WI: Reagan vs. Hart

Swiffness

During a discussion about Superdelegates earlier in the year:

Hart had won seven of the final 11 contests. He had won more total states than Mondale, and not just by a little: Hart had won 26 contests to Mondale’s 19. Additionally Mondale’s popular vote lead was very slim, having captured 38 percent of the vote to Hart’s 36 percent. Hart was also polling 10 percent better against Ronald Reagan than Mondale was. The rules were also new, with little precedent. (Source)

But party leaders were not having it. Mondale had won the plurality of pledged delegates and the majority of pledged and supers.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...e-Nomination-When-Superdelegates-Are-Involved
Click to expand...

Welp?
 

David T

I think polls showing Hart doing better than Mondale against Reagan should be taken with a grain of salt. Hart was relatively unknown to the public, and such candidates can do well in early polls--Dukakis in 1988, Carter in 1976 (yes, Carter eventually won but almost all his 30(!) point lead over Ford disappeared), etc. Moreover, Gallup in May didn't show *that* large a gap between Mondale and Hart:

"Interviews made May 18-20 with 960 registered voters showed Mr. Reagan was the choice of 52 percent to 43 percent for Mr. Mondale.

"In a match with Mr. Hart, the tally was 50 percent for the President and 44 percent for the Democratic Senator from Colorado." http://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/31/u...up-reports-reagan-leads-mondale-and-hart.html

The Republicans are endlessly going to point out Hart's "McGovernite" roots and--like Mondale--ridicule his claim to stand for "new ideas." In spite of that, I think Hart might indeed do a bit better than Mondale. Not nearly well enough to win, however. Note that throughout the first half of 1984 (i.e., before the Democrats had decided who to nominate), Reagan's job positive numbers in job approval ratings were always at least ten points ahreas of his negatives. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=40
 

Apollo 20

TRH said:
The "Youth and inexperience" line would work much better with Hart than with Mondale, honestly.
Click to expand...

That line worked because it was Reagan being gently self-deprecating; Mondale was 56 and had a ton of experience in government; his "youth" was only in comparison to Reagan, who was then 73. I'm not sure Reagan would have wanted to draw attention to the 26 year age difference between himself and the 47-year-old Hart, who then had 10 years in the Senate, which was more experience than Reagan himself had when he was elected (8 years as Governor in California).

Would Hart have won? Probably not, though I do think the race would have been closer. It's more likely you see a 1988-type result: Democrats doing fairly well in their base states but Reagan still managing to pull off a fairly convincing win overall. But the race would have had a much different dynamic and a much clearer contrast between the ages of the candidates with Hart enjoying the added advantage of not being tied in any way to the Carter Administration and being seen as something of a fresh face. I'd argue that Mondale's connection to Carter was a bigger millstone around his neck than Hart's connection to McGovern. Throw in a Reagan gaffe or two and a very poor debate performance and a Hart-Reagan race could turn into a close contest if Hart managed to find the right message of being a new type of Democrat.
 

Galba Otho Vitelius

If Hart is exposed in a sex scandal as happened in 1988, then Reagan gets his fifty state victory. Colorado was very much a red state then so Hart doesn't have a win in his home state to fall back on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top