Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a very good question and we were seriously involved in Reagan's campaign. My guess the hostages played a small part but was the final blow. He didn't do well in the debates, he was not the picture of what many think of when they think US Pres (much like Trump in that way) and the economy was sinking fast. Add to all this, Reagan was one of the most accomplished campaigner we had seen, he had an outstanding PR dept and you couldn't help but like him. If it weren't for the hostages though, Carter would not have lost so badly.
At the same time, the Reagan haters were very much like the Trump haters today, but they didn't turn to violence like the Democrats do today, and I don't recall that after Reagan won in such a huge landslide that they tried to say the election was "stolen" or illegitimate" as the Democrats do today. The Dem's response to Reagan was Mondale/Ferraro in 1984. That was equally a disaster.
Of course, we were in California then (my wife is a native San Diegan) so we knew Reagan as Governor. He was very popular, and was very good for California, after the disaster of Edmund "Pat" Brown, Jerry Brown's father. It was a "no brainer" for us to vote for Reagan.
Carter lost because the MSM went after him like they went after Trump now. The only difference is that we didn't have the Internet then to know better.
Very personally involved in the Reagan campaign or hubby was: Nothing to do with the media had much influenced on the election of 1980. the only part you have right is we had no internet, but certainly the MSM wasn't always friendly to Reagan. Or let's just say, if you remember how they went after Carter let the rest of us know: we don't remember it that was at all.This might have been slightly true in Cal where he was obviously well known, was a great Governor and very popular. Even then, the press didn't go after Carter so much, they just liked Reagan.
That's a very good question and we were seriously involved in Reagan's campaign. My guess the hostages played a small part but was the final blow. He didn't do well in the debates, he was not the picture of what many think of when they think US Pres (much like Trump in that way) and the economy was sinking fast. Add to all this, Reagan was one of the most accomplished campaigner we had seen, he had an outstanding PR dept and you couldn't help but like him. If it weren't for the hostages though, Carter would not have lost so badly.
I actually think if it weren't for double-digit inflation and John Anderson taking 7% of the vote, that Carter wouldn't have lost 41% to Reagan's 50%.
I liked Jimmy Carter. Good man. But lousy president. Not a disaster but just seemed out of his depth. I voted for him in '76. But couldn't pull the trigger in 1980. I didn't much care for Reagan at that time but he turned out to be a better president than I expected.
Do you think Carter would have been re-elected if the hostages were released before the election? Or Would he still have lost the election.
Given double digit inflation and him telling the country that "Leonid Brezhnev lied to him," pretty well sunk him as the man to be President in the eyes of many many people. Turning his back on Taiwan didn't help, either (to say nothing about interrupting the Battlestar Galactica premiere for his Egyptian-Israeli photo op).
One must keep in mind that this was the end of the 70's and the Viet Nam War had not gone well for the US. A weak man in the White House was not the kind of thing the American people wanted....IMHO.
The more I got to know Carter, the less I liked him. I never voted for him as a result.
The man is a fine human being, and is as intelligent as they come, and he did some real good in achieving a truce between the Israelis and the Egyptians, but he was over his head as President, and was too much an outsider to overcome his personal deficiencies.
Carter wasn't weak. He was ineffectual.
That's much worse for any President; George W. Bush was a weak President, but he was surrounded by a strong staff and had a strong administration.
Those guys made him effectual, but near the end, Bush finally grew into a full President in the last 18 months of his administration, all on his own. Carter never was able to grow into the job.
Surrounding himself with other outsiders sure didn't help Carter out any. All those Georgia boys may have known how to get things done in Georgia, but none of them knew a damn thing about how Washington works. His administration began to fail right from the first, and circling their wagons defensively only made things increasingly worse for them all, and hurt Carter even more than them.
But the facts are, he led through most of the election, and at the time, Reagan was definitely not a shoo-in. He worked very hard and masterfully to pull his win in 1980, and had started that work a full year before his announcement. It was only late in the day that things began to swing his way.
Reagan made a campaign stop in my hometown early on, and I went to see him. I realized that he was going to win then, and voted for him, many months later.
I actually think if it weren't for double-digit inflation and John Anderson taking 7% of the vote, that Carter wouldn't have lost 41% to Reagan's 50%.
What you may be overlooking, Anderson was actually a Republican. I do know a few who voted for him: they were also Republicans. I think without Anderson Reagan may have even won by a larger margin. But heck we will never know. He would have won regardless. In some ways you could say, the election was similar to 2016: Our last election, Hillary was damaged goods and Carter was in 1980. Another thing that didn't help Carter was Kennedy's attempt to win the primary.
To all those who say, Carter is or was a good man: I don't think there is any doubt about that, just like Ford, but unfortunately being a good man does not always make a good Pres.
McGowdog: just knowing the book was connected in any way with NYTimes or review ws done, makes it doubtful many would pay much attention to it.
I actually think if it weren't for double-digit inflation and John Anderson taking 7% of the vote, that Carter wouldn't have lost 41% to Reagan's 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
What you may be overlooking, Anderson was actually a Republican.
I have always thought that Anderson kept anti-Reagan republicans from voting for Carter and that is how Reagan won.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
