I was thinking as much about Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980 as his brother's run in 1960. He still lost, but based on what I have read about the campaign, the primary issue was always Carter's job performance, not Ted's totally degenerate personal life and Chappaquiddick.
It may have had more to do with news coverage bein…
I was thinking as much about Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980 as his brother's run in 1960. He still lost, but based on what I have read about the campaign, the primary issue was always Carter's job performance, not Ted's totally degenerate personal life and Chappaquiddick.
It may have had more to do with news coverage being controlled by a small number of players and no outlets for people to get alternative narratives. If they didn't focus on the moral scandal, neither did voters even if they had heard rumors about it. Interestingly, South Dakota press has completely ignored the Kristi Noem - Lewendoski affair story since the Daily Mail article broke. I have not seen a single article about it either from the biggest newspaper websites or local TV news. I am curious what percentage of the state has even heard the story. I am assuming local press simply doesn't want to cross her and lose access to the office.
Ted Kennedy *couldn't* win national office because of Mary Jo though. Probably worth highlighting that the dead body involved made this an unusually disqualifying event, and one that couldn't be suppressed like an ordinary sex scandal.
A primary challenge against a sitting President is considered both stupid and counterproductive (therefore, bad form that will make enemies in your own party). This is why more qualified candidates (i.e. those who couldn't be directly implicated in the deaths of young women) didn't attempt it. Ted tried it because he was already kryptonite, as was Carter at that point, and he saw it as his only chance. And it still wasn't a real chance, but I think the votes he did receive mostly represent a middle finger to Carter rather than support for Ted.
Interesting point about SD media though. The argument that it's about access makes sense to me.
I was thinking as much about Ted Kennedy's challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980 as his brother's run in 1960. He still lost, but based on what I have read about the campaign, the primary issue was always Carter's job performance, not Ted's totally degenerate personal life and Chappaquiddick.
It may have had more to do with news coverage being controlled by a small number of players and no outlets for people to get alternative narratives. If they didn't focus on the moral scandal, neither did voters even if they had heard rumors about it. Interestingly, South Dakota press has completely ignored the Kristi Noem - Lewendoski affair story since the Daily Mail article broke. I have not seen a single article about it either from the biggest newspaper websites or local TV news. I am curious what percentage of the state has even heard the story. I am assuming local press simply doesn't want to cross her and lose access to the office.
Ted Kennedy *couldn't* win national office because of Mary Jo though. Probably worth highlighting that the dead body involved made this an unusually disqualifying event, and one that couldn't be suppressed like an ordinary sex scandal.
A primary challenge against a sitting President is considered both stupid and counterproductive (therefore, bad form that will make enemies in your own party). This is why more qualified candidates (i.e. those who couldn't be directly implicated in the deaths of young women) didn't attempt it. Ted tried it because he was already kryptonite, as was Carter at that point, and he saw it as his only chance. And it still wasn't a real chance, but I think the votes he did receive mostly represent a middle finger to Carter rather than support for Ted.
Interesting point about SD media though. The argument that it's about access makes sense to me.