Recently in class, we went over Walter Mondale's big failed campaign, and his attempts to get elected over the popular Ronald Reagan. In spite of his failed attempts, Walter Mondale did make history with his running mate representative, Geraldine A. Ferraro. Ms. Ferraro went on to because the first woman to run for the U.S. vice presidency on a major party platform.
Geraldine A. Ferraro born in 1935 in New York, growing up, she had pursued her passions to become a successful attorney. At the age of 16, she went to Manhattan College on a perfect scholarship, eventually graduating in 1956. She soon earned her law degree at Fordham University, and after raising kids for 14 years, she began her career as a district attorney. Ferrero soon wanted to attain greater heights, which her bid for the house of representatives sufficed. During her three terms, she fought for women's rights, the equal rights amendment, and was known as a politician tough on crime. A primary reason Walter Mondale favored Geraldine was because of her standoff nature against Ronald Reagan and his policies. During this time, she became a prominent symbol of the feminist movement. During Walter Mondale's campaign trail, Ferrero was a skilled speaker who brought large crowds wherever she went. While her entrance into Mondale's campaign initially garnered a boost in his campaign, we ultimately learned that he still lost to Ronald Reagan. Despite losing the battle, Walter Mondale and Geraldine A. Ferraro made history in American politics.
It is interesting that despite Walter Mondale's initial boost in the campaign due to deciding to have Geraldine Ferraro as his vice president (by being 18 percent ahead, which is definitely a lot against an incumbent candidate), he still lost the election horribly (with only three electoral votes). This goes to show how many people's decision to vote for a certain candidate is affected by something called retrospective judgement in addition to prospective judgement, which is explained in the textbook American Government: Roots and Reform, which is by Karen O'Connor, Larry J. Sabato, and Alixandra B. Yanus. Retrospective judgement is judging a certain candidate by their performance in the past (or the image of their performance based on how the country is doing) while prospective judgement is judging a candidate by what they say they will do (based on their policies). During the 1984 election, many voters performed retrospective judgement and decided that since the country was doing strong economically, Reagan was the better choice despite possibly prospective judgement deeming Mondale as the better choice. As a result, it is clear that an incumbent's presidential history is what usually allows a president to be elected for a second term (even if prospective judgement might cause some people to prefer another candidate). Of course, this is only when retrospective judgement reflects positively on the incumbent presidential candidate.
ReplyDelete