WI Edward Kennedy had run for President in 1984
- Thread starter xxmagex
- Start date
Likely.
Possibly. We have to remember that firstly, Reagan wasn't God. Secondly, his policies weren't all too popular back in the day. Throughout his presidency, a majority of people felt that the country was on the wrong path (maybe something like 55% if I recall). But people just liked the guy as a person, and that's why he got elected and reelected. Teddy might have won it, but there's a big emphasis to be put on might.
To take a look at the candidates, we have Walter Mondale of Minnesota, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, John Glenn, George McGovern, Alan Cranston, and Ernest Hollings. If EMK entered the 1984 race, his most serious opposition would probably come from Mondale, Hart, and Jackson, and perhaps Cranston. Now, the former vice president, Walter Mondale, had a lot of Democratic leaders on his side, and it is hard to say how many would defect to Kennedy, but I'm assuming a lot, perhaps so many that Kennedy would win the nomination. It's hard to say, but still, it wouldn't take too much hard work to win the nomination.
Now, this here is something extremely interesting. We're considering here a landslide election, where IOTL Mondale only won his home state and Reagan won the rest. This makes him seem pretty unbeatable. However, when we consider a Kennedy vs. Reagan match in '84, you're almost considering liberals verses conservatives, Reagan having come from the staunchly conservative faction and Kennedy from the liberal faction, and it'll come down to battleground states. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: With a great deal of hard work, yes, theoretically he could have defeated Reagan. However, it'd be really hard and close.
Given the collection of third rates and has-beens who ran it is clear no viable candidate wanted to be blown out of the water by Reagan so Kennedy would never have run.
Not for nothing did Mondale do what McCain did in 2008, picking a woman running mate who brought nothing to the ticket, with the difference that people aware of New York politics suspected Ferraro was chosen because her career was already ruined so her selection cost the Democrats nothing.
A man who couldn't beat Carter in his own party's primary in 1980 was never going to be a viable national candidate again. It's like a Republican being too much for his own party in 1932 despite Hoover's disastrous first term.
Not for nothing did Mondale do what McCain did in 2008, picking a woman running mate who brought nothing to the ticket, with the difference that people aware of New York politics suspected Ferraro was chosen because her career was already ruined so her selection cost the Democrats nothing.
A man who couldn't beat Carter in his own party's primary in 1980 was never going to be a viable national candidate again. It's like a Republican being too much for his own party in 1932 despite Hoover's disastrous first term.
Not a chance in a million. Reagan would have probably won an even bigger landslide.
So the last real head-figure of the Democratic party following the Carter fallout, who had a massive following, political respect and political capital would lose off the bat because...?
Again, people didn't like Reagan for his policies; they liked Reagan for personality. Ted can challenge him on that level, along with experience and political capital and so forth. Victory isn't assured, but he can put up a hell of a fight and would likely manage to gain far more than Mondale did.
This was a huge factor. It would have been interesting to see if the Conservative Dems would still vote for Reagan or go with Uncle Teddy..
Zimmerwald1915
Banned
Any savvy chant conductor would go with "hey hey, ho ho!" It just flows better.
Kennedy takes the nomination easily. He was considered the front-runner in OTL before he declined to run. Even with Chappaquiddick, there was no Democrat strong enough to wrest the nomination from a Kennedy. As for the general, Chappaquiddick does become an issue, albeit a small one. Reagan's popularity and personality carry him to victory as in OTL, although it probably isn't quite as large a win. Maybe a 53-45 margin, rather than 58-40. Not a landslide, but hardly close either.
Nikephoros
Banned
Is this the old colors (Blue=GOP; Red=Dems) or the new colors (Blue=Dems; Red=GOP)? B/c the former is plausible, but the later is ASB territory.
I've been to the site where they make those maps; it's the former. It has to do with an old deal with Red representing the more Liberal party and Blue the more Conservative party or something.
Chappaquiddick would already have been out now for what, 20 years or so? Kennedy had amazing resilience and had already addressed that issue long ago. It may be a minor issue and one they attempt to trump up into a larger one, but I don't think it will grow more than a minor issue.
Really? Who exactly were these third-rate candidates? Mondale, perhaps? because a Vice-president is often considered a great candidate, if he wants the job. In fact, once Kennedy declined to run, Mondale was the choice of the party establishment. Hart, perhaps? I'll give you that he started out as an unknown quantity, but the fact that he did as well as he did from a weak position just makes him stronger as a candidate. Jackson had his flaws, but was hardly third-tier (he was also probably never going to win). And there were several other respectable candidates who never really got off the ground. Glenn, Cranston, Hollings; I'm not sure how any of these three could be considered a weak candidate.
Ferraro was selected in large part because Mondale had decided that he was going to break precedent with his VP choice. Part of that was due to his being the underdog at the time, part due to his belief that it should be done.
In case you remember, Carter was the incumbent president in 1980, a position which generally makes victory difficult. And Kennedy was still in a position to beat Carter, until he mucked up that interview and the hostage crisis occured.
It should merit mentioning that these sort of things have no statute of limitations, either in law or with the public