4 ms·
The argument is roughly "incumbent, economy, sexism" in that order. When things have recently trended positively (particularly with the economy), as they did in
by boulos 6y ago
The argument is roughly "incumbent, economy, sexism" in that order. When things have recently trended positively (particularly with the economy), as they did in 1984, the incumbent almost always wins in the US.
On Sexism, Mondale chose Ferraro as his running mate (the first major party ticket with a woman!). This wasn't received well overall: "only 22% of women were pleased about her selection, versus 18% who agreed that it was a bad idea. 60% of all voters thought that pressure from women's groups had led to Mondale's decision, versus 22% who believed that he had chosen the best available candidate." [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidentia...
- happytoexplain 6y ago> 60% of all voters thought that pressure from women's groups had led to Mondale's decision, versus 22% who believed that he had chosen the best available candidate I'd imagine some people felt that both statements were true. Measuring opinion is an interesting challenge.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoAll of that explains why he lost, but perhaps, not why he lost SO BADLY. He only won his home state of Minnesota and only did so by .18% (<4000 votes)!!! It really was an amazingly epic blowout.
- ansible 6y agoYes. Note that Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in his 2000 bid for the presidency. If Gore had won TN, Florida wouldn't have mattered as much.
- tablespoon 6y ago> The argument is roughly "incumbent, economy, sexism" in that order. Also personality? I wasn't even alive during that election, but I've seen videos of Reagan's (quite good) jokes during those debates. I've never seen anything from Mondale, so it's likely that he didn't leave nearly as good of an impression.