News Media's 1980 Attacks on Jimmy Carter During Dem Primary Backfired and Helped Elect Reagan

[mikegriffith1]

The news media began giving President Jimmy Carter markedly unfavorable coverage after Senator Ted Kennedy announced he was challenging Carter in the Democratic Party's primary. Kennedy entered the race because numerous polls showed him leading Carter by a large margin. Journalists at major TV news programs and newspapers saw their chance to help Kennedy get the nomination and most of them embraced it with a passion.

But then some unexpected things happened: Kennedy proved to be a poor candidate and soon began having trouble raising money. Carter unleashed devastating--and valid--attacks on Kennedy. Center-right and centrist Democrats, of whom there were many at the time, rallied around Carter.

As a result, Carter won the Democratic nomination, but the media attacks on him took their toll. When the general election began, the news media did their best to switch gears and to cover Carter favorably and Reagan unfavorably, but the damage had been done. Plus, Kennedy did very little campaigning for Carter. In fact, many Kennedy voters voted for liberal independent candidate John Anderson, or stayed home. Some Kennedy people were so bitter over not winning the nomination that they openly wanted Reagan to win just out of spite for Carter. One of Kennedy's aides actually helped the Reagan campaign by stealing a copy of Carter's debate-preparation book and giving it to the Reagan campaign, who were only too happy to use it to help prepare Reagan for his one and only debate with Carter.

Another factor was that Kennedy did not concede the nomination to Carter until the convention. Kennedy stayed in the race long after Carter had secured the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Then, at the convention, Kennedy's people tried to change the rules so that Carter delegates would not be bound by the primary results in their respective states. CBS's Dan Rather publicly called on Carter to "release" his delegates--yeah, never mind how the voters in their states had voted. In the end, after bitter in-fighting, Kennedy was unable to change the rules, and Carter won the nomination.

At first glance, the Reagan landslide appears impressive, but when we look at it a bit more closely, we see that it is not as overwhelming as it looks at first blush. The liberal independent Anderson got 6.6% of the popular vote, which proved crucial in a number of states and swung those states to Reagan. Without Anderson in the race, Carter certainly would have won New York, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, and arguably could have won Michigan and Connecticut, giving him 107 additional electoral college votes, i.e., 156 instead of just 49, and giving him 14 states instead of just 6 states. Without Anderson in the race, several other states would have been razor close, within less than 0.3% to 0.75%. Plus, Carter lost two states by the tiniest of margins, where Anderson was not on the ballot: Tennessee (0.29%) and Arkansas (0.61%).

 

[lg325]

Thankyou for the post. I hope one day the Democratic Party will get back to what it was when moderate to conservative Democrats where active in the Party. I and my family and relations were all for Carter and to see him sabotaged did not set well with us.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Thankyou for the post. I hope one day the Democratic Party will get back to what it was when moderate to conservative Democrats where active in the Party. I and my family and relations were all for Carter and to see him sabotaged did not set well with us.

Here's a rather surprising fact about the 1980 election: 6% of Democrats and 12% of Independents voted for John Anderson. Even more surprising, 27% of Democrats voted for Reagan. These factors were key because Democratic voters constituted 43% of voters, and Independents constituted 23% of voters. Republicans constituted only 28% of voters in the 1980 election.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Thankyou for the post. I hope one day the Democratic Party will get back to what it was when moderate to conservative Democrats where active in the Party. I and my family and relations were all for Carter and to see him sabotaged did not set well with us.

lg325 the elite made sure their boy Reagan got elected because just like our greatest president of the twentieth century kennedy,carter also tried to get rid of the cia.he was taking steps in his final year to do so he just did not have enough time to do it only serving one term.

The CIA wanted cater got cause he came in and reformed the cia firing the evil demonic George bush and replacing him with stansfield turner who cleaned up the corruption in the cia firing all covert operaters,as soon as Reagan got in he got the cia back to its covert operations firing turner and bringing in the corrupt William Casey.

 

[mikegriffith1]

lg325 the elite made sure their boy Reagan got elected because just like our greatest president of the twentieth century kennedy,carter also tried to get rid of the cia.he was taking steps in his final year to do so he just did not have enough time to do it only serving one term.

Not true. Carter was not even remotely taking steps to abolish the CIA. In fact, it was Carter, not Reagan, who first authorized the CIA to recruit and supply the Afghan mujahadeen to carry out attacks on Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Carter also authorized the CIA to conduct operations in Nicaragua designed to pressure the Sandinistas away from embracing communism/Marxism.

The CIA wanted cater got cause he came in and reformed the cia firing the evil demonic George bush and replacing him with stansfield turner who cleaned up the corruption in the cia firing all covert operaters,as soon as Reagan got in he got the cia back to its covert operations firing turner and bringing in the corrupt William Casey.

This is a mix of truth, error, and exaggeration. Stansfield Turner did not fire all cover CIA operators. Turner allowed most CIA covert operations to continue. Furthermore, it was Gerald Ford, not Jimmy Carter, who imposed severe budget cuts on the CIA. Carter actually undid some of Ford's cuts.

 

[Dante]

The news media began giving President Jimmy Carter markedly unfavorable coverage after Senator Ted Kennedy announced he was challenging Carter in the Democratic Party's primary. Kennedy entered the race because numerous polls showed him leading Carter by a large margin. Journalists at major TV news programs and newspapers saw their chance to help Kennedy get the nomination and most of them embraced it with a passion.

But then some unexpected things happened: Kennedy proved to be a poor candidate and soon began having trouble raising money. Carter unleashed devastating--and valid--attacks on Kennedy. Center-right and centrist Democrats, of whom there were many at the time, rallied around Carter.

As a result, Carter won the Democratic nomination, but the media attacks on him took their toll. When the general election began, the news media did their best to switch gears and to cover Carter favorably and Reagan unfavorably, but the damage had been done. Plus, Kennedy did very little campaigning for Carter. In fact, many Kennedy voters voted for liberal independent candidate John Anderson, or stayed home. Some Kennedy people were so bitter over not winning the nomination that they openly wanted Reagan to win just out of spite for Carter. One of Kennedy's aides actually helped the Reagan campaign by stealing a copy of Carter's debate-preparation book and giving it to the Reagan campaign, who were only too happy to use it to help prepare Reagan for his one and only debate with Carter.

Another factor was that Kennedy did not concede the nomination to Carter until the convention. Kennedy stayed in the race long after Carter had secured the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Then, at the convention, Kennedy's people tried to change the rules so that Carter delegates would not be bound by the primary results in their respective states. CBS's Dan Rather publicly called on Carter to "release" his delegates--yeah, never mind how the voters in their states had voted. In the end, after bitter in-fighting, Kennedy was unable to change the rules, and Carter won the nomination.

At first glance, the Reagan landslide appears impressive, but when we look at it a bit more closely, we see that it is not as overwhelming as it looks at first blush. The liberal independent Anderson got 6.6% of the popular vote, which proved crucial in a number of states and swung those states to Reagan. Without Anderson in the race, Carter certainly would have won New York, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, and arguably could have won Michigan and Connecticut, giving him 107 additional electoral college votes, i.e., 156 instead of just 49, and giving him 14 states instead of just 6 states. Without Anderson in the race, several other states would have been razor close, within less than 0.3% to 0.75%. Plus, Carter lost two states by the tiniest of margins, where Anderson was not on the ballot: Tennessee (0.29%) and Arkansas (0.61%).

Good gawd. Are you the same dolt that said the Iran Hostage deal elected Reagan?

Kennedy weakened Carter who was already seen as weak and ineffectual. You people have been claiming the media has a liberal bias or even an agenda, yet it is the so-called liberal media that runs with stories regardless of ideology and politics, that have damaged many a liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrat.

People like you are all over the place and tend to act as if hearing yourself speak equals intelligence and ...

 

[Dante]

Thankyou for the post. I hope one day the Democratic Party will get back to what it was when moderate to conservative Democrats where active in the Party. I and my family and relations were all for Carter and to see him sabotaged did not set well with us.

Moderate and Conservative Democrats are active in their Party.

and btw, many of us disliked Carter. HE and his born again, fundamentalist leanings. Shit he brought that into geopolitics and foreign policy. There were some good things about Carter's presidency. He was not one-dimensional. But.

Lots of people that praise Carter's presidency have it mixed in with his post-presidency which was extraordinary. I'd say on the level of John Quincy Adams.

 

[Dante]

Here's a rather surprising fact about the 1980 election: 6% of Democrats and 12% of Independents voted for John Anderson. Even more surprising, 27% of Democrats voted for Reagan. These factors were key because Democratic voters constituted 43% of voters, and Independents constituted 23% of voters. Republicans constituted only 28% of voters in the 1980 election.

your pretend, and low information, out of context bs is -- bs

 

[whitehall]

The poor Peanut Man. His brother Billy was more popular.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Good gawd. Are you the same dolt that said the Iran Hostage deal elected Reagan?

Are you the same Dante who keeps posting inane comments about subjects you've not researched and then bragging that you know more than others have forgotten about the subject? I notice you've not laid a finger on the evidence I've presented in my thread on William Casey's October Surprise operation.

Kennedy weakened Carter who was already seen as weak and ineffectual.

But Carter was not weak and ineffectual. He had one of the best records for getting legislation through Congress of any modern president. The perception that he was "weak" was a myth created by partisan Republicans. And, yes, as I've noted several times, Kennedy's challenge to Carter in the 1980 primaries weakened Carter for the general election.

You people have been claiming the media has a liberal bias or even an agenda, yet it is the so-called liberal media that runs with stories regardless of ideology and politics, that have damaged many a liberal, moderate, and conservative Democrat.

One, you might want to re-read the OP. Two, no rational person can deny that the news media has a liberal bias, but the news media is not a monolith that always acts with a single mind either.

People like you are all over the place

Yeah, that's because people like me are not blind partisans and blind idealogues. We do not automatically accept the arguments made by this or that party or ideology. So, I'll take your comment as a compliment.

and tend to act as if hearing yourself speak equals intelligence and ...

You're describing yourself. You posture as a know-it-all but rarely offer any evidence or sources. In one reply, you made the erroneous claim that "likely" is merely the same as "possibly" and not "probable/probably," indicating a lack of understanding of basic English.

 

[Dante]

Are you the same Dante who keeps posting inane comments about subjects you've not researched and then bragging that you know more than others have forgotten about the subject? I notice you've not laid a finger on the evidence I've presented in my thread on William Casey's October Surprise operation.


But Carter was not weak and ineffectual. He had one of the best records for getting legislation through Congress of any modern president. The perception that he was "weak" was a myth created by partisan Republicans. And, yes, as I've noted several times, Kennedy's challenge to Carter in the 1980 primaries weakened Carter for the general election.


One, you might want to re-read the OP. Two, no rational person can deny that the news media has a liberal bias, but the news media is not a monolith that always acts with a single mind either.


Yeah, that's because people like me are not blind partisans and blind idealogues. We do not automatically accept the arguments made by this or that party or ideology. So, I'll take your comment as a compliment.


You're describing yourself. You posture as a know-it-all but rarely offer any evidence or sources. In one reply, you made the erroneous claim that "likely" is merely the same as "possibly" and not "probable/probably," indicating a lack of understanding of basic English.

William Casey's October Surprise operation is old news. Rehashed over and over again. Spun by imbeciles like you

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The news media began giving President Jimmy Carter markedly unfavorable coverage after Senator Ted Kennedy announced he was challenging Carter in the Democratic Party's primary. Kennedy entered the race because numerous polls showed him leading Carter by a large margin. Journalists at major TV news programs and newspapers saw their chance to help Kennedy get the nomination and most of them embraced it with a passion.

But then some unexpected things happened: Kennedy proved to be a poor candidate and soon began having trouble raising money. Carter unleashed devastating--and valid--attacks on Kennedy. Center-right and centrist Democrats, of whom there were many at the time, rallied around Carter.

As a result, Carter won the Democratic nomination, but the media attacks on him took their toll. When the general election began, the news media did their best to switch gears and to cover Carter favorably and Reagan unfavorably, but the damage had been done. Plus, Kennedy did very little campaigning for Carter. In fact, many Kennedy voters voted for liberal independent candidate John Anderson, or stayed home. Some Kennedy people were so bitter over not winning the nomination that they openly wanted Reagan to win just out of spite for Carter. One of Kennedy's aides actually helped the Reagan campaign by stealing a copy of Carter's debate-preparation book and giving it to the Reagan campaign, who were only too happy to use it to help prepare Reagan for his one and only debate with Carter.

Another factor was that Kennedy did not concede the nomination to Carter until the convention. Kennedy stayed in the race long after Carter had secured the number of delegates needed to win the nomination. Then, at the convention, Kennedy's people tried to change the rules so that Carter delegates would not be bound by the primary results in their respective states. CBS's Dan Rather publicly called on Carter to "release" his delegates--yeah, never mind how the voters in their states had voted. In the end, after bitter in-fighting, Kennedy was unable to change the rules, and Carter won the nomination.

At first glance, the Reagan landslide appears impressive, but when we look at it a bit more closely, we see that it is not as overwhelming as it looks at first blush. The liberal independent Anderson got 6.6% of the popular vote, which proved crucial in a number of states and swung those states to Reagan. Without Anderson in the race, Carter certainly would have won New York, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, and Vermont, and arguably could have won Michigan and Connecticut, giving him 107 additional electoral college votes, i.e., 156 instead of just 49, and giving him 14 states instead of just 6 states. Without Anderson in the race, several other states would have been razor close, within less than 0.3% to 0.75%. Plus, Carter lost two states by the tiniest of margins, where Anderson was not on the ballot: Tennessee (0.29%) and Arkansas (0.61%).

Some of that is true but not to the extent Mike thinks.

 

[mikegriffith1]

William Casey's October Surprise operation is old news. Rehashed over and over again.

Oh, now it's "old news." Actually, just in the last two years more evidence has surfaced regarding the October Surprise operation. But you don't know that, and likely don't care, because you have no interest in doing any actual research on it.

Spun by imbeciles like you

That's mighty bold rhetoric coming from someone whose grasp of English is clearly substandard. BTW, two of the three sentences in your reply were incomplete sentences, and one of them lacked ending punctuation. If you're going to engage in name-calling, you might want to first get a better handle on English.

 

[mikegriffith1]

mikegriffin1 is having trouble with syntax and diction as well as grammar.

Would you care to provide an example? I recall repeatedly asking you to provide just one example to support your claim that I supposedly ignoring pertinent facts and misstating other facts in my post about Kamala Harris's misleading eulogy at Carter's funeral, and you never did do so. I suspect the same will be the case in this instance.

BTW, it's mikegriffith1, not mikegriffin1.

He must have been fun in grad school.

He is not a serious issue at all.

When he comes down off the pedestal, we can clean him up.

"He is not a serious issue at all"? Is English your second language?

Anyway, moving on from dealing with this guy's inane, superficial replies, anyone who wants to read about how Ted Kennedy's misguided and unjustified primary challenge to Carter weakened Carter for the general election, about how some Kennedy aides actually chose to help Reagan or Anderson, and about how Carter and his staff viewed Kennedy's disgraceful behavior can read all about these things in the memoirs of Carter and his top aides and also in the memoirs of a few Kennedy aides, not to mention in Dr. Kai Bird's prize-winning book The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

 

[whitehall]

If the media intentionally attacked Carter how did it backfire when he lost? It doesn't make much sense because the media has been in the pocket of democrat administrations since FDR and they hated Reagan.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If the media intentionally attacked Carter how did it backfire when he lost? It doesn't make much sense because the media has been in the pocket of democrat administrations since FDR and they hated Reagan.

It makes perfect sense. The media strongly favored Ted Kennedy. When it became obvious that Kennedy would challenge Carter for the nomination, the media began to noticeably turn on Carter. When Kennedy announced he'd challenge Carter, the media almost became an arm of the Kennedy campaign, since they believed that Kennedy could beat Reagan, and that Reagan would lose to Carter anyway. But, when Kennedy lost his bid for the nomination and Carter was renominated, Reagan unexpectedly jumped out to a huge lead, much to the media's shock. The media then scrambled to undo the damage they had done.

Go read books and articles on the media's sharply anti-Reagan coverage of the 1980 general election. Reagan campaign officials justifiably complained about the slanted coverage.

John Edgar Slow Horses:

You are on Conspiracy Road all the way.

I see your comedy show continues. So this is your answer to my request that you provide an example to support your bogus claim about my writing? And are you actually saying the media did not favor Kennedy in the Dem primary and did not give Reagan enormous amounts of negative coverage in the general election?

Kennedy aides later admitted that the media kept their campaign afloat by providing so much favorable coverage after the campaign ran out of money. Similarly, the Carter campaign justifiably complained about the media's favoritism toward Kennedy during the primary. Conversely, in the general election, the Reagan campaign screamed bloody murder about the media's pro-Carter bias during the general election.

BTW, this biased coverage did not necessarily result from some giant, all-controlling media conspiracy. There were some exceptions in the media's coverage, but most of the media favored Kennedy over Carter and then Carter over Reagan because about 80% of journalists back then were Democrats.

 

[Billiejeens]

Thankyou for the post. I hope one day the Democratic Party will get back to what it was when moderate to conservative Democrats where active in the Party. I and my family and relations were all for Carter and to see him sabotaged did not set well with us.

Carter was awful
He sabotaged himself.

 

[Billiejeens]

It makes perfect sense. The media strongly favored Ted Kennedy. When it became obvious that Kennedy would challenge Carter for the nomination, the media began to noticeably turn on Carter. When Kennedy announced he'd challenge Carter, the media almost became an arm of the Kennedy campaign, since they believed that Kennedy could beat Reagan, and that Reagan would lose to Carter anyway. But, when Kennedy lost his bid for the nomination and Carter was renominated, Reagan unexpectedly jumped out to a huge lead, much to the media's shock. The media then scrambled to undo the damage they had done.

Go read books and articles on the media's sharply anti-Reagan coverage of the 1980 general election. Reagan campaign officials justifiably complained about the slanted coverage.



I see your comedy show continues. So this is your answer to my request that you provide an example to support your bogus claim about my writing? And are you actually saying the media did not favor Kennedy in the Dem primary and did not give Reagan enormous amounts of negative coverage in the general election?

Kennedy aides later admitted that the media kept their campaign afloat by providing so much favorable coverage after the campaign ran out of money. Similarly, the Carter campaign justifiably complained about the media's favoritism toward Kennedy during the primary. Conversely, in the general election, the Reagan campaign screamed bloody murder about the media's pro-Carter bias during the general election.

BTW, this biased coverage did not necessarily result from some giant, all-controlling media conspiracy. There were some exceptions in the media's coverage, but most of the media favored Kennedy over Carter and then Carter over Reagan because about 80% of journalists back then were Democrats.

The good old days
Now it's 99%

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Not true. Carter was not even remotely taking steps to abolish the CIA. In fact, it was Carter, not Reagan, who first authorized the CIA to recruit and supply the Afghan mujahadeen to carry out attacks on Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Carter also authorized the CIA to conduct operations in Nicaragua designed to pressure the Sandinistas away from embracing communism/Marxism.


This is a mix of truth, error, and exaggeration. Stansfield Turner did not fire all cover CIA operators. Turner allowed most CIA covert operations to continue. Furthermore, it was Gerald Ford, not Jimmy Carter, who imposed severe budget cuts on the CIA. Carter actually undid some of Ford's cuts.

Your lies sure are amusing as always. Just like your fairy tales that 19 Muslims pulled off 9/11 and Israel did not purposely fire on the uss liberty myself and others took you to school on.