Ted Kennedy, Bernie, and history repeating itself right now

[realmirage]

We are witnessing history repeating itself. In 1979 Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Primary. Some of the parallels:, Kennedy insisted there was no difference between Carter and Reagan (as many BS supporters claim), he demanded that the Democratic Party steer further left, claimed he cared more about the poor than Carter, he gave a bad interview that hurt his campaign (like Bernie in NY) won some big states in the primary, but never caught up to Carter’s delegate lead. He then went to the convention and demanded that the delegates turn away from the winner, and vote for him instead.

He gave what many consider the greatest speech of his life, and then what happened?

Reagan defeated Carter and ushered in trickle-down economics and a new era of wealth inequality that lasts to this day, among other severe damage to the country. Kennedy’s “revolution” never materialized, but future presidents like Bill Clinton did their best to work within the system as it exists (the only way to accomplish anything) to reverse as much of the damage as possible done by Republicans since 1980.

Here we stand today, another “revolution” railing against the Democratic Party because it has not managed to perform every miracle with a Republican Congress blocking nearly every move. Some in this revolution even WANT Donald Trump to win in order to “wake the people up.”

What the people “woke up” to in 1980 was the beginning of the Reagan Era. No revolution.

You might argue that Carter brought it on himself by not being a stronger candidate. But to argue that Hillary would be responsible for her own loss, and fighting against her while the Republicans gather their troops, you are ignoring the cliff you are helping dangle the country from by not making Trump the target.

What Democrats have right now is a steady path toward the promised land with Hillary continuing the work that Obama started after 8 destructive years of Bush. After that, perhaps the country WILL finally be ready to go the final miles to reach Democratic Socialism. However, some in the “revolution” have no patience and instead want a repeat of 1980. They will most likely cause a reversal of the progress we’ve made. They’ll undermine the DNC in the hopes of a future that will, rather than be a “waking up” of the American people, be a repeat of the decades after Reagan was sworn into office. The proof of this is the blue collar Republicans supporting not Bernie, but Donald Trump with so much vigor, a tow truck driver won’t even tow a car that has a Bernie sticker on it.

The era of Trump will make the era of Reagan look like Disneyland. Get on board with Hillary or repeat history and hope we don’t destroy ourselves this time.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Or the analogy is that Obama and Clinton

...competed through the final primary. Then Obama defeated McCain.

I'm expecting Sanders to endorse Clinton before the convention.

[Demsrule86]

5. Nope

Trump would be the same disaster as Reagan....probably worse...Clinton and Obama were mostly on the same page...we would never have had Reagan...if Kennedy had kept his ego in check...imagine how much better this country would be if Reagan had never been president. It was one of the biggest regrets of Kennedy's life: that and failing to pass health care when Carter was president. Bernie is a terrible person for risking the general at such a critical time...and the fact he shows so little concern for the American people has made me conclude he is a fraud and doesn't care.

[november3rd]

12. Carter

Lost because of the hostages, remember?
Reagan got the Ayatollah to hold them until the inauguration, remember?
It had nothing to do with Kennedy.

[cali]

14. Your posts are ridiculous. Hyperbole wrapped in hyperventilating.

And you couldn't be more wrong. The Hillary Obama contest was far, far nastier than Clinton Sanders. You might have a point if Bernie contests at the convention, but he won't and he'll endorse and campaign for her.

You know jack about Bernie.

[Demsrule86]

39. No it wasn't

Bernie with the protests and all the nonsense...much worse...and of course we have a much more dangerous opponent Donald Trump. I am not concerned with Bernie...I want him gone so we can win the general.

[farleftlib]

49. Bernie with the protests?

All what nonsense? Much worse than what? Please elaborate because what you
posted sounds like a lot of non sequiturs strung together without meaning of any
kind.

[karynnj]

22. Kennedy got in because Carter was seen as vulnerable in the general

His favorability had sunk into the 30s and even low 20s before Kennedy jumped in mid 1979. Here is the Gallup numbers - scroll about 3/4 s of the way down to get to the approval ratings vs time. It was November 1979 when Kennedy jumped into the race after consulting with his family. (the races started much later then) At that point polls taken showed Kennedy far stronger.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

One thing that was interesting looking at this chart is that the initial impact of the hostages being taken on November 4th was that it caused Carter's favorability to jump into the 60s - as people rallied around him. After the failed rescue, Carter sunk back down into the 30s -- he still beat Kennedy in most early states during that peak that continued into early 1980.

[Demsrule86]

40. Kennedy lead to Reagan...

No way around that and if Bernie is not real careful...he will lead to a worse guy.

[karynnj]

41. Did you look at the Gallup poll at all?

Were you old enough to follow news then?

For those of us born soon after WWII or in the early part of the baby boom, this was the first time that people were afraid that they could not have everything.

It was a shock being able to get gas only every other day, depending on whether your license on the car was odd or even and waiting in line for an hour or more to do so.

Explain why all those Senators lost. It was a political earthquake. Not to mention, Anderson ran somewhat to the left of Carter. Two Republicans ran, but they split the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Of course, some Carter people will forever blame Kennedy as an opportunist who jumped in when Carter was vulnerable and people who supported Kennedy will blame Carter's abilities rather than many unlucky breaks. The truth is probably between these positions.

It is likely Democrats around Kennedy feared in summer 1979 that Carter could not win. They saw Kennedy, with associations to better days as a savior. The decision was made in summer and work was done behind the scenes in fall, all at a time when Carter was in the 30s.


Carter won the primaries. He was the nominee. What crashed the rally around the President numbers was the failure of the rescue. Consider echoes of that worried Obama in 2012. In 1980, that failure just amplified the concern about the economy and the future.

Reagan, who had been an actor, ran on America as a shining city on a hill- ie American exceptionalism. I was 30 and a NJ liberal, I did not see Reagan as a danger to Carter. I was stunned when he won, but in retrospect, that false message appealed to many who feared that the country or even the world was going downhill.

[Demsrule86]

45. Kennedy wrecked Carter's chances

So rationalizing because Bernie is on the same path is wrong...and this would be way worse than Reagan who was not nearly as crazy as Trump and the courts were not immediately at risk.

[zipplewrath]

54. Even Carter disagrees with you

You're the only one selling this idea. Most folks recognize that strong primary opponents strengthen the candidate for the general election. Even Carter says that Kennedy wasn't his problem. To a great extent, Kennedy existed because Carter was seen as so vulnerable.

[John Poet]

59. SCORES of Democratic congressman and senators,

and HUNDREDS of state legislators across this country, urged Kennedy into the race in late-summer and fall of 1979, because they were afraid there would be huge Democratic general election losses, if Carter was at the head of the ticket.

Turns out they were right about that, but many of them were "fair-weather friends" who abandoned Kennedy during Carter's short-lived "rally around the flag" recovery in the polls.

I can recall a press conference in Michigan in about September 1979, where nearly every major Democratic state-officeholder, and half or more of the Democratic legislators, endorsed Kennedy and urged him to make the race. So it's not as if his challenge against the incumbent was just "his idea", many of the Democrats in congress and elsewhere urged him to do it.

Carter wrecked his own chances by continuing to wrap himself in the hostage crisis long after it became a negative. In the weekend before the general election, he pulled out the 'ole "there's progress--- we may be on the verge of getting the hostages freed" line, ONE TIME TOO MANY (for a time he would pull this every primary morning in time for the AM news, used to piss me off to no end), like the boy who cried wolf, and THAT is when the polls turned dramatically into the Reagan landslide. Before that point he was only somewhat behind. Even I knew it was a huge mistake to wrap himself in the hostages at that point.

[mythology]

35. This is a much more accurate analogy

The comparison to 1980 is wrong for many reasons. One Carter was an unpopular president. Obama is unpopular with Republicans, but he's still above water in terms of his popularity.

Two, the demographics of the presidential year electorate greatly favor the Democrats as the percentage of the voting population is white male drops (nothing against white males, it's statistically true that most of my demographic votes Republican).

Three, Trump is a walking nightmare for a campaign. He's great at winning the Republican primary. Look at how well Ted Cruz did and Ted Cruz is so unpopular in his own party's establishment that somebody joked about killing Cruz. But Trump saying ban all Muslims or women bleeding out of their wherevers will Todd Akin himself and further increase Democratic turnout.

Four, while Republicans used to have the edge in terms of generating turnout, Democrats have been able to take the lead there in the last two presidential elections and Republicans have floundered.

Five, Democrats have managed to secure a number of states that at least lean Democratic making the path to winning the presidency much easier.

[Demsrule86]

46. Obama was under 50% when he began to run in 12

Many thought he would not be elected in fact. But Bill Clinton really really helped ...now imagine if Clinton had run in 12...yeah think about that.

[forjusticethunders]

2. Already there.

Step 1: DEFEAT THE FUCKING FASCISTS.
Step 2: Build the revolution from the ground up.

[Fresh_Start]

3. The problems with revolutions is that they create chaos

and out of chaos nothing is predictable.

Trump supporters want revolution
Bernie supporters want revolution

What if instead of bernie winning the revolution...Trump wins the revolution?
if you don't think thats possible, consider the last 7 years and all the anti-Obama forces.

[Armstead]

8. Look up the revolution sanders brought to Burlington

worked out pretty damn well -- he got people excited, and the potholes got fixed and the budget got balanced Burlington became a vibrant city.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/31/socialist-even-conservative-could-love-burlington-mayor-sanders-was-able-out-republican-republicans/SCmh2TLifXxXRPFKC8NMjO/story.html

http://portside.org/2015-06-05/bernies-burlington-what-kind-mayor-was-bernie-sanders

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/metropolis/2016/01/bernie_sanders_made_burlington_s_land_trust_possible_it_s_still_an_innovative.html

[Fresh_Start]

9. you can't seriously be comparing that with the US as a whole.

Vermont is not even slightly close to representative of the USA.

[Armstead]

24. You said revolutions like Sanders only cause chaos

this proves that he knows how to govern and administer with good results.

Dismiss miss those abilities if you want, and choose someone with a less than stellar record, but your premise was off base

[Fresh_Start]

30. I actually didn't say "like Sanders"

revolutions are nasty things with unpredictable results...and the longer term impacts are even more unpredictable

[november3rd]

13. Did the trains run on time?

That's the test!

[Armstead]

25. And you'd prefer trains not run on time?

I understand your cute little reference -- it's not as clever as you seem to think

[cali]

15. What utter garbage. Do educate yourself. All revolutions are not the same.

[Fresh_Start]

18. why don't you put together a list of non-chaotic revolutions

we romanticize revolution.
The results are frequently not what we expect.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/good-revolutions-gone-bad-5387?page=2

[Armstead]

26. To reinforce what she said...revolutions are not all the same+

[Fresh_Start]

31. making a statement without supporting information

does not reinforce anything

[Armstead]

32. So why are you doing it?

[cali]

34. Just to begin with, the technology revolution

The Enlightenment was a revolution. Gandhi led a revolution. So did MLK

[mythology]

36. The buggy makers and those whose jobs are being replaced with automation would disagree with you

The technology revolution in the end is a good thing, but to pretend that there are no losers in it and that it isn't radically disrupting our entire society is foolish.

Gandhi's revolution had that whole split with Jinnah and Pakistan that resulted in deaths estimated between 200,000 and 2,000,000 in Punjab in a religious genocide and the forced relocations of 14 million people where another 3 million people can't be accounted for in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. Sure some migrated to other countries, but a lot of them died. And there's the fact that they still suffer from cross-border violence and ramped up their nuclear weapon programs in an attempt to intimidate the other. Clearly not a quiet little revolution.

MLK's revolution such as it was, didn't achieve many of its goals. But there was also the growth of more violent movements like the Nation of Islam. But more to the point, I would argue that the Civil Rights movement was only one stage of a much longer revolution that started at the latest with the Civil War and is still going on. MLK led a very significant portion, but you don't get to that point without Reconstruction, without WWII, without the chaos of southern lynchings. Looking at MLK in isolation doesn't even begin to cover the larger scope of the revolutionary aspects the larger civil rights movement.

Claiming the Enlightenment didn't lead to chaos ignores the direct line from that to the French Revolution which resulted in all sorts of chaos. When the head of the revolution ends up getting his head separated from his body for not being radical enough, that's chaos.

[Blue Meany]

20. Trump is essentially using the divide and conquer strategies

that have been used by ruling classes for centuries, and by the Repbublican party since at least the 1960s. But Democrats have also played a part in this by failing to listen to and respond to the needs of working class voters, and essentially selling them out with trade deals and feeble support for unions.

We have successfully attracted African-Americans and other minorities by speaking to their issues and offering legal protections but have done little to support their needs for jobs and education in the last generation. I'm not criticising minorities for supporting Democrats; they are better off with Democrats in power. And I belive Hillary would govern in this manner, acting liberally on social issues and conservatively on trade and the military interventions.

But Bernie's "we are all in this together" approach might begin to win back Reagan/Trump Democrats, do more for more minorities, and bring back a governing coalition like existed during the postware period. We need the multi-racial unionism like what began in the 1930s. That is how Bernie's "revolution" would occur.

However, in the absence of this option, and with no significant change in national policies, I think we really are going to see more violence and chaos, possibly from both sides of the political spectrum. I don't know what it is going to take to get political leaders to pay attention to the plight of people in this country. Protests like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street,have resulted in some changes in political rhetoric but only the smallest changes in policy. As people's jobs, education, homes, retirements--their futures--disappear before their eyes and their electoral options are limited to two choices, neither of which responds to their needs, do political leaders really think that people won't seek change outside the system or that they will be exempt from the consequences of their decisions? This, of course, exactly what Bernie is trying to avoid. But, as JFK observed. those who make non-violent change impossible, make violent change ineviteable.

[cali]

4. bullfuckingshit.

<snip>

Some Clinton supporters are pointing to the damage that Ted Kennedy did to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 primary, but that was a different sort of race. Kennedy challenged a sitting President. This year is much more like 2008, when it was Clinton who refused to drop out despite having no apparent path to victory, to the consternation of some Democrats. During April and May of that year, she continued to campaign aggressively, and she also tried to win over superdelegates. When reporters brought up the argument that she should bow out to insure Party unity, she reminded them that, in 1992, her husband, Bill, didn’t wrap up the nomination until the middle of June.

<snip>
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/why-bernie-sanders-is-staying-in-the-race

[Demsrule86]

6. It was quite similar

Kennedy ruined the general and gave Reagan the opening...Bernie is on his way to doing the same...he is now threatening a floor fight...seriously wrong.

[cali]

7. Not even close

He's threatening a floor fight over the platform. Good.

[karynnj]

23. Kennedy did not ruin the general

Part of the problem was that in 1979, Carter's popularity sank to the 30s as the gas lines grew. People blamed him after OPEC cut supplies. They also blamed him for inflation and extremely high interest rates. (For those too young to remember, home mortgage rates went up to the double digits -- ie as high as 16%! )

His favorability actually increased when the Iran hostages were taken - something I didn't remember, but which gallup shows in a peak that lasted about 4 months starting in November 1979. His favorability then returned to the 30s.

Kennedy considered jumping in over the summer in 1979, finally making it official at the beginning of November. He lost the early primaries in Jan- March as Carter's favorability rose and as he dealt with the crisis. The timing was awful.

Then the rescue mission failed, Carter had the nomination and his favorability sunk back into the 30s.

He was further harmed when a liberal Republican (they had them then) John Anderson ran as an independent. He likely cause Carter to lose many states - such as Massachusetts to Reagan.

This also ignores that this was a wave election and people wanted change. In addition to Carter, 10 liberal Senators seeking reelection lost - including many never thought at risk - like McGovern and Birch Bayh lost as well. Given that -- it is rather likely that without Kennedy and Anderson, Carter would still have lost.

[JackRiddler]

50. Bullshit.

Inflation and interest rates were upwards of 15 percent and the Iran crisis was inflated by the media and deployed as a powerful weapon against Carter. A release of the hostages could have still swung things 5 points closer. Reagan, my god, was genuinely popular across the spectrum. Kennedy was not the reason Carter lost! That is a myth of party authoritarianism, where the answer is always that no one should challenge the party leadership no matter how bad they are!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. No sale. No more Clintons.

[bigwillq]

27. This.

[farleftlib]

51. Thank you!

No more political dynasties, esp. Clintons.

[wyldwolf]

11. Kennedy supporters at the '80 convention were rude and condescending to Carter

[John Poet]

56. Kennedy delegates booed Carter when he touted restarting draft registration,

and they were right.

[Lazy Daisy]

16. You're kidding right?

Hillary is no Jimmy Carter. To even suggest it is sick.

[Nye Bevan]

33. A very unfair comparison, I agree (nt)

[TheBlackAdder]

17. Reagan defeated Carter due to the ERA/Schlafly mobiled a conservative block that lasted a decade!

.


That was the decade of the Moral Majority rise, where 45% of women supported paternalism and voted against the ERA!


.

[MgtPA]

19. Oh baloney. Jimmy Carter was a sitting US president.

Hillary Clinton is, I believe, unemployed.

[bigbrother05]

21. We have a winner! Bernie primarying Obama in 12 would be analogous

This is a straight up primary, neither had a prior claim to the nomination.

[Demsrule86]

47. What?

We are talking about a candidate who refuses to accept that he has lost and thus trashes the general...and in that Bernie is reliving the Kennedy nightmare which resulted in Reagan and 12 years under the GOP.

[hellofromreddit]

28. She seems to have a pretty juicy gig as a public(ish) speaker.

[Blue_In_AK]

29. Totally not.

Carter was an incumbent.

[lancer78]

37. The world is different today

In 1980, the white vote accounted for 88%. In 2016, it is predicted to account for only 70%

[PowerToThePeople]

38. Bullshit.

Hillary is right wing compared to Reagan.

[CobaltBlue]

44. Let Zombie Reagan endorse Hillary Clinton for POTUS!

Yay!

[ibegurpard]

42. Bill Clinton furthered Reagan ' s damage

And he did it in the name of Democrats.

[JPnoodleman]

43. Perform Miracles?

How about actually prosecute the bankers under the laws that exist and are within the presidents power? How about actually enforcing anti-trust law? How about any of that shit?

[ThePhilosopher04]

48. 2016 is nothing like 1980. Not even close.

Nice try though.

[Armstead]

52. This is not 1979. Sanders is not Kennedy. And Clinton is neither Carter nor Obama.

[Zen Democrat]

53. Following your analogy, Trump wins in November against Hillary.

Bernie would beat him badly.

[John Poet]

55. Ted Kennedy NEVER "insisted that there was no difference

between Carter and Reagan." I was heavily involved as a volunteer in that campaign, like no other since, and paying attention. That was never one of his talking points for the nomination. Additionally, his convention speech was a blistering attack on Reagan.

I don't know if someone else did say that in that campaign,
but it certainly was not Ted Kennedy.

[Tiggeroshii]

57. You seem to e leaving out an important part of the story

Something about a deal with Iran, a crashed helicopter and some hostages. I'm sure it's nothing, I mean, I'm no historian.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. I voted for Kennedy in 1979...I would do so again. I voted for Carter in the GE.

I would do so again.

No Sale on Hillary though.

[jg10003]

60. Carter lost because of the hostage crisis

People forget just how traumatic the hostage crisis was for the U.S.
For the first time America's power was being successfully challenged, and by people we regarded as a bunch of 3rd world Muslim fanatics. The show Nightline was started as a daily report on "America Held Hostage." Every night Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, ended the CBS News with the phrase "That's the way it is, day {number} of the hostage crisis." The blow to our national ego was enormous, and Carter received the blame. Carter's popularity rose somewhat after the failed rescue attempt, but dropped again after it became clear that we could not force Iran to give up.

BTW; realmirage - everyone on DU knows that you are part of David Brock's operation. Less than 1 month on DU and already 7 hidden messages - pathetic.