Were democrats this motivated in 1984?

My first election was in 1988, and I was only 15 during the '84 election. I remember there was some outrage at the time on the left about Reagan's unconscionable budget cuts, turning the mentally ill out on the streets and creating ahomeless problem that has still not been fixed, death squads in S. America.

If you were a voter in '84, were dems as motivated then against Reagan as they are now against Bush?

Seems to me that as dumb and as right-wing as Reagan was, he was smarter, more moderate, more charismatic, less jingoistic and murderous than Bush. I can see conservative dems voting for him. It astounds me however that any conservative ddem could go for Bush.

alot of Democrats were motivated to vote for him. I went & I voted even though I thought at the time Reagan would win.

Seriously.

'84 was my 1st Presidential election, and Mondale was pathetic. He was running like an old-style Democrat. His message and policies were great and decent -- but his misunderstood and underestimated the rightward swing this entire country was taking.

Thus, when Mondale admitted that in order to balance the budget, taxes would have to be raised, Reagan ran with it. And ran Mondale right into the ground.

Of course Reagan DID raise taxes later on... but once you're in office, nobody cares whether you've actually kept a promise or not. And also, Ronnie didn't make the mistake Bush Sr did in ever giving that stupid "read my lips" statement.

My spouse has voted in elections going all the way back to Johnson. Neither of us has EVER seen the Dems this energized. Not ever.

Back then, the 'greed is good' message had a brand new, 1980's Miami-Vice style sheen. Now it just sounds like a creditor's collection call.

RTP

I was, however, voting for Democrats. :)

These people are the scum of the earth. They've taken over and some people have noticed. Apparently 50% of the country still hasn't a clue.

Not even close.

The big elections for me were

...64 - the first election I could vote in; Goldwater was very scary: he was ready to use nuclear weapons in VN

...68 - hatred of LBJ, passion for Gene McCarthy; the war

I think democrats were very motivated in 64 - fear of nuclear weapons and 'win this for JFK's legacy'

As far as I can recall, 64 and this one are the only ones in which the republican running was/is so terribly frightening.

Kerry is better than Mondale was (no offense to Mondale, BTW).

Chimpy is MUCH worse than Reagan--hard to believe, but it's true.

Not even close to this degree of polarization. Reagan was a dingbat but many thought him likeable, and we didn't believe that the Constitution or the integrity of the nation was at stake.

What we have now is a completely different animal, The People are waking up, and it isn't going to be pretty.

Gyre

In 1984 Democrats were asleep at the wheel or licking our wounds from getting broadsided in 1980. All the activists from the sixties were raising families or something or were just plain complicit. Cripes, some of us did wake up but it took eight more years.

and the Primary process was rigged via superdelagates to ensure that Mondale would win.

My guess is that Hart would have beaten Reagan that year, based in part on his strength in key electoral states:

Hart might have carried a few more states and picked up a point or two over Mondale's 40% but no one would have beaten Reagan in 1984.

The economy was going well for most and people only throw out incumbent presidents during times of extreme crisis where the administration in power is seen as messing up.

Reagan wasn't nearly as "popular" as everyone has been led by today's media to believe. His policies at the time- along with most of his administration were actually wildly unpopular, and the country had been through a deep recession. That Reagan himself was never held accountible was an artifact of profound media bias. The major media wouldn't speak ill of the man or challenge his policies because his chairman of the FCC Mark Fowler, was in the process of dismantling decades of media regulation and handing them the keys to the public airwaves.

Hart was young, intelligent, telegenic and vibrant. He had new ideas that appealed to a great many people who ended up voting for Reagan. Remember, in 1984, the far right was still very much on the fringe- and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by sizable margins. There wasn't hate radio or Fox or today's CNN to promote far right views. The media basically just played hands off.

Hart played to Reagan's strengths and could easily have turned the tables on him. Mondale, unfortunately, was a loser from the outset- he never had a chance.... and the way he came about the nomination (that he felt entitled to) turned a lot of voters off (including me).

or any alternate media. All that was generally known had to be got from traditional media. They were spinnig much like today, for the most part.

It is no wonder Reagan was so 'successful'. The media in the late 70's and 80's was far different than the 60's and early 70's.

I am not sure why the media changed so much after Nixon.

many media people were on Nixon's enemiy list.....this let to IRS audits, wiretapping (Kissinger approved), etc

You could see signs of it. Hart was the original "New Democrat." I didn't get his campaign in 1984 all that well, but he saw the political winds were changing and was out in front. I still hold him accountable for his stupidity with Donna Rice, because I think he might have taken Bush I in 1988.

Everyone knew Reagan was all but unbeatable. Contrary to what some people say in this thread, Mondale was not an awful candidate, he was simply political cannon fodder. Anyone would have been, including Hart. Reagan had an improved economy, and an unimpeachable reputation on national defense going for him. No one is going to lose under those circumstances.

With all that, the Democrats of 1984 were the least spirited group I've seen. The beginning of a move away from old style liberalism, Reagan's aura of inevitability, firm control over the House (now we have nothing, talk about a motivator!) and a general prosperity left the party enervated and without any strong themes.




Thinking about Hart reminds me that, at a time the nation was moving to the right, the Democrats nominated two old-style liberals in a row for president, and both got thumped. No real point here, just a brief ramble.

We've NEVER been this motivated. Even my mother, who is 75 does not think so.
Wow, Bush really was a uniter, wasn't he?

I thought Reagan was a horse's ass, and unspeakably cruel to the mentally ill and homeless. I worked for Mondale, but it was clear that it was an effort that was going to fail against a very popular incumbent president.

But there wasn't the kind of emotional investment that people have in their candidates today. There wasn't the constant worry and agitation. The press was still pretty reasonable in reporting to the public, and the fairness doctrine, although being dismantled, was still in effect. There was no right-wing hate radio, no Hannitys, no Faux News.

The nation wasn't so divided as it is today. I have never seen the situation so acute as it is right now.