Jimmy Carter wins in 1980
- Thread starter wargamer6
- Start date
That's not the POD of this scenario.
Here's the poll I'm referring to:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111451/late-upsets-rare-happened.aspx
Reagan has to blunder very badly for Carter to hold on to his inherent advantage of incumbency. How does his second term go? Iran will end some time, and will not be a big factor. The main thing is that sudden changes in the petroleum and real estate markets will cause a substantial drop in inflation as it did in OTL. And, as in OTL, the incumbent party will be nearly impossible to defeat in the white house in 1984. You basically butterfly away Reaganomics, as it was Bush (a possible candidate later) coined the term "voodoo economics."
Butterfly the 'October Surprise' and Carter won't have nearly as much of a hard time winning. 
No, by October 1980 the polls and other evidence showing Reagan ahead were overwhelming compared to a single poll by Gallup and only a worthless poll offers the results of a two man race when everyone is aware of John Anderson on the ticket.
CaliBoy1990, the October Surprise would have to exist first.
CaliBoy1990, the October Surprise would have to exist first.
Well, there is a way to make Carter win a landslide, however, this would be an extremely controversial butterfly, since it's entering proper conspiracy theory territory. There are some people who are actively arguing that Reagan's presidential campaign made a secret deal with the Iranian administration that the hostages weren't to be released until well after the election, thus ensuring Reagan's victory.
Now, if we assume, for the sake of argument, for the fun of it, that these allegations are true, then you could have this happen: A week or so prior to the second debate, it is leaked that such a deal has taken place, and irrefutable evidence for it is found.
Result: Carter wins the election with 538 electoral votes, >70% of the popular vote.
Please, do not draw the conclusion that I believe that such a deal took place! I'm just speculating how events would have unfolded had such a deal taken place and been leaked prior to the 1980 election.
Now, if we assume, for the sake of argument, for the fun of it, that these allegations are true, then you could have this happen: A week or so prior to the second debate, it is leaked that such a deal has taken place, and irrefutable evidence for it is found.
Result: Carter wins the election with 538 electoral votes, >70% of the popular vote.
Please, do not draw the conclusion that I believe that such a deal took place! I'm just speculating how events would have unfolded had such a deal taken place and been leaked prior to the 1980 election.
Links are needed to establish that Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and John Anderson were all on the ballot that November but Gallup somehow decided to do a poll ignoring Anderson?
Links are needed to establish that Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and John Anderson were all on the ballot that November but Gallup somehow decided to do a poll ignoring Anderson?
NM found some.
http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/proceedings/papers/1981_011.pdf
So Eagle Claw succeeds (shortening Kennedy's nomination challenge), Carter effectively portrays Reagan as an extremist, and the President narrowly wins reelection. He still gets saddled with the Volcker Recession and suffers further losses in Congress in 1982. If the economy is still in bad shape in 1984, than the Republicans certainly win. If it's as good as it was in OTL, than Mondale still probably loses due to "malaise" towards Carter's policies and lackluster personality. I imagine Bush wins the nomination and the Presidency.
Probably Bush-Laxalt in 1984, and with Carter still in the picture the New Dealers don't grab the reins from 1981-5 as they did IOTL. DLC or an analog group takes control earlier.
New York Yankees
Banned
Ah, but the New Dealers (actually, Great Societers) grabbed the reins because of Reagan, not Carter's disappearance. However, I defer to you here.
I really doubt it'd be Bush in 1984. What would be his claim? Two terms in the House in the '60s, CIA director, and failed VP bid? And out of public office for eight years?
Not seeing it, sorry. Maybe Dole would make a comeback based on being in the Senate Republican leadership. Or Jack Kemp. Maybe even a Gerald Ford comeback (he had wanted to run in 1980, but sat out because he didn't think he could beat Reagan).
Not seeing it, sorry. Maybe Dole would make a comeback based on being in the Senate Republican leadership. Or Jack Kemp. Maybe even a Gerald Ford comeback (he had wanted to run in 1980, but sat out because he didn't think he could beat Reagan).
Anyway, as others have said, Carter winning arguably requires a few pre-election PODs. Eagle Claw succeeds, or the Shah dies in mid-1979 and the Hostage Crisis doesn't happen.
The biggest change would be if the entire Iranian Revolution were delayed until a few years later, but that changes things dramatically worldwide with unpredictable consequences. No 1979 oil shock probably means no 1980 recession, no resurgence of inflation, no 20% interest rates. Plus no hostage crisis.
Anyway, let's assume a smaller change, whatever it is, results in Carter winning in 1980. Carter's term would probably be kind of a "soft" Reaganism. You probably get some tax cuts and a larger tax reform effort (even if it doesn't reduce marginal rates anywhere near as much as Reagan's), you still get a defense buildup, you continue to get deregulation attempts, and Volcker still jacks up interest rates to kill inflation. You might also get an earlier attempt at welfare reform.
In 1982, Republicans might retake Congress, especially if the U.S. is at 10% unemployment as in OTL. Carter's approvals are probably in the 20s.
That said, by 1984, the economy will be roaring back, and Mondale might well win. If he can bring a Democratic congress back into office with him, then you start getting more long-term changes. A 1980s dominated by Democrats would see a more active industrial policy and somewhat more protectionism. Not that Mondale would oppose NAFTA - the Democratic establishment was still pro-free trade even then - but there are probably more targeted market interventions, tariffs, etc., on the manufacturing side. You may also see an earlier attempt at health care reform, though with probable failure. And you see earlier passage of things like the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, etc.
The biggest change would be if the entire Iranian Revolution were delayed until a few years later, but that changes things dramatically worldwide with unpredictable consequences. No 1979 oil shock probably means no 1980 recession, no resurgence of inflation, no 20% interest rates. Plus no hostage crisis.
Anyway, let's assume a smaller change, whatever it is, results in Carter winning in 1980. Carter's term would probably be kind of a "soft" Reaganism. You probably get some tax cuts and a larger tax reform effort (even if it doesn't reduce marginal rates anywhere near as much as Reagan's), you still get a defense buildup, you continue to get deregulation attempts, and Volcker still jacks up interest rates to kill inflation. You might also get an earlier attempt at welfare reform.
In 1982, Republicans might retake Congress, especially if the U.S. is at 10% unemployment as in OTL. Carter's approvals are probably in the 20s.
That said, by 1984, the economy will be roaring back, and Mondale might well win. If he can bring a Democratic congress back into office with him, then you start getting more long-term changes. A 1980s dominated by Democrats would see a more active industrial policy and somewhat more protectionism. Not that Mondale would oppose NAFTA - the Democratic establishment was still pro-free trade even then - but there are probably more targeted market interventions, tariffs, etc., on the manufacturing side. You may also see an earlier attempt at health care reform, though with probable failure. And you see earlier passage of things like the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, etc.
November Surprise
It was only years later that Carter would even begin to approach commenting on the substance of the Iranian charges, and only then in the most oblique terms. It wasn't until after he died that the truth of the matter came to light in a series of papers - hand written diaries really - which he had kept under lock and key at the Carter Center for years.
For years the Iranians had charged that the Carter Administration used nuclear blackmail to compell them to release the hostages, something Jimmy Carter long denied. Now it seemed he'd done exactly what he told the American people he would never do, he had lied to them.
By the middle of October the Iraqi invastion of Iran was well under way and at the time it seemed like a very real menace to the Islamic Revolution (who knew then that within a few months the Iraqis would fail miserably, proving themselves utterly incompetent in carrying out an offensive war).
At about the same time President Carter, sensing that he had little to lose at this point, ordered the air and naval bombardment of several key Iranian oil terminals along the Persian Gulf. If Iran was going to fight a war against Iraq, then the American President was going to tie their economic hands behind their back.
Jody Powell inevitably asked the question with real shock in his voice "what about our people?"
Carter replied "I made a mistake at the start. Those fifty-two people are volunteers, most of them chose to go on a dangerous assingment for extra pay. Even the Marines and the Air Force clerks, who were ordered to Tehran, knew they could be getting into the soup when they joined the military; after all the armed forces are meant to go in harms way."
Powell: "I can't explain that to the American people."
Carter: "You tell them this; the foreign policy of the United States can't be held hostage to the lives of fifty-two people. It may be hard, but America is not going to be pushed around."
News of the oil port strikes - accompanied by outraged denounciations of Jimmy Carter as "a madman" and "a Hitler" by bearded clerics spewing anti-American venom on the nightly news - saw a bump in Carter's poll numbers.
Ronald Reagan tried to turn this to his advantage, but after he had been calling Carter weak for months, how could he suddenly condemn Carter for being strong. He could wax philosophically about the fate of the fifty-two however much he wanted, but the question came back as Carter had framed it for Powell (and Powell had subsequently framed it for the American networks) "Governor, can we let the fate of fifty-two government employees determine the policy of the United States. Are we, or are we not, a super power?"
"Well, yes of course, we can't let ourselves be pushed around, no we have to be strong. I just regret it has taken the President this long to realize this."
Reagan and Bush spent the next week continuing to play dodgeball with Carter's tougher stance - since he was doing what they had been calling for - they could only lament he hadn't done it sooner.
It wasn't a strong postion for a weary American electorate who were glad to see something happening.
Behind the scenes in those waning October days Jimmy Carter fired-off his last gambit, a true shot in the dark. Through an intermediary he sent the Iranians this message:
"I, Jimmy Carter, will be President until January 20th next. If I loose this election, I will have two months in which I can do anything I want without having to account to anyone for it. If I act aggressively, if I use the maximum technical capability of the United States against Iran, who will blame me? Do you believe Reagan will be anymore lenient? He called for the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam*. Do you believe he will be any less reluctant to do the same, especially if I give the order, and he must prove himself tougher than me to justify his election.
"Perhaps, in my last days, I will give more advanced weapons to Iraq. Why shouldn't I? Israel will object, you say. Screw Begin and his Likud, I say. Win or lose I won't need the Jewish vote anymore, and of course if I lose, I really won't need them - or Begin.
"If you expect Reagan to be friendlier, I suggest you examine him closely. He will wish to outdo whatever I leave for him.
"Perhaps I will set aside funds to train Wahhabi Jihadist - such as those who seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca last year - for the CIA to set loose on Iran. I hear there are thousands in Saudi Arabia that the royal family would love to be rid of. Perhaps I will fund a holy war against you by the Wahabbi. Will Reagan denounce holy warriors? Examine from where he draws his support, he wouldn't dare.
"Win or lose I have all the time I need to start these things, none of which Reagan can control. Think of this."
*= It was actually Goldwater who spoke of that, but Carter counted on the Iranians not drawing a distinction.
Carter's inspiration - apart from sleep depravation and desperation - had been Nixon's madman gambit.
The message went to Iran, and the point did sink in. Whatever Carter did, Reagan would have to top, and was not Reagan a follower of the great warmonger Goldwater?
Carter announced that he would not face Reagan in a final debate. Let Reagan make what he would of that, but Carter had more important things to do, and Reagan tried to make a lot of it. The problem was, everytime he called Carter a chicken, Carter upped the ante with another air strike. Maybe Carter did have more important things to do. Wasn't it a little self-serving for Reagan to want to distract the President with a debate? There was legitimate argument over that point.
On November 1 the first thirty hostages were released by Iran - they were testing, probing. They wouldn't let them all go at once, not until the leadership could be sure of what came next.
Half-a-loaf was better than none, and the American people had something to celebrate in the last weekend before the election. President Carter had proved he had more metal than most gave him credit for, and some of the hostages were home by Election Day - and - the United States could hold its head-up again after months of being embarrassed by a bunch of radicals from the stone age.
Election Day - November 4, 1980
Democratic: Carter-Mondale 272 EV (47.8% PV) (inc)
Republican: Reagan-Bush 266 EV (47.9% PV)
Independent: Anderson-Lucey 0 EV (2.5% PV)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (1.8 %)
The disputes continued until January 5, 1981 when the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that there would be no further recounts and that the results held. After the United States Congress certified the Electoral Vote on January 6, the Court refused an emergency appeal from Reagan.
James Earl Carter was sworn in for his second term as President on January 20, 1981.
Walter Mondale was sworn in for his second term as Vice President on January 20, 1981.
The remaining twenty-two hostages came home in February, once the Carter Administration made it clear to the Iraqi regime, by way of the Saudis, that the United States would sell arms to Iran if Saddam Hussein didn't withdraw. A resentful Saddam complied.
Somewhere in the backcorners of polcy someone took-up Carter's idea of training a Wahhabbi Jihadist Army to take on Iran. After all, they were already doing that to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan. And didn't that backfire one morning in September when twenty-five hijacked passanger planes set the New York skyline ablaze and another ten took out the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon. But that happened on another President's watch.
If only Jimmy Carter hadn't gone to the Hilton that morning to address the AFL-CIO, but he did, and John Hinckley shot him dead.
It was left to President Walter Mondale to pick-up the pieces. The kindest thing that could be said about the Mondale Adminstration was that they tried.
Election Day - November 6, 1984
Republican: John Danforth - Jack Kemp -- 531 EV (62.3% PV)
Democratic:Walter Mondalde - Reubin Askew -- 7 EV (34.8% PV) (inc)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (2.9% PV)
Election Day - November 8, 1988
Republican: John Danforth - Jack Kemp -- 412 EV (54.3% PV) (inc)
Democratic: Mario Cuomo - Albert Gore Jr. -- 126 EV (42.7% PV)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (3.0% PV)
It was only years later that Carter would even begin to approach commenting on the substance of the Iranian charges, and only then in the most oblique terms. It wasn't until after he died that the truth of the matter came to light in a series of papers - hand written diaries really - which he had kept under lock and key at the Carter Center for years.
For years the Iranians had charged that the Carter Administration used nuclear blackmail to compell them to release the hostages, something Jimmy Carter long denied. Now it seemed he'd done exactly what he told the American people he would never do, he had lied to them.
By the middle of October the Iraqi invastion of Iran was well under way and at the time it seemed like a very real menace to the Islamic Revolution (who knew then that within a few months the Iraqis would fail miserably, proving themselves utterly incompetent in carrying out an offensive war).
At about the same time President Carter, sensing that he had little to lose at this point, ordered the air and naval bombardment of several key Iranian oil terminals along the Persian Gulf. If Iran was going to fight a war against Iraq, then the American President was going to tie their economic hands behind their back.
Jody Powell inevitably asked the question with real shock in his voice "what about our people?"
Carter replied "I made a mistake at the start. Those fifty-two people are volunteers, most of them chose to go on a dangerous assingment for extra pay. Even the Marines and the Air Force clerks, who were ordered to Tehran, knew they could be getting into the soup when they joined the military; after all the armed forces are meant to go in harms way."
Powell: "I can't explain that to the American people."
Carter: "You tell them this; the foreign policy of the United States can't be held hostage to the lives of fifty-two people. It may be hard, but America is not going to be pushed around."
News of the oil port strikes - accompanied by outraged denounciations of Jimmy Carter as "a madman" and "a Hitler" by bearded clerics spewing anti-American venom on the nightly news - saw a bump in Carter's poll numbers.
Ronald Reagan tried to turn this to his advantage, but after he had been calling Carter weak for months, how could he suddenly condemn Carter for being strong. He could wax philosophically about the fate of the fifty-two however much he wanted, but the question came back as Carter had framed it for Powell (and Powell had subsequently framed it for the American networks) "Governor, can we let the fate of fifty-two government employees determine the policy of the United States. Are we, or are we not, a super power?"
"Well, yes of course, we can't let ourselves be pushed around, no we have to be strong. I just regret it has taken the President this long to realize this."
Reagan and Bush spent the next week continuing to play dodgeball with Carter's tougher stance - since he was doing what they had been calling for - they could only lament he hadn't done it sooner.
It wasn't a strong postion for a weary American electorate who were glad to see something happening.
Behind the scenes in those waning October days Jimmy Carter fired-off his last gambit, a true shot in the dark. Through an intermediary he sent the Iranians this message:
"I, Jimmy Carter, will be President until January 20th next. If I loose this election, I will have two months in which I can do anything I want without having to account to anyone for it. If I act aggressively, if I use the maximum technical capability of the United States against Iran, who will blame me? Do you believe Reagan will be anymore lenient? He called for the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam*. Do you believe he will be any less reluctant to do the same, especially if I give the order, and he must prove himself tougher than me to justify his election.
"Perhaps, in my last days, I will give more advanced weapons to Iraq. Why shouldn't I? Israel will object, you say. Screw Begin and his Likud, I say. Win or lose I won't need the Jewish vote anymore, and of course if I lose, I really won't need them - or Begin.
"If you expect Reagan to be friendlier, I suggest you examine him closely. He will wish to outdo whatever I leave for him.
"Perhaps I will set aside funds to train Wahhabi Jihadist - such as those who seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca last year - for the CIA to set loose on Iran. I hear there are thousands in Saudi Arabia that the royal family would love to be rid of. Perhaps I will fund a holy war against you by the Wahabbi. Will Reagan denounce holy warriors? Examine from where he draws his support, he wouldn't dare.
"Win or lose I have all the time I need to start these things, none of which Reagan can control. Think of this."
*= It was actually Goldwater who spoke of that, but Carter counted on the Iranians not drawing a distinction.
Carter's inspiration - apart from sleep depravation and desperation - had been Nixon's madman gambit.
The message went to Iran, and the point did sink in. Whatever Carter did, Reagan would have to top, and was not Reagan a follower of the great warmonger Goldwater?
Carter announced that he would not face Reagan in a final debate. Let Reagan make what he would of that, but Carter had more important things to do, and Reagan tried to make a lot of it. The problem was, everytime he called Carter a chicken, Carter upped the ante with another air strike. Maybe Carter did have more important things to do. Wasn't it a little self-serving for Reagan to want to distract the President with a debate? There was legitimate argument over that point.
On November 1 the first thirty hostages were released by Iran - they were testing, probing. They wouldn't let them all go at once, not until the leadership could be sure of what came next.
Half-a-loaf was better than none, and the American people had something to celebrate in the last weekend before the election. President Carter had proved he had more metal than most gave him credit for, and some of the hostages were home by Election Day - and - the United States could hold its head-up again after months of being embarrassed by a bunch of radicals from the stone age.
Election Day - November 4, 1980
Democratic: Carter-Mondale 272 EV (47.8% PV) (inc)
Republican: Reagan-Bush 266 EV (47.9% PV)
Independent: Anderson-Lucey 0 EV (2.5% PV)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (1.8 %)
The disputes continued until January 5, 1981 when the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that there would be no further recounts and that the results held. After the United States Congress certified the Electoral Vote on January 6, the Court refused an emergency appeal from Reagan.
James Earl Carter was sworn in for his second term as President on January 20, 1981.
Walter Mondale was sworn in for his second term as Vice President on January 20, 1981.
The remaining twenty-two hostages came home in February, once the Carter Administration made it clear to the Iraqi regime, by way of the Saudis, that the United States would sell arms to Iran if Saddam Hussein didn't withdraw. A resentful Saddam complied.
Somewhere in the backcorners of polcy someone took-up Carter's idea of training a Wahhabbi Jihadist Army to take on Iran. After all, they were already doing that to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan. And didn't that backfire one morning in September when twenty-five hijacked passanger planes set the New York skyline ablaze and another ten took out the White House, the Capitol and the Pentagon. But that happened on another President's watch.
If only Jimmy Carter hadn't gone to the Hilton that morning to address the AFL-CIO, but he did, and John Hinckley shot him dead.
It was left to President Walter Mondale to pick-up the pieces. The kindest thing that could be said about the Mondale Adminstration was that they tried.
Election Day - November 6, 1984
Republican: John Danforth - Jack Kemp -- 531 EV (62.3% PV)
Democratic:Walter Mondalde - Reubin Askew -- 7 EV (34.8% PV) (inc)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (2.9% PV)
Election Day - November 8, 1988
Republican: John Danforth - Jack Kemp -- 412 EV (54.3% PV) (inc)
Democratic: Mario Cuomo - Albert Gore Jr. -- 126 EV (42.7% PV)
Minor Parties: Others 0 EV (3.0% PV)
That was good Drew. You really don't like Mondale at all, huh?
It's true. George H. W. Bush went to Paris about it. That coming out gives Carter a landslide. A delayed Islamic Revolution would work, too. And the easiest one is avoiding the debates: Carter can still win in a squeaker.