Why did Teddy Kennedy challenge Jimmy Carter?

[CatWoman]

This took place before I became interested in politics.

I'd like to benefit from first hand accounts. Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Jimmy Carter Was Perceived As The Most Conservative Democratic President Since Grover Cleveland

And the liberal wing of the party asked him to run.

[Tom Ripley]

30. Exactly! People tend to forget that while Carter is now a liberal former president

he was neither a liberal president (or governor)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. He Was Lester Maddox's Lieutenant Governor

In fairness he was a progressive on racial issues famously declaring in his gubernatorial inauguration speech "the time for racial discrimination is over." And he was viewed as part of a new breed of Southern Democratic governors along with Rubin Askew of Florida who rejected racial appeals.

[book_worm]

58. No he wasn't. Maddox was his Lt. Governor!--but they were not on the same ticket

Lt. Governor is elected seperately in Georgia. Carter was never Lt. Governor of GA. He was a State Senator and then Governor.

[book_worm]

59. Teddy, like RFK's attitude on LBJ, thought Carter was a rube who didn't stand up for Kennedyesque

liberalism.

[hlthe2b]

2. Before I too, was following very closely...

I'll be interested in the responses...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. I'm interested in some first hand accounts as well.

I was just a little girl at the time.

Marking to check back later. :)

[BeyondGeography]

4. It's not complicated...he thought he would beat him and win the WH

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. Even Though I Voted For Him And Worked For Him It Seems Delusional In Retrospect

.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Yes

Indeed...you weren't alone.

[hfojvt]

47. Why does it seem delusional?

I was surprised when Carter won the primary. (of course I was only 17) but the media had spent three years by that time trashing Carter and the economy was said to be very bad (not that I really noticed this as a kid). I thought sure that the voters, even the Democratic voters, would reject Carter, especially in favor of a famous name like Kennedy.

But as a South Dakotan, I was probably thinking the country agreed with my own dislike of Carter. Carter was not popular in South Dakota. His first budget slashed a whole bunch of water projects in South Dakota in the name of balancing the budget, and somebody in his administration was quoted saying something like "who cares about South Dakota, nobody lives there anyway". Well, South Dakotans did not take kindly to that. Carter came within .5% of winning South Dakota in 1976. Well in 1980 he got smoked in South Dakota (4 electoral votes in a typical red state, no big loss) and probably helped to take Senator George McGovern down with him (a bigger loss as Reagan not only came in with an electoral landslide, but also with Republican control of the Senate).

At the convention, Kennedy made a strong speech promoting traditional Democratic/liberal values http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/166

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. It Was Delusional In The Respect That He Thought Chappaquiddick Wouldn't Become A Focal Issue .

.

[WCGreen]

43. Yep, blood in the water and he jumped in...

Simple as that...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Carter was widely seen as ineffectual --

We had big inflation, terrible interest rates, gas lines, and hostages in Iran. Many Dems felt Carter was at great risk of losing the election as the nominee, and they wanted a new nominee. Kennedy was the last true liberal to make a serious run at the WH. After Carter lost to Ronnie, the conservative members of the Democratic Party decided Kennedy/liberals had weakened Carter to such a degree in the primary battle that it cost him the election.

And this was born the seeds of the DLC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Carter Would Still Have Lost

If folks are looking for a scapegoat they should look to John Anderson. However, all Anderson did was enlarge Reagan's margin of victory as most of his voters would have voted for Jimmy Carter but quite a few of them would have stayed home.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. I think Cater was doomed, as well.

Raygun came in with all that flag-waving, simplistic "morning in America" stuff -- it was soothing/appealing to a lot of folks after the turbulence of the 60's/70's.

And it helped that Ronnie had made the secret hostage deal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Unfortunately I See Parallels Between Then And Now

Except there are no foreign policy debacles on President Obama's watch.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Yup, me too.

Anyone who is laughing off Perry or Romney as potential winners has not paid attention to our recent political history. I think if either of those two is the nominee, O is toast.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. America Was In A Malaise Then As It Is Now

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Reeelection campaigns are , almost, invariably referendums on the incumbent. Jimmy Carter tried to make the campaign about Reagan. In the end it was all about his tenure.

[TBF]

35. I agree -

I wish Obama's team would listen and take the criticism constructively. No one is going to get re-elected in a bad economy. Given the time remaining before the election, if I were Obama I'd do whatever I could (with whatever funds I could find) to start some direct infrastructure projects and get folks working. Absent that I think he really has no chance. People don't care that Bush put the country in this predicament, they just want it fixed.

[HughBeaumont]

74. Well, I would hope the voters would kind of work it out . . .

. . . that putting a guy who has an even WORSE economic acumen (as hard as THAT is to believe) than the President and his corporate banker puppetmasters who fucked it up in the first place isn't exactly the brainiest route to take in "getting it fixed". I would HOPE that, all things considered, they're at least THAT smart.

It's called "Made 30-year Bed, LIE in it. THINK next time you vote Supply Side, cause I'm sure that fist ain't feeling too good right now."

[TBF]

79. Unfortunately they are not thinking it through -

they are just mad and react by voting anti-incumbent. I live in Texas and have watched half the state go up in smoke because SOMEBODY decided fire departments didn't need to be funded. Unfortunately a good many who live here don't even connect that ...

[Safetykitten]

23. How odd. Others do too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. It's Really Not A Remarkable Observation

It's really not a remarkable observation when eighty percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track.

And my personal experience mirrors the hard data. I rarely meet people who think things are going well.

[Safetykitten]

31. But it is odd. How can this paradox be? The same mistakes made twice?

An economy in shambles and the President seeming disconnected from the mood of the country? it can't be so. It's a mathematical impossibility!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. A Couple Of Points

Ironically, President Carter was arguably more in touch with the mood of the nation as he knew it was in a malaise( though contrary to what conservatives say) he never used the word in a speech. I know President Obama speaks frequently of the jobless but I do wonder if he knows how much pain there is in the land which is different than the anger of the Tea Party.

I would argue that President Obama inherited a mess and that a mess befell Jimmy Carter through no fault of his own. He didn't cause the Shah to fall which led to a spike in fuel costs and the resulting inflation and he didn't cause our hostages to be taken in our own embassy and then have the hostage takers be sheltered by a sovereign government.

Anyway, reelection campaigns are referendums on the incumbent. There's plenty of evidence to support the assertion that when folks see things are not going well they don't vote to reelect those in power.

The sad thing is Perry is so far to the right he makes Reagan look moderate.

[closeupready]

45. Carter could have pulled support for the Shah when it was clear ordinary Iranians

were being tortured and killed. To the extent he considered doing so and refused, he was partially responsible for helping to fuel the Islamic revolution. And I say that as a big Carter fan, but an honest one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Of course, the fact is Carter polled BETTER after fending off Kennedy's

challenge than he did before it.

The challenge helped him, not hurt him. Just not quite enough.

[hfojvt]

48. Say what? Mondal was a liberal in the Humphrey tradition.

and I thought Dukakis was considered liberal. It was after they both got clobbered that the DLC put up one of its own, and won, thereby helping them to take over the party.

[Hart2008]

52. But not in the tradition of Minnesota's other great Dem Senator Eugene McCarthy.

McCarthy had run against Carter as an independent in '76 and was so disgusted by deregulation's anti-labor effects he actually endorsed Reagan hoping that the party would return to its progressive tradition. (See my post below on this topic.)

Mondale never repudiated Carter's neoliberal policies which had hurt labor, nor did he offer suggestions as to how those policies could be modified to benefit working class people, and the rest is history.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

53. Yes, I misspoke -

The DLC formed in 1985, after Mondale's defeat.

[yardwork]

63. This is a good summary. We need to add the media's role. The Republicans were implementing takeover.

The Powell Memo was written in 1971. It's implementation included the Reagan revolution, which was made possible by media manipulation of Carter's actions. Yes, there were a lot of problems during the Carter administration and he was not particularly effective at getting the Democratic Congress to pass his initiatives. But the corporate-owned media attacked Carter relentlessly, creating the mythology of a bumbling fool who smirked while America waited in gas lines. And Iran-Contra proved that the Bushies deliberately manipulated the timing of the release of American hostages in Iran so as to maximize Carter's bad press. I'll never forget Ted Koppel on Dateline night after night intoning - day 246 of the hostage crisis. I despise Koppel to this day.

None of those hostages died. Quite different since then.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

[theoldman]

8. Carter was viewed as a weak president.

He rarely gave a strong speech. Kennedy did not think that Carter could beat Reagan in the next election. Today a lot of people think that Obama is a lot like Carter, a nice guy who caves in too much.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Maybe He's Like Carter In That He Will Be Done In By Circumstances Beyond His Control

.

[Rex]

9. Because Ted Kennedy thought he could beat Carter and win

the election against a republican. I wonder how different things would be now if he would have been POTUS and not Carter.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INdemo]

24. Of course had it not been for Chappaquiddick Kennedy would have been

President in maybe 1972(my opinion)..But the fact is the media would not allow the Chappaquid.. incident ie..He really never had a chance. And with about 21% interest rate and high unemployment and the fact that Republicans made a deal with Tehran Carter was toast before the ballots were cast..Farmers voted for Reagan because of the grain embargo with Russia(they attacked Afghanastan)...

[Le Taz Hot]

67. I'll have to disagree with you here.

He had WAY more baggage that Chappaquiddick. In the late 70's/early 80's he had not yet tackled his alcoholism and his womanizing was legendary. He wouldn't have had a chance against the Republicans and a hostile media.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. He Accepted Responsibility For The Accident

I am sure it haunted him for the rest of his life. In his autobiography which he wrote on his death bed, he wrote that a day doesn't go by that he doesn't think about what happened.

Two points:

There is a different between a car accident and murder; even a horrific car accident.

(And)

None of us should be judged by our worst act.

[Hawkowl]

26. Killing is valuable presidential work experience.

And no, I am not kidding.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. As far as I can tell, that was the turning point in his life -

before Chappaquiddick he was just Jack & Bobby's younger brother. Only after reassessing his life in the wake of that accident did he become the 'liberal lion' in his own right. My theory is that he believed the accident would so taint his career that he could never run for president, which allowed him to take the liberal positions he did without the constraints of second-guessing how they would look in a future presidential race.

[quiller4]

13. In "true Compass" Kennedy says he made the final decision

when listening to Carter's July 15, 1979 address that became known as his "malaise" speech. Kennedy mainains in his book and stated clearly at the time that the decision to challenge Carter had more to do with Optimism and vision than it did with specific policy differences.

That isn't to say that there weren't policy differences between them. There were and there were differences on tactics, too. This is clearly evident when you look at positions the two men outlined about health care in 1978. Although a year earlier Carter had talked about universal and madatory coverage, by 78 he supported an incremental approach. Kennedy wanted a big, grand plan.

[Bucky]

49. Best answer. It was more leadership than ideology.

[msongs]

15. because in a democracy liberals have the right to challenge conservatives? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The Ironic/Sad Thing Is That Many Of The Liberal Legislators Who Goaded Him Into Running

Abandoned his campaign when it started to falter. Liberals like Birch Bayh (who saved his life in 1964 by pulling him out of the wreckage of a downed plane), John Culver, Birch Bayh.

[quiller4]

50. The big surprise was Dan Rostenkowsi. Kennedy thought he had

Rostenkowski's support locked up. When Rostenkowsi who basically controlled the Cook County Democratic machine at the time, announced he was backing Carter, other legislators pealed off the Kennedy campaign. That didn't help but what hurt Kennedy most personally was when he lost the MAssachusetts primary and knew that many of his long-time volunteers had chosen Carter over him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. He Didn't Lose The Massachusetts Primary

He did lose the IA caucus and NH though and got trounced in the South. He did have some nice primary wins like CA and NY .

[mdmc]

16. JC was not liberal enough for the great liberal lion

Teddy was all about hope and change..

[demosincebirth]

17. I lost much respect for Teddy at that time. I believe he,basically, pushed Carter

into signing the the trucking and airline industry deregulation bill which destroyed the unionized trucking industry. Kennedy was a thorn in Carters side ever since he took office.

[Hart2008]

40. I don't see how Carter was pushed into deregulation. Please support that assertion. NT

[demosincebirth]

55. That was my opinion then and it still is. nt.

[Hart2008]

56. Well, could you give us the facts on which your opinion is based? NT

[Zen Democrat]

19. There was personal animosity from the get-go.

Carter wrote in his campaign book, "Why Not The Best" that he decided to run for President when he was governor and Ted Kennedy visited the Governor's Mansion. He thought Ted was not that bright, and decided that maybe he, himself, was the best man to be the next president. I don't think the Kennedys ever forgave Jimmy for writing that.

I loved Teddy, and I adore Jimmy. It was unfortunate all the way around. But Teddy doomed Carter's reelection chances by refusing to shake his hand on the stage after Carter's acceptance speech at the Convention in 1980. A LOT of Democrats stayed home that year. A LOT of Democrats failed to work for Carter's reelection. Most assumed that Reagan was unelectable anyway and they wanted to send a message.

I remember it well. History changed over personalities. And as a result we got Reagan, the Mujahadeen, and Osama bin Laden, not to mention the Saving & Loan collapse, Iran-Contra, supply-side (voodoo) economics, and the Bushes got a toe-hold on the political future. America hasn't recovered from Carter's loss, and may not for another 50 years.

[jberryhill]

61. +1

Of the many moments in history for which I'd like to see a do-over, that non-handshake is among the top.

The election of Ronald Reagan locked us into a deviation for which we are still paying.

[LLStarks]

27. I take it you heard that segment on Ed today about primary challengers. nt

[CatWoman]

32. I caught the tail end of it

(damn work getting in the way of my surfing and turfing) :)

but that snippet piqued my interest - hence this thread :hi:

[Politicalboi]

34. We should run a fake Repuke

In their party. One who will not get rid of Medicare or SSI and is pro choice and environmental friendly, and for taxing the rich. LOL! We should try and split them as much as possible before they do it to us.

[FarCenter]

36. Because of the Kennedy sense of entitlement and noblesse oblige

[CBGLuthier]

75. Yep.

I was going to say because he was a Kennedy first and a democrat second. Not a fan of the clan.

[Hart2008]

37. Isn't the better question why Kennedy lost?

The decline of the American labor unions was evident in 1976 when Jimmy Carter won the nomination. While I respect President Carter for his emphasis on human rights in foreign policy, domestically he was the nation's first neoliberal president:

Despite the myth that Reagan is the one that devastated private-sector unions, no amount of so-called “union-busting” that Reagan allegedly did matches the amount of devastation that President Jimmy Carter did to unions by crushing their monopolies in the Air, Rail Telephone and Trucking industries. Though the narrative is a convenient one, it is misleading.

According to Alfred Kahn, the ‘chief architect’ of airline deregulations stated years later:
"I have to concede that the competition that deregulation brought certainly was terribly, terribly hard on the airlines and their unions, who had heretofore enjoyed the benefits of protection from competition under regulation."
It is time to set the record straight and give Carter credit where credit is due: Jimmy Carter was the nation’s biggest union-busting president in the 20th century.

http://www.laborunionreport.com/portal/2011/04/the-decline-of-...

There was a reason that a great pro-labor Democrat like Eugene McCarthy considered Carter and Reagan to similar to distinguish on labor issues. Teddy Kennedy never got a lot of support from labor because he too had supported deregulation. While labor later supported Carter's VP, labor found the wrong Minnesotan to promise its support if it wanted to reverse Carter's neoliberal policies. Teddy Kennedy never articulated enough differences with Carter on domestic economics to attract support from labor. The interview in which Kennedy failed to answer the basic question of why he wanted to become president left many with the impression that he felt he was entitled by birth to the nomination, and not that his candidacy had a rationale other than personal ambition.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. What did Kennedy run on?

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Wage And Price Controls To Combat Rampant Inflation

And national health care.

[southernyankeebelle]

44. Ted should of never run in the first place. He did it for the wrong reasons.

[H2O Man]

46. There were several reasons.

As some here have noted, Carter was viewed as weak. The reasons he seemed -- and was -- a weak President are the primary reasons Kennedy challenged him.

The Jimmy Carter of today is distinct from the one that ran for President in 1976, and served until 1980. Carter not only did not look to build linkages with the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party, but he ignored their attempts to engage with him. Even in selecting a liberal VP, Carter kept him at arm's length.

Another example was Carter's health care proposal; had he worked with Kennedy, there would likely have been real progress.

By mid-term, Carter began working more closely with republicans. This is apparent, even from Carter's book of White House journals. He was more comfortable trying to be friends with them, but they played him. That had no plans to help Carter succeed.

By the last year of his term, many Democrats felt that there was little chance of Carter being re-elected. Add to that Ted Kennedy's history -- he had been pressured to run in the summer of '68, but opted to wait until '72. Events changed that plan, and also buried any real chance for him in '76. Thus, in part Kennedy made his challenge for the party, and in part for himself.

[Hart2008]

51. Wasn't Mondale selected in part to offset fellow Minnesotan Eugene McCarthy's independent run in 76?

Otherwise, McCarthy might have gotten enough votes to cost Carter Minnesota in what was a close election?

Also, Mondale is the model for a modern VP. He was the first VP to have an office in the White House. The constitution places the VP's duties in the Senate as its president, and not in the executive branch. The modern VP's executive powers come from statute and from those which the president chooses to delegate to him. Carter was the first to use this model, so Mondale was much closer to Carter than merely arms length as you stated.

[H2O Man]

57. Interesting thoughts.

The idea concerning McCarthy makes sense; even though by '76, he had lost a great deal of his appeal among those who had supported him in '68. he was still a power to be reckoned with in his home state.

I both agree and disagree with you on Mondale. For sake of discussion, I'll focus on the areas of disagreement, though not in the hostile manner that too often prevents good discussion/debate on this forum.

President Carter, to his credit, was attempting to create the Constitutional balance of powers that the Nixon gang had upset. I think that was a primary reason for Mondale's office location. I do not think it was because there was a real partnership, in the sense of, say, Clinton and Gore (pre-Monica). Nor would I suggest it was an attempt to keep an eye on him -- as Nixon actually began keeping an eye on Agnew, even during the '68 campaign. Agnew had begun speaking publicly in a manner that the Nixon team knew was risky.

A lot of the information I rely upon comes from the Kennedy historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Now, he was definitely not objective in all things. Ted Kennedy vs jimmy Carter is not even the area of his greatest subjectivity. Nor do I consider him talented in predicting the future. But he was a heck of a good historian. Combine that talent with his love of gossip, and you get his journals, published after his death by his sons. Fascinating reading.

Arthur disliked candidate Carter in '76. He despised him as President. And he had a solid relationship with Walter Mondale. So Arthur kept track of how the relationship between the President and VP went; according to his journals, Mondale did not feel accepted into Carter's circle in the White House -- and that included Carter. Indeed, for as talented a man as Mondale was, including his strong ties to the most powerful democrats in the Congress (especially the Senate), I think it would be difficult to argue that Carter used him well. An actual close relationship would have made that possible.

Now, for the position of VP. It might be more accurate to say that despite the public image, Nixon was more powerful under Ike. He ran Central and South American policy, most memorably helping to set up the planned Bay of Cheney, er, Pigs invasion. Perhaps this can be viewed as setting up for the most powerful VP in history, Cheney.

LBJ would say that JFK treated him well, though the others in the administration did not. LBJ was in many high-level meetings, and did take a meaningful trip to Vietnam. President Kennedy tried to engage him in helping to get legislation passed. Personalities prevented this.

The VPs under Nixon probably don't count, except for Agnew resigning in disgrace, and Ford pardoning Nixon. Same with Rockefeller. Post Carter, we had Bush the Elder running the Iran-Contra operations under Reagan. Then Danny Quayle, who doesn't count for much. Then Gore, then Cheney. So I'd agree that Mondale made Gore's role more likely, perhaps to the extent of possible. Also Biden. Thus, Mondale, Gore, and Biden are powerful in modern terms, though not uniquely so. Both Nixon and Cheney exercised more power, as a whole.

Two VPs have made an issue of the role defined by the Constitution. The first was actually LBJ, in January of 1961. He wanted to actually maintain his office in the Senate Office Building. The Democratic Senators had to remind him that he was no longer actually in that branch -- although he was tasked with breaking tie votes. Then, of course, Cheney tried to say that the Constitution does not make a clear distinction of where the VP serves. That ranked with some of his most disgraceful lies, and no serious person supported his position on that.

[CatWoman]

64. what would I do without you?

:hi:

:loveya:

[H2O Man]

65. My guess:

{1} What you would do without me: When in bookstores, and passing by the history section's enormous volumes on unimportant stuff about people like Nixon, you would say, "No person reads that type of stuff." (I will not comment on your likely book selection, though. Probably "adult" reading.)

{2} With me: In those same circumstances, you will say, "That looks like the weird stuff that H2O Man loves to read. So I don't have to! On to more interesting reading!"


How the heck are you? We rarely talk these days. I miss the opportunity to chat with you!

[CatWoman]

71. i'm doing ok

so glad all of that blistering heat is gone from the summer!!!

Fall is truly the best time of the year.

BTW -- I really appreciate your input. I was talking to my granddaughter last night and she needs material for one of her classes and I sent this thread to her. I also encouraged her to join DU.

You guys are all so knowledgeable and smart (some more than others -- hint, hint :) ).

I know she will be well served.

[Hart2008]

69. Thank you for an interesting and professional response!

Too often here the "arguments" are nothing but unsupported opinion, fallacious reasoning, devolving into snark.

The VP's office is a bit of a hybrid. It is defined by Article II as the Executive branch, but it sole active power is in the legislative branch. Its real power is latent waiting for the death or disability of the President.

History will recall that Bush, Sr., was the most powerful VP in history, operating behind the back of a doddering president. I would need to study Nixon's role as VP more. I don't know that Eisenhower ever really liked him much. Regardless of what LBJ said publicly about JFK after his death, his comments to his mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown were that he despised the Kennedys and conspired to kill JFK. Humphrey had been emasculated as VP. To this day the Greek-American community doesn't believe Agnew ever did anything wrong, and was forced out to make way for Ford. Agnew wouldn't have issued Nixon that pardon, so he had to go. Without the pardon, Nixon would talk about too much, like that meeting with LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover the night before Kennedy was killed, but Nixon certainly knew a lot about the Bay of Pigs invasion.

[book_worm]

60. No, Mondale was selected because Carter realized he needed a liberal from the midwest

to offset his southern moderation. Mondale was also strong with unions and Humphrey democrats. Carter went thru a very rigorous VP search and personally interviewed several people. It came down to Ed Muskie (Sen from Maine) and Mondale. He and Mondale hit it off personally. Carter also said that as a former Governor with no Washington experience he wasnted a VP who had Washington experience and Mondale had been a Senator since 1964.

At the time of the Democratic convention, Carter was leading Ford by 27-points while Independent candidate McCarthy was garnering maybe 1-2 points, so I don't think selecting Mondale was to keep McCarthy at bay.

[Hart2008]

68. And despite Vietnam, Watergate, and Ford Pardon of Nixon, Carter only got 50.08% PV and 55.2% EV

Really it took all of that for Carter to get elected. Considering all of the trauma the country had been through, Gerald Ford being the first President not elected president or vice-president, Carter should have done better than that. I don't remember a 27 point lead at the convention, although that was a long time ago. Considering that Ford made a huge gaffe in the debate when he said that Poland had never been under Soviet domination, it sounds kind of hard to believe.

However, Carter selection of Mondale certainly kept McCarthy sidelined, whether intentional or not.

[hifiguy]

77. That is the way I remember it

and I was/am a Minnesotan who was there back in the day. Selecting the highly capable and respected (particularly by unions and left-leaning constituencies) Fritz Mondale reassured a number of us who had been ABC (Anyone But Carter - I had supported Udall and then Jerry Brown in the primaries) prior to the convention that he was paying attention to us and our concerns. Turns out that he wasn't.

And not using Mondale's connections with the left/unions hurt Carter badly throughout his presidency and contributed in some measure to his loss in 1980.

Walter Mondale is, IMO, one of the finest people to have been in public service in my lifetime - an honest, good and decent man who never cashed in on his high offices and always served his state and the country with distinction.

[lynne]

54. Because Democrats were bound to lose if Carter ran for re-election -

- and Carter ran and we lost and you know the story from there.

I was there. The economy sucked but not as bad as now. Not nearly as bad as now. When in the privacy of an election booth, people tend to vote with their wallets.

[book_worm]

62. Well Kennedy ran, too, and lost the nomination handily.

and then he sulked about it at the convention and finally gave a lukewarm endorsement to Carter a few weeks later. None of this helped the democratic ticket in the general election. Would Carter have lost anyway? perhaps. Many EMK supporters eneded up supporting John Anderson--look at how close such states as NY and MA were and how many votes Anderson got.

[hifiguy]

78. I was a strong Ted supporter who voted for Anderson

I assumed Carter would win my home state (MN - with the Mondale connection) and that Raygun would handily win the national vote. So I voted for Anderson and was proved right in all particulars; I also felt good about my vote.

[Jim Lane]

66. Yes, Carter's personal unpopularity was a danger for November.

I was phone banking for Kennedy. More than one person said to me something along the lines of "I'll vote for Kennedy, but I think Carter will be the nominee, and if he is then I'll vote for Reagan. We just have to get rid of Carter." To the typically ideological DUer, this makes little sense -- voters who prefer Carter to Kennedy might logically go either way in a Kennedy-Reagan general election, but Kennedy's primary voters would presumably consider Carter too conservative and therefore have even greater distaste for Reagan. Outside DU, however, ideology is less of a factor. Inflation and interest rates were both very high, the hostage situation was an ongoing problem, and all these things were (rightly or wrongly) blamed on Carter.

For these reasons, there was widespread concern among Democrats -- concern that Carter as the nominee would not only lose but would lose so badly that many downticket Democrats would suffer. Kennedy was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the ranking Republican was Strom Thurmond. One story I heard was that someone said to Kennedy, "I just wonder how you're going to deal with Strom when you have to call him 'Mr. Chairman.'" Of course, this gloomy prediction came true. With Carter as the nominee, Democrats got clobbered in the Senate and House races, and Thurmond did indeed take over the committee.

[Tatiana]

70. I love this thread.

Very insightful discussion, opinion, and theories on all sides.

Too bad Kennedy didn't win. We might have won true universal health care.

[demwing]

76. There is a parallel universe where cell phones were invented 50 years earlier

allowing Ted Kennedy to phone the police immediately after the fatal car crash.

In that universe, Ted Kennedy beats Carter and Reagan, serving two terms. There is no BFEE, there is no Christian Coalition, and Rush Limbaugh is a fat pop DJ in a 2nd rate market. In that universe, Bill Clinton kept his pants zipped (maybe), and the SCOTUS didn't stop Gore from serving the 1st of his two terms. The US is Green when Obama hits the stage - inspired by progressive ideals, not a failed actor/Governor of California. America doesn't have to enact Health Insurance reform, because by then, we had already had a Single Payer system for over 20 years. There is no Iraq war, there is no Afghanistan war, and 911 is just the # you dial to get the police.


I want to live in that universe :)