Ted Kennedy was originally the Frontrunner for the 1984 Democratic nomination, but he was convinced by his family not to run. This was in 1982 when Reagan was widely unpopular and expected to be a one term President. What if Kennedy decided to challenge Reagan? Would he have lost 49 states like Mondale? What affect would the election have on the Kennedy legacy and the future of the US politics?
Reagan vs. Kennedy in 1984
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Gentleman Biaggi
Banned
I can see the final result being like this (if everything stays about the same for Reagan):
The thing is I can also see him winning. Reagan had a poor first debate, and considering Teddy’s fantastic speaking ability, he might run laps around Reagan, meaning the Reagan of the next two debates has a lot less room, and blah blah blah, Teddy wins narrowly:
Kennedy: 295- Reagan: 243
Meanwhile, if Ted runs a bit more to the left, another Anderson run isn’t out of the picture, which probably causes a Reagan victory
Maybe. Mondale and Reagan were neck and neck after the conventions. However Mondale ran a bad campaign, and he was doomed to lose considering he was the VP to the guy who voters rejected four years earlier. Kennedy was a great politician and didn't have the association with Carter, but Chappaquiddick and his Playboy ways would hurt him even in the Democratic primaries. I think Reagan would win, but narrowly as Obama did in 2012. Of course this could set up Kennedy to run again in 1988, as some expected Romney to do in 2016. A Kennedy presidency from 1989 onwards could be very interesting indeed.
Well, it makes sense if you think about it. A conservative Westerner incumbent President vs a liberal Ivy League Massachusetts Senator.
The Democratic national convention was held July 16 to July 19. The Republican national convention was held August 20 to August 23.
Here are the Gallup poll numbers for that period (and before and after):
At no time after May of 1984 was the election even close, let alone "neck and neck" according to the regular Gallup polls. (There was a special poll for Newsweek I'll discuss below.) At no time during the convention season (even with the traditional "bounce" the Democrats got after their convention) did Reagan lead in these polls by less than 51 to 43. And at no time during the autumn--including after Reagan's unimpressive performance in the first (October 7) debate--was the lead less than sixteen points! https://news.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trialheat-trends-19362004.aspx
Well, you may say, maybe one should look at other polls besides Gallup. OK:
"The political lift that Walter F. Mondale hoped to gain from the Democratic National Convention and the nomination of Geraldine A. Ferraro for Vice President has not materialized at this stage of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll...Overall, the survey showed the Reagan-Bush ticket holding a lead of 49 percent to 34 percent over the Mondale- Ferraro ticket. That lead is identical to the lead of 15 percentage points that Mr. Reagan held over Mr. Mondale in a Times/CBS News Poll in late June." https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/14/us/mondale-in-poll-fails-to-gain-lift-from-convention.html
The Harris poll found that as the Democratic national convention convened, Mondale had narrowed the gap--he was now down by "only" 52-44. This was an improvement over the 56-41 of three weeks earlier--but after all candidates are supposed to improve as their convention grows near. https://theharrispoll.com/wp-conten...REAGANS-LEAD-OVER-MONDALE-NARROWS-1984-07.pdf By the time the GOP convention approached, Reagan's lead was back up to 54-42. https://theharrispoll.com/wp-conten...REAGANS-LEAD-OVER-MONDALE-NARROWS-1984-07.pdf
Now it is true that immediately after not "the conventions" but the Democratic convention, Harris did show Reagan's lead dropping to 50-48. Likewise, a special Gallup poll for Newsweek on the last two days of the Democratic convention showed only a narrow Reagan lead. But of course the end of your party's convention is when you are supposed to be at your best--if you don't have a double digit lead then you are probably in trouble and if you are actually trailing, as Mondale was even then, you are in big trouble!
No, I wasn't going to say that. I would have said "Oh, okay @David T. I was wrong." Not that the data you provided actually shows how well Kennedy (or any candidate besides Mondale) might've done against Reagan.
While I could see Kennedy closing the gap I don't see him taking California - not only was the state much more Republican friendly in 1984 Reagan had a personal advantage there.
Other than Reagan overseeing a roaring economy that year, Kennedy's charisma is gonna get overshadowed by his...uh, baggage. "Where's Mary Jo?"
I think even the first map is way too optimistic for EMK and the second is absurd. It shows EMK carrying Ohio which Mondale lost by 59-40, NJ which he lost 60-39, Michigan which he lost by 59-40 etc. All three states also went decisively for Bush over Dukakis in 1988--Ohio by 55-44, New Jersey by 56-43, Michigan by 56-44. And Ohio and New Jersey even came close to going for Bush in 1992!
BTW, Ohio has never been a state particularly friendly to the Kennedys. JFK lost it pretty decisively to Nixon in 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio,_1960 and Carter beat EMK in the 1980 Democratic primary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980
The whole notion that Kennedy was a charismatic candidate who would have done much better than Mondale is IMO shown to be dubious by (if nothing else) the 1980 primaries. EMK was running against an unpopular incumbent president and running in a constituency (the Democratic primary electorate) that was far more liberal than the US electorate as a whole. Yet EMK got only 37.6 percent of the vote, and only won inn 11 states and DC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1980 EMK was supposed to be so articulate, but he didn't exactly shine in the Roger Mudd interview ("why do you want to be president?")… And yes,1980 showed that Chappaquiddick still mattered --and would still matter in 1984.
And then there are the facts that the GDP was soaring in 1984, that unemployment which had peaked at 10.8 percent in November 1982 was down to 7.2 percent in November 1984 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt (yes, still a high rate but politically speaking it is the direction that matters--unemployment was high in 1936, too!) that the country was at peace (even if it was the peace of a Cold War) and that Reagan's job approval was never less than +10 from November 1983 until late 1986. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php?pres=40 Generally speaking, incumbent presidents in a time of peace and prosperity, with no major scandals (Iran-Contra was still in the future) and with no major split in their party and no major third party do get re-elected, usually comfortably--especially if their job approval ratings are positive.
My own view is that Kennedy would carry DC, MA, MN, and RI--and that's it. Maybe MD, but I doubt it (remember, Bush carried it in 1988). And I'm not even sure about MN! Reagan was always well ahead in the autumn of 1984--including after the first debate--and I see no reason it would be different with EMK instead of Mondale.
(FWIW, a May 1982 Harris poll actually showed that Kennedy would do worse than Mondale against Reagan. Mondale would lead Reagan 49-48, whereas Kennedy would lose to him 50-47. https://theharrispoll.com/wp-conten...ED-KENNEDY-MONDALE-OR-GLENN-TODAY-1982-05.pdf Of course that poll was taken in the depths of the 1982 recession, which is why it showed Reagan facing such a close race.)
Last edited:
That's probably why Mondale laughed after Reagan's joke in the second debate; he later said that he realized he had lost at that moment. It didn't help that he said he was going to raise taxes at the Convention; now, one can, just don't say you're going to do so before you're even elected...
Actually Ted Kennedy and Reagan were friends. The Reagans were invited over to his Hickory Hill estate a few times, and upon EMK's death Nancy Reagan talked nostalgically about the fond memories she had with the Kennedy's. The chemistry between the two candidates would be very civil, it would be their underlings who engage in dirty politicking. (Reagan's age vs. Kennedy's scandals).