1984
One of this blog’s regular readers – a good Democrat – accosted me at breakfast today to demand that I respond to Carter’s series on the Hunt-Helms race.
I had to confess to him that I’m partly to blame for what Carter is writing.
I’m writing a book about Jim Hunt. Lately, I’ve been writing the chapters about the 1984 campaign. And I’ve been picking Carter’s brain about what was happening on their side. I got his creative juices flowing.
Then, Public Policy Polling did a poll the other day matching Hunt and Helms against each other again. Hunt won this time. But it struck me that only a small percentage of today’s voters – maybe 25 percent? – voted in 1984. That was 25 years ago. It’s history.
Every time I think about 1984, I remember an old fellow I knew whose grandfather had fought for the South in the Civil War. When he was a boy, my friend was always after his grandfather: “Tell me about the Civil War, Grandpa. Tell me all about it.”
Finally one day, his grandfather said: “Boy, there are just two things you need to know about the Civil War. One, it’s over. Two, we lost.”
That’s how I feel about 1984.
But I am reliving the whole thing for my book. Carter has been helpful. And I appreciate that his blogs avoid saying the obvious: “We won because we were a lot smarter about modern campaigns than the Hunt people were.”
As my breakfast friend noted, there is more to the story. Here are my top three reasons why Helms won and Hunt lost:
1. They were smarter. They were more attuned to modern campaigns than we were. Hunt and many of his supporters came up through the old precinct and county organization politics. They weren’t comfortable with media campaigns – and with negative ads.
The Helms campaign also had unity of command. Namely, Tom Ellis. We were divided between old school and new school, organization versus media, positive versus negative. While Ellis became a devotee of polling, many of Hunt’s key people never cottoned to polling. Similarly, our high command was divided on strategy. The Helms campaign had one person clearly in command.
2. Ronald Reagan. Like the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, we had a case of bad calendar. 1984 was the height of Ronald Reagan’s political strength – and the low point of Walter Mondale’s dour
3. Most of all, race. As my breakfast friend said with some vehemence, the real turning point in the campaign was Helms’ Senate-floor filibuster against the Martin Luther King Holiday. It was old-fashioned race-baiting, and it worked like a charm.
After the election, we did a poll so we could better understand what had happened to us. The poll showed one thing clearly: the issue that best predicted how people voted was how they felt about the King Holiday. If they supported it, they voted for Hunt. If they opposed it, they voted for Helms.
But look at what has happened since. Twenty-four years after Helms won by stirring up the old racial ghosts – and, ironically, the same year Helms died – Barack Obama carried
That’s another story altogether.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.
1984
One of this blog’s regular readers – a good Democrat – accosted me at breakfast today to demand that I respond to Carter’s series on the Hunt-Helms race.
I had to confess to him that I’m partly to blame for what Carter is writing.
I’m writing a book about Jim Hunt. Lately, I’ve been writing the chapters about the 1984 campaign. And I’ve been picking Carter’s brain about what was happening on their side. I got his creative juices flowing.
Then, Public Policy Polling did a poll the other day matching Hunt and Helms against each other again. Hunt won this time. But it struck me that only a small percentage of today’s voters – maybe 25 percent? – voted in 1984. That was 25 years ago. It’s history.
Every time I think about 1984, I remember an old fellow I knew whose grandfather had fought for the South in the Civil War. When he was a boy, my friend was always after his grandfather: “Tell me about the Civil War, Grandpa. Tell me all about it.”
Finally one day, his grandfather said: “Boy, there are just two things you need to know about the Civil War. One, it’s over. Two, we lost.”
That’s how I feel about 1984.
But I am reliving the whole thing for my book. Carter has been helpful. And I appreciate that his blogs avoid saying the obvious: “We won because we were a lot smarter about modern campaigns than the Hunt people were.”
As my breakfast friend noted, there is more to the story. Here are my top three reasons why Helms won and Hunt lost:
1. They were smarter. They were more attuned to modern campaigns than we were. Hunt and many of his supporters came up through the old precinct and county organization politics. They weren’t comfortable with media campaigns – and with negative ads.
The Helms campaign also had unity of command. Namely, Tom Ellis. We were divided between old school and new school, organization versus media, positive versus negative. While Ellis became a devotee of polling, many of Hunt’s key people never cottoned to polling. Similarly, our high command was divided on strategy. The Helms campaign had one person clearly in command.
2. Ronald Reagan. Like the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, we had a case of bad calendar. 1984 was the height of Ronald Reagan’s political strength – and the low point of Walter Mondale’s dour
3. Most of all, race. As my breakfast friend said with some vehemence, the real turning point in the campaign was Helms’ Senate-floor filibuster against the Martin Luther King Holiday. It was old-fashioned race-baiting, and it worked like a charm.
After the election, we did a poll so we could better understand what had happened to us. The poll showed one thing clearly: the issue that best predicted how people voted was how they felt about the King Holiday. If they supported it, they voted for Hunt. If they opposed it, they voted for Helms.
But look at what has happened since. Twenty-four years after Helms won by stirring up the old racial ghosts – and, ironically, the same year Helms died – Barack Obama carried
That’s another story altogether.
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.