General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How many DUers are old enough to have experienced our bad losses? [View all]Algernon Moncrieff
(5,801 posts)Nixon/Humphrey was an odd election. Humphrey was the liberal's liberal, and Nixon was known for being a staunch anti-communist. However, Vietnam was the big issue of that election, and Nixon, with his secret plan to end the war, essentially ran as the "Dove" against Humphrey's apparent desire to continue the policies of the LBJ administration. The election was exceptionally close in the popular vote, but Humphrey's loss of the entire South to Wallace, and his failure to carry Illinois and New Jersey basically doomed him. Nixon's landslide in '72 was a result of a strong economy, mainstream exhaustion with opposition to the war (which was perceived as winding down), and white opposition to the spectre of forced school integration (read: bussing). Ted Kennedy might have been able to oppose Nixon, but Chappie hung around his neck like an albatross.
Carter had just about everything go wrong that could go wrong, short of war with Russia. His re-election was basically doomed when Desert One went south. Reagan was in the right place at the right time. Even if Carter had freed the hostages, I'm uncertain he could have survived double digit interest rates. I recall many Dems my folks knew switching to Anderson, and it's one of the few instances in which I think we'd have been better off if the sitting President had been primaried.
Mondale and Dukakis ran horrible campaigns. If Gary Hart had stayed out of trouble, he might have had a shot in '84. People forget that Reagan's popularity really wasn't solidified until late in '84, and Hart -- a younger and more vibrant man - would have posed a stark contrast to the aging Reagan.
My wife will tell anyone who will listen exactly when HW Bush lost the '92 election. Either late in '91 or early in '92, he and Barbara went out to a Giant grocery in suburban Maryland, and were awestruck over what they perceived as the "new" technology of bar code scanners. The news had fun with this, as bar code scanners had been in stores for nearly 10 years; however, Bush hadn't done routne things like shopping during the entire Reagan presidency. It was the first sure sign the public had that he was out of touch with the reality of American life. Odd when considering that about a year earlier, in the wake of Gulf War 1, he had huge approval ratings.
I support Hillary Clinton because of her leadership style; her foreign policy and Senate experience; and because she will have a far shorter "learning curve" upon moving into the White House. I also think she has the best shot of any Democrat of getting elected. This is not '08; there is not a groundswell of anti-war and anti-bank anger to buoy progressive candidates. On the contrary, as the economy improves, Americans are once again getting more concerned about terror than the economy. At best, I see Elizabeth Warren winning the Kerry states in a GE; at worst, I see a Dukakis-like beatdown. The knock on her from the right will be "Can you see her coming up with a plan to defeat ISIS?" The Indian princess thing will get beaten to death -- it would be ugly. Better that she should stay in the Senate. Maybe in 3.5 years, she should run for Mass Governor.