party's year. 1964 and 1984 as you mentioned. In recent vintage I'd probably add 2008 and maybe 1992 to that list but those are far less obvious than the two you mentioned.
 

Johnrankins

SandroPertini98 said:
Ted Kennedy?
Click to expand...

Two problems with Kennedy
1) He wasn't popular outside of Mass, Minn, CA and NY. He might win all four states but he will lose almost everything else.
2) Chappaquiddick made even that problematical. Too many people thought he left the girl to drown , if not flat out murder her to cover up an affair.
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

Curtain Jerker said:
Yep. Sometimes it just isn't your party's year. 1964 and 1984 as you mentioned. In recent vintage I'd probably add 2008 and maybe 1992 to that list but those are far less obvious than the two you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well....1992 and 2008 were definitely sail-against-the-wind years for the Republicans, but we can't really say they were foreordained clobberings THAT far out.

Despite the poor economy, Poppa Bush actually wasn't doing that badly in polling until Perot jumped in. Once that happened, he never really recovered, even after Perot's brief exit. The three way race makes it a more complex election. I've seen some tolerably convincing arguments that Bush could have squeaked out a tight win against Clinton if Perot had never come into the race.

In 2008, the odds were against McCain winning all along, but probably a relatively close loss until the market melted down in late September (and his ham-handed response).

But look at 1984. Throughout the entire year, Mondale never once led or even tied in national polling. In fact, except for a couple weeks, he always trailed by double digits. Even Reagan's shaky first debate performance didn't really dent the gap - and of course, he came back anyway and fed Mondale into a woodchipper in the second one.

Put it this way; Mondale was just a really awful candidate, on the presidential level, running in horrifically awful circumstances. So bad, in fact, that had Bob Dole - another really awful candidate - somehow been the incumbent running for reelection instead of Reagan, he'd have had to work hard not to beat Mondale by at least 10 points.
 

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top