"centrist" "new" Democrat strategy lost 49 of 50 States back in 84

[Douglas Carpenter]

What positions did Mondale advocate way back in in 1984 that were not "centrist" "moderate" or "new" Democrat??

Which ones???

Same with Dukakis in 1988--what positions did Dukakis advocate in 1988 that were not "centrist" "moderate" or "new" Democrat?

Which ones?

The people who spread the message that Mondale or Dukakis lost because they were just sooooooooo left wing are the same ones who go on the mainstream media and spread the message that Democrats are "fringe" leftist. Who??? Who?? Can someone name one single significant politician or figure in the Democratic Party who is by any wild stretch of the imagination "far left" or "fringe"?? More importantly what positions do any of these alleged far-fringe leftist hold that are just sooooooooo far left or fringe??? Can anyone name one??? I guess the RNC can always count on them to spread their propaganda for them.

I do actually agree that Democrats do lose some votes to culturally conservative voters who might otherwise vote Democrat. But are they losing these votes because these candidates are too committed to universal health care? Are they losing votes because Democrats are too aggressive about protecting jobs? Are they losing votes because the Democrats are too belligerent toward corporate lobbyist. I do not think so.

It was way back in 1973 that DNC Chair Robert Strauss basically threw away the small donor, broke off from the grassroots orientation of the party and made the party more dependent on the generosity of corporate lobbyist. It's time to end this 32 year losing strategy.

[mike_c]

1. bingo....

We have a winner.

[bluestateguy]

2. This is how the DLCers do it

When Democrats win, they say it's because the party played by the DLC handbook. When Democrats lose, they say it's because the candidate was too far to the left.

[OzarkDem]

22. How can they assume

that grassroots Dems are all ultra liberal? I'm surprised any Dem leaders have bought into this flawed logic, but they have.

[shockingelk]

3. Solution:

Make Minnesota an imperial power.

MINNESOTA: CASTING ELECTORAL VOTES FOR DEMOCRATS SINCE 1960!

[rwenos]

4. Mondale Was No Centrist

Walter Mondale, political progeny of Hubert Humphrey, leader of the Democrat Farm Labor Party of Minnesota, was no centrist. He advocated increasing taxes, increasing Medicare, meeting with the Russians once a year whether there was anything to discuss or not.

Fritz' greatest political heir was Paul Wellstone. Not exactly your DLC type.

[Douglas Carpenter]

5. check the record of his 1984 positions

he was certainly not some "ultra-liberal" or "far leftist". His positions were very moderate and in the center of political debate.

Unless one considers reducing the budget deficit, keeping most of Reagan's budget cuts and maintaining Reagan's military budget "far left".

[rwenos]

6. "I'm Going to Raise Your Taxes."

I knew the campaign was over then -- the night of his acceptance speech at the San Francisco convention.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. not everyone considers being realistic with the federal budget

deficit far left. I suppose he could have said "read my lips--no new taxes"

[Zynx]

14. That was not a good move.

[Awsi Dooger]

10. He was perceived as an ultra liberal

I barely paid any attention after the nomination because the country was obviously becoming more conservative and we had nominated someone one was considered very liberal. His supposed positions or the 1984 party platform mean squat compared to public perception. Then he promised to raise taxes. Go back and look at media reports. Did they describe that proposal as centrist or moderate?

Would anyone like to wager how often the word centrist or moderate is used in a biography of Walter Mondale, as opposed to liberal? I don't have to do a Google search to know liberal would trump centrist and moderate combined. And I absolutely guarantee the word liberal will be in the first paragraph of Mondale's obit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. perceived perhaps, but what basis in reality is that perceptions?

I've heard people describe Howard Dean as "far-left"? Does Governor Dean hold any positions that could be called "far-left' by any wild stretch of the imagination?

As long as we have certain Democrats going on the mainstream media denouncing Democrats as "far left" or "ultra-liberal" the Republicans will have a very easy job spreading that message.

[formernaderite]

17. They took Dean down because he was a moderate even a

progressive could love.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. not as far as I can tell

but that would make a great conspiracy theory wouldn't it?

[nickshepDEM]

11. :: Raises Hand ::

What about Clinton? :shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

13. I'm sure if Clinton had lost -- we would have heard the very same

people saying that Clinton was "far" left or ultra-liberal.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. Clinton won electoral victories, but he never won a majority of the vote

Here's the popular vote break down for the 1992 and 1996 elections:

1992
Clinton: 43.01%
Bush I: 37.45%
Perot: 18.91%
Marrou: 0.28%
Other: 0.36%

1996
Clinton: 49.23%
Dole: 40.72%
Perot: 8.40%
Nader: 0.71%
Browne: 0.50%
Other: 0.44%

For comparision:

1988
Bush I: 53.37%
Dukakis: 45.65%
Paul: 0.47%
Other: 0.51%

1984
Reagan: 58.77%
Mondale: 40.56%
Other: 0.67%

If you look at the state vote percentages in 1988 and 1992, you see a lot of states where Dukakis got the same or a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton. Clinton won in 1992 because Perot's strong showing meant that most states were won with less than 50% of the vote. (In 1992, Clinton only got over 50% of the vote in Arkansas and D.C.)

OH:
Dukakis: 44.15% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 40.18% (won the state)

PA:
Dukakis: 48.39% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 45.15% (won the state)

MI
Dukakis: 45.67% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 43.77% (won the state)

NV
Dukakis: 37.92% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 37.36% (won the state)

KY
Dukakis: 43.88% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 45.84% (won the state)

LA:
Dukakis: 44.06% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 45.58% (won the state)

ME:
Dukakis: 43.88% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 38.77% (won the state)

MT:
Dukakis: 46.20% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 37.63% (won the state)

NJ
Dukakis: 42.60% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 42.95% (won the state)

CO:
Dukakis: 45.28% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 34.10% (lost the state)

IA:
Dukakis: 54.71% (won the state)
Clinton: 43.29% (won the state)

WA:
Dukakis: 50.05% (won the state)
Clinton: 43.41% (won the state)

KS:
Dukakis: 42.56% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 33.74% (lost the state)

OK
Dukakis: 41.28% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 34.02% (lost the state)

FL:
Dukakis: 38.51% (lost the state)
Clinton 92: 39.00% (lost the state)

[tritsofme]

20. Whats your point?

Perot took votes pretty evenly from Poppy and Clinton.

[AlGore-08.com]

24. My point is what I said it was - - Clinton never won the majority of votes

We continue to base discussions about what direction we should take the party on the electoral results of Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns, without discussing the popular vote at all.

Instead, we are constantly told that Clinton (and/or his policies) won over the moderates and independents in a way that previous and later Democrats were unable to do. The 1992 exit polls that show Perot voters would have gone 38% for Clinton and 37% for Bush if Perot had not been in the race used to prove this - - when it actually proves the opposite. If Clinton really had won those Perot voters, they would have voted for Clinton, not Perot. (And if Bush I had really won the 37% over, they would have voted for him, not Perot.)

Obviously, the electoral vote is what decides the Presidency (whether that's something that we should work to change is a different discussion). But in order to win the electoral vote, we have to win the majority of the popular vote in each state. (And the popular vote in a state impacts the chances of down ticket Dem candidates.) Clinton did not win the majority of the popular vote in most of the states he won in 1992 - - and he did not do that in 13 of the states he won in 1996, even though he was the incumbent President. Here are those 13 states:

Washington  49.84% 11 EV
New Hampshire  49.32% 4 EV
New Mexico  49.18% 5 EV
Pennsylvania  49.17% 23 EV
Wisconsin  48.81% 11 EV
Florida   48.02% 25 EV
Tennessee  48.00% 11 EV
Missouri  47.54% 11 EV
Ohio   47.38% 21 EV
Oregon   47.15% 7 EV
Arizona   46.52% 8 EV
Kentucky  45.84% 8 EV
Nevada   43.93% 4 EV

That's 149 electoral votes. Clinton won a total of 379 electoral votes; if you subtract the electoral votes of the states in which Clinton won less than half the popular vote, you have 230 electoral votes - - less than the number of electoral votes needed to win.

The Republicans use Reagan as their standard of success in reaching out to moderates and independents. The 1980 campaign had a number of similarities with the 1992 campaign: there was a strong 3rd party candidate, and Reagan was running against a weak incumbent.

1980
Reagan: 50.75%
Carter: 41.01%
Anderson: 6.61%
Clark: 1.06%
Commoner: 0.27%
Other: 0.29%

However (just like Clinton) Reagan won a number of states in 1980 with less than 50% of that state's vote:

Washington  49.66% 9 EV
Illinois  49.65% 26 EV
Pennsylvania  49.59% 27 EV
South Carolina  49.57% 8 EV
Mississippi  49.42% 7 EV
North Carolina  49.30% 13 EV
Kentucky  49.07% 9 EV
Michigan  48.99% 21 EV
Alabama   48.75% 9 EV
Tennessee  48.70% 10 EV
Oregon   48.33% 6 EV
Connecticut  48.16% 8 EV
Arkansas  48.13% 6 EV
Wisconsin  47.90% 11 EV
Delaware  47.21% 3 EV
New York  46.66% 41 EV
Massachusetts  41.90% 14 EV
Maine   45.61% 4 EV
Vermont   44.37% 3 EV

That's 235 electoral votes, out of the 489 Reagan received.

In 1984, Reagan had the power of incumbency, no strong 3rd party challenge, and he won a significant percentage of the popular vote:

Reagan: 58.77%
Mondale: 40.56%
Other: 0.67%

Also, Reagan got over 50% of the state popular vote in all of the states he won.

For those interested, here's the electoral breakdown for the campaigns we've been talking about on this thread:

1992
Clinton: 370
Bush I: 168

1988
Bush I: 426
Dukakis: 111
Other: 1*

1984
Reagan: 525
Mondale: 13

1980
Reagan: 489
Carter: 49

*One West Virginia elector cast her vote for Lloyd Bentson, the 1988 Dem Vice Presidential candidate.

[xchrom]

25. thank you so much for that break down.

it's been very illuminating to me re: the ''centrist, ''moderate'', ''left-wing'' debate.

i will continue to maintain -- especially in light of your information -- that reagan painted the democrats into a corner -- and the democrats helped with the kinds of language they used to ''defend'' themselves.

i will always maintain that a good offense trumps a good defense every time -- especially when your weapons are words and you are trying to form impressions in the minds of the voters.

[Little-Jen]

15. Mondale didn't lose because he was "centrist"

Nor did he lose because he was liberal. As much as I hate to admit it, we must face reality that no Democrat in the country could have beaten Reagan in 1984. Not one, no matter how perfect his campaign was. Sad, but totally true.

[Neil Lisst]

18. Sorry but Dukakis and Mondale weren't centrist

Clinton was centrist. Gore was centrist, but perceived left of center. Kerry was most definitely left of center, but tried to run more to the middle. He did the right thing, and by doing so, almost won.

I don't understand Dems who think the party needs to be more liberal to win presidential elections. There is simply no evidence that can ever happen.

Our candidate must be centrist, and must have a personality, something lacking with Gore or Kerry.

-----
my progressive political cartoon
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[senseandsensibility]

19. Exactly

Kick! I agree completely.:toast: Good post.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. What I remember about the 1984 election.

This was my first election, and I was just a kid without a very sophisticated understanding of politics, or of the political spectrum within the Democratic party. I don't know whether Mondale was left, right, or center, and I don't think that it was the major deciding factor in that election.

My overwhelming impression of Mondale was as a "safe" candidate who was the establishment pick, and who was basically selling a laundry list of issues to a laundry list of constituencies rather than selling a vision. He was also dishwater dull, kind of short, squat, and ugly. He spoke in a sort of whiny sounding monotone and projected no air of authority or confidence. I see his statement about raising taxes as more about his being a poor politician, rather than about his ideology . It was not a good move from the political campaign perspective.

Is it really a surprise that he lost so miserably to someone like Reagan, no matter where he was on the political spectrum?

The primary candidate who really excited me that year was Gary Hart. Again, this had little to do with ideology, which I didn't have a firm grasp of at the time, but it was because he came accross as fresh, young, and dynamic. I found his talk about "new ideas" to be very exciting, although he didn't really articulate what those new ideas were. He ended up shooting himself in the foot, badly, but it was also clear that he was definitely not the pick of the party establishment. I think he probably also would have lost to Reagan, but not by a 49 state landslide.

I don't remember '88 well at all. Dukakis projected so little personality and charisma that I think I barely noticed him, though I did vote for him. Once more, I think it was his inability to project any sense of confidence or authority, as well as his pitiful inability to defend himself against the Republican attack machine, that did him in. Not his place on the political spectrum.

My point is, I think we may be looking in the wrong place for the reasons why some of our nominees have failed so miserably. There may be other factors at play than simple labels of "liberal" or "centrist".

[jackbourassa]

23. Mondale was establishment...

n/t