Posted on 07/08/2010 3:37:04 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
To understand why Democrats ever picked Mondale, you have to understand where the party — and where the country — was in 1982 and 1983, when the nation’s verdict on Reagan and his policies was far less positive. In those days, with unemployment surging over 10 percent and the president’s popularity slipping to sub-Carter levels, Democrats mistakenly assumed that the ‘80 election had been a mirage. The electorate, they figured, had acted in haste and was rapidly returning to its senses. The results of the 1982 midterms, when Republicans (who had begun the cycle with claims that they’d win back the House) lost 26 House seats, only encouraged this thinking. To these Democrats, putting up Mondale made all the sense in the world. —Steve Kornacki
I appreciated Kornacki’s argument. He makes several good points explaining how a party recovering from a presidential election defeat could so badly misread the political landscape and choose such a poor nominee. It could be that I am underestimating the effect that most Republicans’ sheer contempt for Obama will have on the next nomination contest. When it comes to channeling and expressing this contempt there are quite a few willing to do it, but there aren’t any prominent Republicans that take more delight in it than Palin. If Republicans choose to believe that 2008 was just a fluke and that a re-match of sorts would have a different outcome, Palin would become a very appealing candidate for them. Kornacki is right when he says:
In nominating her, Republicans would be saying to the country, “We have learned nothing these last four years. We have changed nothing.”
Indeed, they have learned nothing during the last four years, and they haven’t really changed much of anything, so Palin would be a good fit with the party’s leaders and activists for that reason, but I remain skeptical that they are really prepared to go down in flames out of little more than pride and spite. I won’t rehearse all of the reasons I have given before why I doubt the GOP would be so self-destructive as to nominate Palin, but there still seem to be too many structural reasons why someone occupying Palin’s political space cannot succeed in a Republican primary contest. The comparison with Mondale is instructive. Palin and Mondale are alike in that they represent the face of the party as it was when it was defeated, but they are quite different in their sources of support. Mondale was the candidate of the party establishment and important interest groups, and Palin has made a point of aligning herself with every possible anti-establishment, insurgent campaign she can find.
While there are some Washington pundits and journalists on the right that continue to take her seriously, she isn’t likely to have the insider support or backing from party leaders. That space is already being filled by Romney, who also enjoys the status of default frontrunner. Despite her positioning as a “populist” insurgent, she seems uninterested in building an organization to challenge better-funded, better-organized rivals, and she is quite unsuited to running as a party reformer brimming with innovative policy ideas. Her positioning as an insurgent puts her at a particular disadvantage in Republican primaries, which tend to favor runners-up and establishment favorites. Because of their overconfidence and their extremely low opinion of Obama, Republicans may end up nominating a Mondale-like candidate in 2012, but I still have a hard time seeing how Palin gets there. In many ways, Romney has a much easier path to the nomination, and he has just reminded everyone why he would be a spectacularly unsuccessful general election candidate.
Yeah she will.
Palin is America's last, best hope.
Without her, the choices become....the abyss....or war.
Neither choice excites me.
CA....
Both are inexperienced to an absurd degree.
Good points but his article is way off base. The dems didn’t lose in 1984 because they picked Mondale. Any dem would have lost just as handily. Just as the GOP didn’t lose in 2008 because of McCain or Palin, any Republican would have lost once the economy and the markets collapsed in September.
If the economy recovers by 2012 and Obama’s #s are near where Reagan’s were in 1984 he’ll win easily just like Reagan did, no matter who runs against him. Palin would lose in that scenario, as would anyone else. But, if his numbers remain low and the economy stagnates, unemployment remains high(above 8%), Afghanistan doesn’t improve, he’ll be very vulnerable. Popular and succesful incumbents don’t lose. Period. Unpopular and failed ones do.
For example, unemployment went from 10.1 in June of 83 to 7.2 in June of 84. If it drops 3 pts between June of 2011 and June of 2012 the GOP will have no shot, just as the dems had no shot in 84.
Palin would actually have an edge because she’d be seen and rightly so as someone who was against Obama from the start and warned people of what would happen. VOters who realize they made the wrong choice in Obama will have antural place to turn to correc their mistake.
The big difference between the two of them though is that unlike Palin, Mondale actually served as VP for a reviled and depsised administration. He was actually responsible for policies. He was actually part of an administration that was turned out of office in a 489-49 EV landslide, 44 states to 6. The better analogy to Mondale would be if the GOP nominated Cheney in 2012. Or the CA Dems renominating Jerry Brown.
Palin was already part of a ticket that got 46% and won 22 states, compared to the 41% and 6 states that Carter/Mondale lost by in 1980. She starts from a much better position than Mondale did. Plus, against a failed Obama andminisration(the only chance the GOP has)
Palin had nothing to do with the Bush administration. Wasn’t part of it in any way. Nothing to do with the economy, the Iraq War, anything. I don’t think most voters will link her to the Bush/Cheney Administration. It was very easy(for obvious reasons) for voters to link Mondale to the Carter/Mondale Administration. He was the #2 man in it!
Moreso if she is the nominee. That will mean she’ll have campaigned for over a year on her own platform and policies. Have participated in numerous debates, events, etc... Have picked her own VP. I don’t see how a Palin/Romney ticket or a Palin/Barbour ticket or a Palin/whoever ticket will be seen as Bush redux.
Especially running against a failed Obama administration. Mondale ran against a hugely succesful Reagan administration.
The far better analogy for Kornacki to use would be with Gerald Ford. He lost to Carter in 76, yet by 1980 every poll showed him beating Carter easily. He’d have won in 80 if he was the nominee instead of Reagan. Or Nixon in 68. Or Rudy Giuliani in NYC in 1993. He lost to David Dinkins in 1989. By 1993 voters had had enough of Dinkins and Rudy won because they realized they should have picked him in 89 and he was the right choice.. And the comparison between Obama and Dinkins is plain for anyone to see.
Boy, I can’t cease to be amazed at how freightened of Palin they are. There is a massive propaganda push to try and keep her from becoming a candidate. All that because she is a true conservative, and that scares the pants off them. Well guess what! Like the Democrat tactic of doing anything to keep getting their name mentioned in the media, the forces opposed to Palin are giving her free campaign coverage. I think she’s going to nail it.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Larison&fname=Daniel
:) LOL.
Obama won't run in 2012. I smell an LBJ exit.
Thanks!
Daniel Larison FYI PING = PAULTARD - lolololololol
ROTFLOL.
Well well well. What a surprise.
Agreed. I always get a kick out of it when folks seem to forget that it was McCain that was running for President. The comparison of McCain to Mondale would make more sense in light of having an established organization, long political ties, etc.
I know I can count on you to file the information for sakekeeping. We can anticipate more of the same from the PAULTARD writer.
Why do those people hate and fear strong, smart women and the military?
Sorry, I ain’t going there...LOL.
Boy, liberals LOVE them some Romney. Just like they LOVED them some President McCain.
Dude, Romney? Get off the pipe.
Hey how about a bear in the woods. :)
“Daniel Larison donated $2,500 to Ron Paul in the 2008 election cycle, hence rabscuttle’s interest in him.”
Well, that explains his cluelessness.
"Rabadash the Ridiculous".
Silence is golden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.