What if Walter Mondale sat out the 1984 election and ran for president in 1988 instead? Let's say in 1984 he runs for senate in Minnesota against incumbent Rudy Boschwitz and defeats him. He's in the senate during Reagan's second term then runs for the Democratic nomination in 1988. Does he have a better shot at winning the White House against Bush in 88?
WI: Mondale waits until 1988
- Thread starter CCK
- Start date
Mondale's viability for the nomination would be partly dependent on who gets the nomination in '84, how well they do, and what subsequent narrative emerges about the loss. If it's Hart and he loses to Reagan by a respectable amount, Mondale is going to look like old hat by '88; someone like Hart even simply getting the nomination is going to embolden a lot of DLC types. Hell, Hart might run again in '88 (and probably as a favourite for the nomination) if people believe he over-performed against Reagan.
But I don't don't see Mondale beating Bush either way.
But I don't don't see Mondale beating Bush either way.
Last edited:
Paul V McNutt
Banned
The economy was good so I see Bush winning. A Senator Mondale 1985 - 2015 is interesting.
I once suggested that Mondale's best hope for the presidency (leaving aside Carter dying in office--or Ford winning in 1976 and then doing so terribly that almost any plausible Democrat could win in 1980) would be to run for the Senate in 1982 (Durenberger was vulnerable and IMO Mondale would have been a stronger candidate than the young Mark Dayton, despite the latter's money), skip the 1984 and 1988 presidential races (feeling that it will be hard for a Democrat to win the presidency given peace and prosperity), get re-elected in 1988 (a good year for Democrats in the Upper Midwest) and then run for president in 1992, sensing that GHW Bush is vulnerable. (And even if he isn't, Mondale would still after all be able to keep his Senate seat, at least until 1994.)
Why do I think he might get the nomination in 1992? Because all the other major Democratic candidates in 1992 (Clinton, Tsongas, Brown) were trying to show they were in some way or other "different" from traditional Democrats. Mondale can be "different" simply by *not* being different--by being an old-fashioned New Deal labor-liberal. (I am of course assuming that Mario Cuomo again decides not to run.) There are enough such voters in the Democratic primaries in 1992 to give him a real chance of winning against divided opposition. Remember that a Mondale who had not run against Reagan would not have any particular reputation as a "loser"; that the Carter-Mondale ticket lost so badly in 1980 would be blamed mostly on Carter.
Could he win the general election (which we'll assume will still be a three-way race)? No doubt he would be more vulnerable ideologically than Clinton but (a) he would not be vulnerable on the "character issue", and (b) he could win even if he lost every one of the Southern states Clinton carried. In fact, let's say he not only loses Arkansas (6 electoral votes), Georgia (13), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), and Tennessee (11) but that by doing worse in rural and small-town areas of Ohio than Clinton did in OTL, he also loses that state (21). Also have him lose four other narrow Clinton states: Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), Montana (3) and New Jersey (15). He would still have 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary to win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Because he lost so badly in 1984, it is tempting to think Mondale could never win, but 1992 wasn't 1984 and GHW Bush wasn't Ronald Reagan.
Why do I think he might get the nomination in 1992? Because all the other major Democratic candidates in 1992 (Clinton, Tsongas, Brown) were trying to show they were in some way or other "different" from traditional Democrats. Mondale can be "different" simply by *not* being different--by being an old-fashioned New Deal labor-liberal. (I am of course assuming that Mario Cuomo again decides not to run.) There are enough such voters in the Democratic primaries in 1992 to give him a real chance of winning against divided opposition. Remember that a Mondale who had not run against Reagan would not have any particular reputation as a "loser"; that the Carter-Mondale ticket lost so badly in 1980 would be blamed mostly on Carter.
Could he win the general election (which we'll assume will still be a three-way race)? No doubt he would be more vulnerable ideologically than Clinton but (a) he would not be vulnerable on the "character issue", and (b) he could win even if he lost every one of the Southern states Clinton carried. In fact, let's say he not only loses Arkansas (6 electoral votes), Georgia (13), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), and Tennessee (11) but that by doing worse in rural and small-town areas of Ohio than Clinton did in OTL, he also loses that state (21). Also have him lose four other narrow Clinton states: Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), Montana (3) and New Jersey (15). He would still have 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary to win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
Because he lost so badly in 1984, it is tempting to think Mondale could never win, but 1992 wasn't 1984 and GHW Bush wasn't Ronald Reagan.
Central problem with your scenario is, if you're assuming a very minimal butterfly like that, then it's difficult to see how Mondale would possibly go against the Democratic caucus on the Gulf; which is what lead a lot of Congressional Democrats to simply give up on that year. (Brown, Tsongas, and Clinton all were not so tainted by such votes)
The fact that the main candidates IOTL were trying to be different types of Democrats wasn't a freak occurrence, you know. Tom Harkin was there in that race as an unapologetic old school Democrat and he just didn't take off. Wasn't the year for that kind of thing.
I'm very doubtful a Mondale who had settled into the Senate for a decade would choose to skip two elections and then give '92 a shot, doubtful still that he would win the nomination even if he did that. Same question as above also applies: just what happens in the meantime due to Mondaler quitting on '84?
The fact that the main candidates IOTL were trying to be different types of Democrats wasn't a freak occurrence, you know. Tom Harkin was there in that race as an unapologetic old school Democrat and he just didn't take off. Wasn't the year for that kind of thing.
I'm very doubtful a Mondale who had settled into the Senate for a decade would choose to skip two elections and then give '92 a shot, doubtful still that he would win the nomination even if he did that. Same question as above also applies: just what happens in the meantime due to Mondaler quitting on '84?
Last edited:
It is true that Mondale would probably have voted against the Gulf War, and the immediate consequence would be that it would be assumed he had no chance in 1992. But maybe by late 1991, with Bush's ratings coming down a bit from their sky-high levels and more concern about the economy, he figures he may have a chance, that it may be his *last* chance given his age, and that in any event he still has his Senate seat if he fails (which would not have been true in 1988--unless Minnesota allows simultaneous senatorial and presidential campaigns by the same person). By 1992, the Gulf War was a lot less important in the Democratic primaries (and with the electorate as a whole). After all, Clinton's statement of his own position on the war was "I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made." http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-31/news/mn-4566_1_gulf-war If the war had really been important to people in 1992, that would have been as damaging to Clinton as Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it" was (or so at least it is widely assumed) to Kerry in the 2004 general election. The truth is that with the fall of the Soviet Union, and with Islamist terrorism not yet a major concern to Americans, foreign policy was less important in 1992 than in almost any other modern American presidential election. It was almost as if the US didn't *need* a foreign policy...
True, Harkin, the closest thing to a representative of old-fashioned liberalism, didn't do very well, but in the first place his populism seemed a bit strident to many people, and in the second place he hardly had the prestige of a former vice-president of the United States.
And by the way, "When asked about the Persian Gulf war, however, Tsongas said he would have joined the majority of congressional Democrats in opposing the use of force." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-04-12/news/9102020672_1_tsongas-corporate-bashing-democratic Likewise, "On the issue of the Gulf War, Brown said he was against the initial military involvement against Iraq and that Bush should have tried harder to seek a negotiated settlement to the problem. " http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1991/10/23/jerry-brown-speaks-at-bu-pone/ So yes, declared opponents of the war did announce their candidacies in 1991.
As for what happens in 1984, my guess is that Hart wins the nomination, and loses decisively, though not as heavily as Mondale. Glenn might pick up some of the OTL Mondale vote in the primaries, but he was seen as a bit too conservative by many Democrats, especially on national security matters. I think it's plausible that Dukakis still wins the Democratic nomination in 1988.
I agree that the chance of *all* the things happening that I posit are probably pretty small--but still I think it's the best chance Mondale has for the presidency after 1980.
You're right that Gulf turned out to be a non-feature, but that's partly because, as I say, the OTL candidates weren't especially burdened by it. Not only in their votes, but also in the national prominence of their views on the war, which was obviously something deeply acute for Congressional Democrats, as opposed to ex-governors, governors and ex-senators. Clinton did a fine job of waffling/triangulating out his position until the thing was over, and you omit an important qualifier in the Tsongas quote:
By the time Bush's numbers came down in the autumn of 1991, it was already too late to prepare a serious presidential campaign, which are usually begun in the summer or late spring. Although Mario Cuomo did famously flirt with jumping into New Hampshire just before the filling deadline, he chose not to in the end, and it's not hard to imagine what a potential mess such a borderline write-in campaign could have been. (Although Cuomo was potentially formidable in NH, he would have been plunging into the South immediately afterwards) So if we are supposing Mondale jumps in late, then he is already at a considerable disadvantage - though the point is that the baggage of the Gulf would probably be enough to dissuade him from entering in the first place.
As I say above, IMO if Hart does get the nomination in '84, and he suffers no catastrophic 'bimbo eruptions' then, which is certainly possible, then he's a potential challenger for the '88 nomination. That would itself colour the course of the internal narrative inside the Democrats and could potentially make a Mondale '92 campaign even more of a long shot - equally it could make liberal Democrats very excited at the potential of a serious Cuomo substitute like Mondale coming to their 'rescue'. In that sense Mondale could be potentially relatively potent - but the ultimate fact remains that this is all a very thin line of causation.
I.E, this is Paul Tsongas making a virtue of his retrospective support for the thing, not taking an out-and-out anti-war stance. Brown's position itself is also carefully couched: Bush was too hasty, not necessarily wrong.
By the time Bush's numbers came down in the autumn of 1991, it was already too late to prepare a serious presidential campaign, which are usually begun in the summer or late spring. Although Mario Cuomo did famously flirt with jumping into New Hampshire just before the filling deadline, he chose not to in the end, and it's not hard to imagine what a potential mess such a borderline write-in campaign could have been. (Although Cuomo was potentially formidable in NH, he would have been plunging into the South immediately afterwards) So if we are supposing Mondale jumps in late, then he is already at a considerable disadvantage - though the point is that the baggage of the Gulf would probably be enough to dissuade him from entering in the first place.
As I say above, IMO if Hart does get the nomination in '84, and he suffers no catastrophic 'bimbo eruptions' then, which is certainly possible, then he's a potential challenger for the '88 nomination. That would itself colour the course of the internal narrative inside the Democrats and could potentially make a Mondale '92 campaign even more of a long shot - equally it could make liberal Democrats very excited at the potential of a serious Cuomo substitute like Mondale coming to their 'rescue'. In that sense Mondale could be potentially relatively potent - but the ultimate fact remains that this is all a very thin line of causation.
Last edited:
One other point about Harkin in 1992: The fact that he was from Iowa hurt him in a sense, because it meant that everyone discounted his winning the Iowa caucus. If Mondale had won the Iowa caucus (assuming Harkin doesn't run) it might have been taken more seriously (even though it would be noted that Minnesota was a neighboring state).
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Maybe after fighting the good fight and losing in 1980 and being loyal to Carter even though he didn't always agree with him, Fritz takes some time to kick around and travel and think about what he really wants to do. And he remembers an occasional boyhood dream of being a doctor. Well, he feels he's too old to do that, but . . . he thinks about becoming a paramedic.
And the more he thinks about it, the more he likes it. And Joan encourages him, by all means, if this is what most inspires you, go for it.
So, Fritz Mondale takes the classroom parts of EMT 1 and EMT 2, he gets six months of actual practical experience, and then he hits the books on his paramedic training.
And from 1982 to '87, former Senator and Vice-President Walter 'Fritz' Mondale is a working paramedic on the streets of Minneopolis. And as a guy in his fifties, he's still young enough and big enough to do the occasional lifting of patients. And he knows how to do it safely to reduce the chance of back injury, although this risk is never entirely eliminated.
And he does one hell of a job. And he becomes an advocate for AEDs (automated external defibrillators) in public places, and perhaps speeds the adoption of this by five years, although it's hard to tell.
And then, when Fritz seriously begins considering a run in the summer of 1987, he has accumulated quite a bit of street cred and is not automatically assumed to be an old school liberal where people already knows his views. And when he advances liberal views and/or any other views, people tend to listen to Fritz afresh.
And the more he thinks about it, the more he likes it. And Joan encourages him, by all means, if this is what most inspires you, go for it.
So, Fritz Mondale takes the classroom parts of EMT 1 and EMT 2, he gets six months of actual practical experience, and then he hits the books on his paramedic training.
And from 1982 to '87, former Senator and Vice-President Walter 'Fritz' Mondale is a working paramedic on the streets of Minneopolis. And as a guy in his fifties, he's still young enough and big enough to do the occasional lifting of patients. And he knows how to do it safely to reduce the chance of back injury, although this risk is never entirely eliminated.
And he does one hell of a job. And he becomes an advocate for AEDs (automated external defibrillators) in public places, and perhaps speeds the adoption of this by five years, although it's hard to tell.
And then, when Fritz seriously begins considering a run in the summer of 1987, he has accumulated quite a bit of street cred and is not automatically assumed to be an old school liberal where people already knows his views. And when he advances liberal views and/or any other views, people tend to listen to Fritz afresh.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And in the general election 1984 in OTL, Mondale did tack toward the center.
Remember his convention speech: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you; I just did."
That is, Fritz Mondale ran as a deficit hawk.
He did not run on some version of an urban Marshall Plan like I read some liberals were urging him to.
Remember his convention speech: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you; I just did."
That is, Fritz Mondale ran as a deficit hawk.
He did not run on some version of an urban Marshall Plan like I read some liberals were urging him to.