Would Ted Kennedy have been a better candidate in '80 against Reagan?

[bluestateguy]

I say yes, but I suspect he still would have lost. The country was in the middle of a major reaction against liberalism, and while Kennedy did not have Carter Administration baggage, he was still the symbol of liberalism.

But I think he would have suffered a "less bad" landslide. And I think the John Anderson candidacy would have been less damaging to Kennedy.

Carter won 6 states and 49 electoral votes: GA, WV, RI, HI, MD and MN.

With Kennedy as the nominee, I expect that Georgia goes back to Reagan, but Kennedy wins in Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Maine and Michigan (the unions were much stronger back then, and they loved Kennedy and were lukewarm on Carter).

I suspect that Minnesota would have remained in the Democratic column even if Kennedy had dumped Mondale from the ticket. I give Kennedy the other 5 Carter states. West Virgina learned to appreciate the Kennedys ever since the 1960 primary.

That would have given Reagan a win of 394 to 144 for Kennedy.

[polichick]

1. I don't know, but can you image where we'd be if the Reagan years never happened?? nt

[Kahuna]

2. No. He ran thinking he would be. The Democratic voters delivered their

decision. Chappaquidick was still too fresh. If not for that, the outcome would have been different.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. If it hadn't been for Chappaquidick, he probably would have run in '72 or '76

[Kahuna]

6. IDK. He would have still been very young. '76 maybe, only because

his brother broke the age barrier.

[The Hope Mobile]

29. . . . if they had let him finish the campaign. nt

[wyldwolf]

22. self delete

.

[leveymg]

4. What if RFK hadn't been shot in '68? No Nixon, No Ford, No Reagan, No Bushes

What would America and the world be like, today? More like Holland and Scandinavia, less like Pinochet's Chile and post-Tienanmen Square China?

[Laelth]

7. That would have been ideal. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Thothmes]

16. Maybe no Clinton or Obama either

[The Hope Mobile]

30. . . . maybe they wouldn't have been liberal enough :-) nt

[saltpoint]

5. The pressure on the GOP to nominate someone other than Reagan in 1980

would likely have been greater if a stronger Democrat was presumed to be the our standard bearer. Republican heavy-hitters might just as easily have said, "Hell, if they nominate Ted Kennedy, we surely can't send some marginal ex-actor like Reagan up against him." And in this scenario they would have very possibly coalesced around a sturdier nominee and shoved Reagan out of contention.

Before the first debate with Carter, Ronald Reagan was not especially popular and there was significant misgiving over his competency. He charmed his way into voters' hearts with that first debate, but that was the beginning of his perceived role in American politics.

Carter was a hell of a decent man trying to gain traction in a thankless landscape. He was battling woes on both domestic and international fronts and Reagan appeared to offer a sunny "morning in America" solution, and in droves, voters bought it.

Kennedy's primary challenge often seemed to lack a sharpness. I felt he would have been the superior nominee against any Republican, but events at home and abroad conspired against re-hiring Carter in any case, and I think it would have been tough going for any Democratic ticket.

Agree with you that had Kennedy won the nomination the race would have been far more competitive. In particular, the "Reagan Democrat" voter would have been more likely to remain in the blue camp.

[WI_DEM]

10. Reagan had 1980 sewn up. The conservatives were in control and wanted him

there would not have been any other nominee on there side.

[ieoeja]

11. Bush won 3 of the first 5 primaries.

And Baker & Bush combined beat out Reagan in 1 of the 2 that Reagan won.

But there was a definite backlash against Liberalism going on at the time. I graduated high school in 1980. My classmates were much more conservative than those a couple years ahead us. And much more liberal than those a couple years behind us.

[BlueMTexpat]

32. Remember that the Rethugs also stole Carter's debate briefing book.

George Will actually sat in on some of the prep sessions with Reagan that used that briefing book and said nothing about it until much later. Since then, he has had absolutely zilch credibility with me, but he is still a featured columnist with today's WaPo.
Liberal media indeed!

[saltpoint]

37. Will cheated. I had forgotten that account and whammo, you hit me

in the side of the head with it.

There was also some dark whispering about Poppy's pals here and there making mischief in Iran re the hostages.

Jimmy Carter is a good man and deserved better than he got.

[Laelth]

8. Better, yes. Would he have won? Probably not. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[WI_DEM]

9. He made a mistake running in 1980. He should have run in '84 or '88

He certainly would have beat Poppy in '88.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I think it was more of the economy and the hostages than a liberal thing.

Along with Reagan negotiating with Iran for the release of the hostages.

[BlueMTexpat]

33. +1!

I also believe that Carter's enforcing a US Olympic boycott against the USSR for their invasion of Afghanistan (the 1980 Olympics were held in Russia) pissed a lot of ordinary Americans off.
So then, after he got into power, Raygun and his Merry Men began funding the fundamentalist Afghans and others against the Russians ... and we all know what that "brainy" (i.e., totally cockamamie) idea led to.

[zulchzulu]

13. Kennedy would have been demonized 24/7 with Chappaquidick...

...and would have probably lost by a larger margin than Carter, unfortunately. Even, as you pointed out, if Kennedy had won more states than Carter, the American people were still stupid enough to believe Reagan's claptrap and were tired from the recession and Iran hostage crisis.

[robo50]

24. Unfortunate, but true. I was living in Mass back then and

there was a split, even in Mass, between Carter supporters and Kennedy supporters.

Kennedy was not well liked in the midwest, either, at that time.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. The Democrats weren't going to win that election.

It was just too difficult of landscape for Democrats.

Kennedy might have done a bit better, but when you realize Americans were in the middle of rebuking the left, there is the possibility he does about the same.

[Political Tiger]

15. I don't know if he would have been a better candidate

but he sure as hell would have been a better president!

[JI7]

17. no

[Kaleva]

18. Carter lost several Southern states by just a few points

Ted Kennedy would have lost them by a wider margin. Mondale and Dukakis margins. This wouldn't have mad any difference in the Electoral College vote but liberals haven't fared well in presidential elections and I suspect Ted Kennedy would have suffered the same fate as Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. No, Carter was ahead of Reagan until the first debate

And his strategy of painting Reagan as a crazy warmonger unfit to serve was working up until then. Had the first debate not gone so well for Raygun, Carter probably would've won re-election by a very slim margin like Bush in '04. Carter had the ability to do this because he was the incumbent and Kennedy would not have had a similar ability. He also would've been fighting Chappaquiddick reminders for the entire campaign.

[BlueMTexpat]

34. The debate only went so well for Raygun because of the stolen briefing book. n/t

[alwysdrunk]

20. Nope. Carter still had the south.

Not that he had the south, but he had more of it than Kennedy would've.

[Honeycombe8]

21. Maybe. Carter was so unpopular that many in the Dem Party didn't want him to run

for re-election.

But Chappaquidik may have ended any chance of Kennedy getting elected, really. It was a big deal for a lot of people in the country. I think he knew that. I doubt Kennedy could have beaten Reagan. People at that time were ready for a change. Inflation and interest rates were in the double digits. Can you imagine trying to buy a house at 20% interest?

[wyldwolf]

23. honestly? I think if Ford had won in '76...

... he wouldn't have done a much better or much worse job than Carter but would have gotten blamed for everything the same way Carter did. That would have set up a Democratic win in '80 against Ford by most likely Kennedy (Ford would have won his party's nomination over Reagan.)

Just my theory.

[bornskeptic]

25. No, there's a problem with that.

If Ford had won in '76, he would not have been eligible for re-election in '80, since he served more than two years in completing Nixon's term. I don't know who the GOP would have nominated in '80, but it wouldn't have been Ford.

[Still Sensible]

26. I believe that is why Ted ran

He correctly saw that Jimmy Carter was not re-electable and was trying to save the White House for his party.

A CNN guest today blamed Ted for putting Reagan in the White House. I believe that is a misread of history and a horrible thing to hang on Senator Kennedy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6419997

[quiller4]

28. Kennedy didn't want to run and didn't think he had much chance.

That is why he never put together much of an effort. Some of the real pros quit his campaign because it became obvious to them that they were working for a candidate who did not want to win. They weren't disloyal to the man and some returned to serve on his Senate staff.

[quiller4]

27. I doubt it very much. There was strong anti-Kennedy feeling

that came out during the primaries. I doubt Kennedy would have carried MD or GA though he probably would have picked up NY.

[SoCalDem]

31. No.

The media had already "turned", and he would never have shaken Chappaquiddick, or the alcohol issues..

the country was "ready" for Grandpa Movie Star & his nasty little pet ferret (played by GHWBush)..

[Awsi Dooger]

35. It would have given the GOP two targets

Carter's economy and Kennedy's past. So I think the answer is no.

As someone pointed out, Carter enjoyed the benefit of incumbency, in fact the strongest incumbency influence, the party in power only one term. Carter is the only incumbent in more than 100 years to lose in that scenario.

It's somewhat remarkable Carter held close as long as he did. That cycle never seemed likely to go our way. I was in college and conservatism was sliding out from every corner. Every roommate and every friend. The fellow staff of my college paper was virtually the only exception but even the liberals there were quiet and pessimistic, for the most part.

I'll never forget the day after the 1978 midterms. The conservative students were gleeful and the conservative professors went well beyond them, literally taunting liberal students in regard to 1980 prospects. I was new in college but I was also a good handicapper. I sensed they were correct, that Watergate was already well behind us and a right wing tide underway.

Recently there have been plenty of young lefty bloggers who have assaulted Democratic leaders for the results of the '80s and bulk of the '90s. It's very convenient to show up in favorable climate and fail to grasp what it's like when the tilt is dramatically the other way.

[DeadEyeDyck]

36. damn spiffy n/t

[Fearless]

38. Couldn't possibly have done worse... Could've passed health care too...