Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Questions » Politics » In the NY Times book review of Hillary Clinton's "What Happened?" Jon Meacham wrote the following:

In the NY Times book review of Hillary Clinton's "What Happened?" Jon Meacham wrote the following:

"In a way, (Ronald) Reagan was to (President Gerald) Ford (in the 1976 election) what Bernie Sanders was to Hillary Clinton or Eugene McCarthy was to Hubert Humphrey (in the 1968 election) or...Ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter (in the 1980 election): a charismatic figure who won the hearts of many and whose popularity failed to translate to the eventual nominee."

A great parallel between Hillary Clinton (vs. Trump) and Jimmy Carter (vs. Reagan) is drawn in the following:

"(President Jimmy Carter's) 1982 memoir 'Keeping Faith' tells the story of the 1980 general campaign almost exclusively through the prism of his efforts to free the American hostages in Iran. To borrow a phrase from George W. Bush, Carter 'misunderestimated' Reagan, and Carter has never tried very hard to conceal his contempt for the man who crushed his bid for re-election. Carter wrote that he was 'pleased that Governor Reagan was the nominee,' adding: 'With him as my opponent, the issues would be clearly drawn. At the time, all my political team believed that he was the weakest candidate the Republicans could have chosen. My campaign analysts had been carefully studying what he had been saying during the Republican primary elections, and it seemed inconceivable that he would be acceptable as president when his positions were clearly exposed to the public.'

"This inability to discern an opponent’s elemental appeal recurred in 2016. While Trump was making his unconventional but effective appeals to just enough of the country to win in the Electoral College, Clinton admits that she was focused on how she was going to govern — working through Cabinet choices and even buying a neighboring house in Chappaqua to house her White House staff during the coming administration. Like Carter, Clinton could not conceive of a world in which the voters would buy what the Republican nominee was selling. 'I did not realize then,” Carter wrote of the summer of 1980, 'that the press and public would not believe that Reagan actually meant what he was saying — although we tried to emphasize the radical nature of his departure from the policies of my administration and from those of my predecessors in the White House.'"

What are your thoughts on any or all of the above?

If you are interested in history, I recommend reading the entire piece, which also includes fascinating bits on Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Eleanor Roosevelt, and others here - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/books/review/jon-meacham-hillary-clinton-what-happened-presidential-election.html?mcubz=0&_r=0


Posted - September 14, 2017

Responses


  • I think it's more-or-less spot-on, especially considering that I just read a book about the Reagan presidency. Once a candidate reaches that level of smug confidence and absolute refusal to even consider that the American people would vote for the opposition, I think they've already lost the election at that point. 
      September 14, 2017 12:12 PM MDT
    3

  • 7280
    On the other hand, if you were convinced your country were in danger of "going to the dogs," you might be forgiven for thinking that a rabid Chihuahua could never be elected to facilitate it decline.

    (I know we disagree, but it's just the alternate point of view---although admittedly couched in vivid prose.)




      September 14, 2017 1:14 PM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    Trump is to the devils dung what white is to rice.

    That at least can be proven.

      September 14, 2017 12:24 PM MDT
    0

  • 13257
    Bu that's just mindless hyperbole, like Rosie is always posting. You can do better. Can't you come up with something more substantive and thoughtful, especially given the effort and thought I put into the statement and question?

    Why don't you give Meacham's piece a read and see what you think? This really is more about Hillary than it is about Trump.
    This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at September 14, 2017 12:55 PM MDT
      September 14, 2017 12:27 PM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    Me?  My bole is not hyper.  I just smoked a bole (not really this IS A joke) so I would not be hyper.

    I don't smoke.  I eat.

      September 14, 2017 12:30 PM MDT
    2

  • 13257
    Now I may go smoke a hyperbowl, lol!
      September 14, 2017 12:32 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    I'll try and be more serious in the future. 

      September 14, 2017 2:06 PM MDT
    0

  • 13257
    Not happening, lol!
      September 14, 2017 4:18 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117



    Jammin', mon.
      September 14, 2017 4:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 13257
      September 14, 2017 6:10 PM MDT
    0

  • 3191
    Though the election outcomes of 1980 and 2016 were similar in that most counties voted Republican, I really don't see any other parallels.  Clinton is a well-known and decisive member of the establishment, while few outside of Georgia had ever heard of Carter before the '76 election, and by 1980 he hadn't really been elevated to 'establishment' rank in the voters eyes, nor was he viewed as a strong president.  I  believe the differences are even more stark between Regan and Trump.  

    The only real similarities between Regan and Trump are that both switched from the Democrat to the Republican party, and both had the support of the religious right.  While both were well-known to the GP, Regan had a far more polished manner.  That may have been more important in the 1980 election, but only some of Trump's voters liked his brashness, the rest voted for him despite that.  Trump was known for his businesses and The Apprentice, he was never a politician.  While Regan had been an actor for many years, he had a solid political background.  His track record in both turning California's economy around and his 'law and order' views helped him, and people had a good idea of where, exactly, he stood in politics, both because of his time as governor and his two prior runs for president.  The '79 oil shock, coupled with the recession, gave Regan an edge, as well.  And while both candidates had the backing of the Christian right, Trump had it somewhat reluctantly, whereas Regan's sweep of electoral votes was probably largely due to the rise of the Christian right in American politics in 1979-80, and I believe they genuinely respected Regan as a person, where I believe many of them voted for Trump's stance on issues, while overlooking his personal shortcomings. 

    As always...JMHO
      September 14, 2017 1:36 PM MDT
    1

  • 13257
    Thanks. The only part of your statement with which I strongly disagree is about Jimmy Carter. While it's true that he wasn't well known before '76, he was an incumbent president in 1980, which is about as "establishment" as one can get.
      September 14, 2017 1:50 PM MDT
    2

  • 3191
    He was the incumbent and a governor before that, yet I still don't think the voters saw him as 'establishment'.  As I said, though, that's just my opinion.  
      September 14, 2017 2:00 PM MDT
    0

  • 2658
    It ain't over till the fat lady sings...

    Dewey Defeats Truman" was an incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune on November 3, 1948, the day after incumbent United States President, Harry S. Truman, won an upset victory over Republican challenger and Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, in the 1948 presidential election.
      September 14, 2017 4:49 PM MDT
    2

  • 13257
    True, and I remember seeing a headline in the early edition of the NY Post in 2000 announcing that Gore had defeated Bush.
      September 14, 2017 6:00 PM MDT
    2

  • 17398
    I was watching CNN when they announced it.
      September 14, 2017 10:17 PM MDT
    1

  • 13257
    But in this case, it was over and the fat lady belted one out 10 months ago. Hillary seems to be having a hard time coming to grips with that reality.
      September 14, 2017 10:33 PM MDT
    0

  • 17398
    I quickly read the piece but just can't get into a conversation about this right now.  The thing that has jumped out clearly since November is that Clinton does not accept that she lost because of herself, not because of the acts of others.  She once said that she deserved to be president, and I believe that she believes that.  There are many things wrong with that statement, in my opinion. 
      September 14, 2017 10:25 PM MDT
    1