A couple of weeks ago, I was with a group of students at an Obama rally. The lead speaker was Walter Mondale, now 84, who was vice president under Jimmy Carter and lost the 1984 presidential election to Ronald Reagan.
While I was old enough to remember voting for Mondale for president, almost everyone else in the room was young enough that they had not been born when he lost in a landslide to Reagan. I wondered what sort of reception he’d receive, or if students even knew who he was. I needn’t have worried; he received an enthusiastic standing ovation both arriving and departing.
Of course we can’t know what would have happened if he had been elected president in 1984, but we can take an educated guess. Even a superficial consideration shows that elections do indeed have consequences.
President Mondale?
Let’s consider the Supreme Court. It seems safe to say that a President Mondale would not have promoted William Rehnquist to the role of Chief Justice in 1986 and certainly would not have nominated anyone like Antonin Scalia to the bench in 1986. He, perhaps, might have elevated Anthony Kennedy in 1988. Had Mondale served two terms it seems beyond question that Clarence Thomas would not have been put on the court in 1991.
Think how the legal history of the past decade would have been different. Consider the Citizens United ruling that allowed an avalanche of money into our political process, think about worries of how the court would rule on Obamacare or on challenges to Roe vs. Wade. And consider also the unknown number of ordinary human beings whose lives would have had just a bit more protection from corporate power and from out of control police power if instead of Scalia and Thomas there had been two moderate to liberal justices to support the liberal wing. Elections have consequences.
Or consider the status of women. In 2008, the country saw a woman nearly capture the Democratic nomination for president, and, it was likely, go on to become our first woman president. Many factors contributed to this being possible, but one would have to be that Mondale was the first to select a woman to run as vice-president. And whatever problems Geraldine Ferraro had with tax returns notwithstanding, she never claimed the ability to handle foreign affairs based on the location of her house. The abuse and sexism she endured and overcame, much more daunting than what Hillary Clinton faced, helped open a way for women in high office. Elections have consequences.
Mondale ran on controlling nuclear weapons, supporting the Equal Rights amendment, economic fairness and frankly said that taxes would have to be raised to help control the deficit. Reagan ran on “Morning in America” and quips while appearing in controlled settings. Buoyed in part by a robust economy, Reagan won in a massive landslide.
The second Reagan term brought Iran-Contra, an increased war on drugs, but also, as a President Mondale likely would have done, cooperation with Soviet Premier Gorbachev to reduce nuclear weapons. Reagan was succeeded by his own vice president, George Bush, and then, eventually, by Bush’s son, and the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush.
Change one thing in history, and then something else likely changes as well. It’s not fair or even plausible to extrapolate out 20 or 30 years the consequences of a Mondale presidency. The rise of conservatism and the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few are long term trends with many factors. But it is hard not to think that a decent shove down that path was taken when Reagan got a second term and there was not to be a Mondale presidency. Elections have consequences.
Election 2012 update
Two weeks ago I first did an assessment of the election of 2012, equally, it would seem, an election with consequences. How have things changed in two weeks? Can we discern any trends? Yes, the election has shifted, and shifted significantly in the direction of Obama being re-elected.
As before, this analysis is based on the aggregation of state-by-state polling done by Pollster. A quick look over at the fivethirtyeight blog shows they are tracking largely the same polls with similar results. Pollster seems to show a point or two larger margin for Obama in a number of cases.
Two weeks ago, if pinned down to assign each state to one candidate, I would have had the electoral vote total at 274-264 in favor of Obama. As of today, I would put it at 303-235 in favor of Obama. The number of electoral votes in essentially dead heat states was 82 then and 48 now.
State by state there is a consistent drift to Obama. Of 35 states where the lead for one candidate was not astronomical, Obama has gained in 28 of them, held the same in three and lost ground in four. He gained by six points or more in Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana and Texas, but most states posted a 1, 2 or 3 percent increase in Obama’s status.
This is true regardless of if Obama started ahead or behind. Obama was nine back in Tennessee two weeks ago, now he is six. He was 20 points behind in Texas two weeks ago, now he is 11.
Most of the “tossup” states two weeks ago are now showing slight leads for Obama. People focus on Florida and Ohio as key states with significant electoral vote totals. Obama went from being in a dead heat in Florida two weeks ago to showing a four point lead. In Ohio he went from two points ahead to six. Those are not overwhelming leads, but given that Obama has leads of 10 points or more now in states with 230 electoral votes, it seems impossible to imagine Romney winning if he were to lose both Florida and Ohio.
Of course, there is considerable time and the debates yet to come. Some of these state results are still based on very few reputable independent polls. So, nothing is conclusive as yet. But remember, in 2008 every single state where the polls, just prior to Election Day, were showing a lead of 2 percent or bigger for a candidate was won by that candidate.
Since the perception is that Obama has the lead, Romney must up his game and take the offense, allowing Obama to run a more “above the battle” style of campaign, one he seems to do well at, and one at which people seem to like.
Consider Obama’s response on Letterman to Romney’s “47 percent” remarks. Instead of tearing it apart or heaping scorn on it, Obama could simply “stay classy” and act “presidential” and let Romney defeat himself.
Six weeks to go.