Reply #20

In the discussion thread: Mitt Mondale: The agony of a Political Party bent on electoral suicide (April 5, edit) [View all]

Response to denem (Original post)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 06:52 PM

hedgehog (30,397 posts)

20. Don't forget - the only sources for campaign coverage

back then were the local paper(s), whichever network you watched (not too many VCRs around) and Time, Newsweek and US News.

That said - I was angered that Carter seemed to back down on his promise for an honorable foreign policy. Then, Mondale came along, living in a gated community in Minnesota when such things were relatively rare, and seemed top campaign on a platform of ecological collapse. I'm not kidding - what I heard from Mondale was that we could no longer afford the New Deal entitlements and that we all better get used to spending more for less.

Now, I'm not saying that my perceptions of either man were accurate. I'm only saying that that's what came through to me at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

29 replies	Author	Time	Post
Mitt Mondale: The agony of a Political Party bent on electoral suicide (April 5, edit) [View all]	denem	Apr 2012	OP
Mondale was honest. The voters were stupid. Some are still stupid.	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#1
Mondale was an honest dud.	denem	Apr 2012	#2
He was not a dud. He was a good man and the American people believed the lies of the GOP like	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#3
Good men can be duds politically...	Drunken Irishman	Apr 2012	#6
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The wrong man for the time.	denem	Apr 2012	#7
I strongly disagree on Carter. He was an excellent candidate in 1976.	bornskeptic	Apr 2012	#10
No, he really wasn't and it became more apparent in '80 when he got his butt kicked...	Drunken Irishman	Apr 2012	#12
Exactly. Why the Dems felt nominating the Veep to a perceived failed president is still beyond me...	Drunken Irishman	Apr 2012	#5
Its funny because Mondale only carried Minnesota and D.C.	aaaaaa5a	Apr 2012	#13
Pretty much. Hart probably would have done better, IMO, than Mondale...	Drunken Irishman	Apr 2012	#14
Good post.	aaaaaa5a	Apr 2012	#15
You're right...it could have set the party back even further...	Drunken Irishman	Apr 2012	#17
Here it is: NYT Gallup (9 Mar) : Hart/Reagan 52/43, Mondale/Reagan 45/50	denem	Apr 2012	#18
Reagan was successful at convincing people that it's OK to be stupid.	GeorgeGist	Apr 2012	#4
In 1984 Mondale won 13 electoral college votes.	denem	Apr 2012	#8
Its always easy to look back and criticize candidates. In a country where people have knowledge of	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#9
The electoral votes are misleading! How about Mondale 38.6% vs Goldwater 38.5%	denem	Apr 2012	#19
What Democrat would have beat Reagan?	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#22
What's that got to do with the price of fish?	denem	Apr 2012	#25
just a few days ago I said this	Douglas Carpenter	Apr 2012	#11
That's a good post.	aaaaaa5a	Apr 2012	#16
Don't forget - the only sources for campaign coverage	hedgehog	Apr 2012	#20
Right. And another thing, our perceptions today	denem	Apr 2012	#21
Calling somone a dud is not a compliment.	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#23
and it's not personal either, he was a dud candidate,	denem	Apr 2012	#24
Now, Ralph Nader , he was a dud candidate.	libinnyandia	Apr 2012	#26
Well ... as a suicide bomber in 2000	denem	Apr 2012	#28
Mondale told the truth in '84; Reagan lied.	baldguy	Apr 2012	#27
38.6% - Lies or no lies - that is a catastrophe,	denem	Apr 2012	#29

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.