Carter Re-elected
- Thread starter DMA
- Start date
Where is Barry Goldwater coming from?!?
I mean, I don't dislike him as a person, but remember what he stood for.
In 1964 we were warned that a vote for Goldwater meant economic woes, a nuclear arms race, riots on campus and in the inner cities, and a major land war in Vietnam. But did you people listen? NooooOOoooo! You voted for him and look what happened!
AMBOMB, Carter was smart? When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan they preceded it with several months of the most blatant warning signs. A team of Soviet generals to brief Congress on the upcoming invasion was the only item lacking.
When it happened, Carter was literally hysterical. Ambassador Dobrynin even emphasized in his memoirs that he LEFT DC to make certain Moscow knew this was not an act on Carter's part.
The unprecedented decline of democracy is historical fact, especially in Latin America, no reason to assume a change for the better in a second term.
Likewise Camp David. Carter keeps his possibly illegal and surely immoral word and Israel breaks Camp David, or he knifes Sadat in the back and Egypt breaks Camp David. Either way, no more Camp David Accord.
Given the continuing decline of the US military, allies like Japan would have had to do something, and noises were being made to that effect.
No reason to believe Carter would have supported Maggie Thatcher over the Falklands the way Reagan did. Once the more militant Labor was in power, US bases would be shut down, and US interest in NATO would probably go into a nose dive. Would the US pull out entirely, or announce no nukes if defenses failed because of European failiures?
There is no reason to believe that anything could be done to save the Soviet Empire either. Reagan did the one thing that mattered by convincing the Soviets there was no military option left to them. Anyone who thinks the Soviet leadership didn't have some idea how bad things were becoming and were not willing to grasp at straws...
Afghanistan? Why would things go any differently with Carter, until the Soviet collapse arrived?
The need for Democrats in the Senate to remain politically viable would lead to strife in the Democratic Party, possibly even a rival leader emerging. And once a few treaties get shot down because Carter can no longer deliver 50 votes plus VP Mondale...
I mean, I don't dislike him as a person, but remember what he stood for.
In 1964 we were warned that a vote for Goldwater meant economic woes, a nuclear arms race, riots on campus and in the inner cities, and a major land war in Vietnam. But did you people listen? NooooOOoooo! You voted for him and look what happened!
AMBOMB, Carter was smart? When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan they preceded it with several months of the most blatant warning signs. A team of Soviet generals to brief Congress on the upcoming invasion was the only item lacking.
When it happened, Carter was literally hysterical. Ambassador Dobrynin even emphasized in his memoirs that he LEFT DC to make certain Moscow knew this was not an act on Carter's part.
The unprecedented decline of democracy is historical fact, especially in Latin America, no reason to assume a change for the better in a second term.
Likewise Camp David. Carter keeps his possibly illegal and surely immoral word and Israel breaks Camp David, or he knifes Sadat in the back and Egypt breaks Camp David. Either way, no more Camp David Accord.
Given the continuing decline of the US military, allies like Japan would have had to do something, and noises were being made to that effect.
No reason to believe Carter would have supported Maggie Thatcher over the Falklands the way Reagan did. Once the more militant Labor was in power, US bases would be shut down, and US interest in NATO would probably go into a nose dive. Would the US pull out entirely, or announce no nukes if defenses failed because of European failiures?
There is no reason to believe that anything could be done to save the Soviet Empire either. Reagan did the one thing that mattered by convincing the Soviets there was no military option left to them. Anyone who thinks the Soviet leadership didn't have some idea how bad things were becoming and were not willing to grasp at straws...
Afghanistan? Why would things go any differently with Carter, until the Soviet collapse arrived?
The need for Democrats in the Senate to remain politically viable would lead to strife in the Democratic Party, possibly even a rival leader emerging. And once a few treaties get shot down because Carter can no longer deliver 50 votes plus VP Mondale...
Grimm Reaper said:
Maybe that was a failure of American intelligence, but it wasn't a failure of Carter's.
Grimm Reaper said:
I don't recall things getting any better under Reagan.
What are you referring to?Grimm Reaper said:
Who says it would've continued in Carter's second term? The invasion of Afghanistan was the last nail in the coffin of detente. Carter knew that.Grimm Reaper said:
How about these for reasons?:Grimm Reaper said:
1. The Argentinians were the aggressors.
2. Britain is possibly the United States's closest ally.
And even if the United States didn't support Britain, Britain still would've kicked Argentina's ass.
The Soviets didn't think the USSR was unsalvageable. Nobody in the 80's thought it was going to break up.Grimm Reaper said:
Gorbachev only got into power b/c the USSR was circling the drain at that time, and their rising military expenditures (many in response to Reagan initiatives such as arming the contras and mujahadeen) helped hurt them.
Give Reagan credit for something. He's not this man-god that many on the Right want to make him, but his policies certainly helped the USSR's collapse along.
And what was so immoral about Israel withdrawing from the Sinai, Grimm?
Give Reagan credit for something. He's not this man-god that many on the Right want to make him, but his policies certainly helped the USSR's collapse along.
And what was so immoral about Israel withdrawing from the Sinai, Grimm?
How could Carter have gotten Re elected ?
For one thing Jimmy Carter's 76 victory was a fluke. He was the last Democrat to completely sweep the south which we may never again see for another 2 or 3 generations. By 1980 his born again southern grin had worn thin due to his liberal social leanings.
At that time California was a Republican state (Carter was blown out of that state in 1976.) Texas was still a Democratic state only at the local and state level. Most folks don't realize that Carter carried 88% of the counties in Texas in 1976. But lost big time in Texas in 1980.
North Eastern liberals didn't buy Carter either. Most felt he was a closet Dixiecrat due to the fact that George Wallace supported him in 1976.
What it all boils down to is that international politics aside Jimmy Carter was a victim mainly of voter realignment in the South. His key base of support was in the southern States along with the big union states of the north east.
(F.D.R's new deal collilition.) By 1980 the south was voting Republican on a federal level due to the conservative tilt that the Republican party had been taking since Goldwater in 1964.
Carter's sweep of the south in 1976 had more to due with regionial pride than politics. After getting elected though most moderate and conservative southerners saw his liberal side and was turned off by it. (for better or worse.)
I think had Carter been re elected in 1980.
1.The South would still be a Democratic stronghold.
Carter was the last chance the Democrats had in holding the solid south.
2.The Republican party would have tilted more or less back to the Rockafeller wing. John Mccain would be or would have been President.
3. California would still be solidly Republican on the national level.
G. H. W Bush was the last Republican to carry that state in 1988.
4. The military build-up (began under Carter in 1978.) would have went on into the late 1980s minus S.D.I and somewhat less deficit spending.
F17 stealth fighter and B-2 spirit would have still been produced
5. The Berlin wall would have fallen in 1989.
East Germans and Eastern Europeans would have still grown tired of living under the yoke of Communisim with or without Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall speech. Actions speak louder than words. Reagan made speeches, The youth of eastern Europe were the ones who took to the streets and faced the dangers.
6. The Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1991. Russians were also tired of living in fear and being treated like children.
7. China would still be a rising superpower and it's Government would still be sending tanks against unarmed demostrators.
For one thing Jimmy Carter's 76 victory was a fluke. He was the last Democrat to completely sweep the south which we may never again see for another 2 or 3 generations. By 1980 his born again southern grin had worn thin due to his liberal social leanings.
At that time California was a Republican state (Carter was blown out of that state in 1976.) Texas was still a Democratic state only at the local and state level. Most folks don't realize that Carter carried 88% of the counties in Texas in 1976. But lost big time in Texas in 1980.
North Eastern liberals didn't buy Carter either. Most felt he was a closet Dixiecrat due to the fact that George Wallace supported him in 1976.
What it all boils down to is that international politics aside Jimmy Carter was a victim mainly of voter realignment in the South. His key base of support was in the southern States along with the big union states of the north east.
(F.D.R's new deal collilition.) By 1980 the south was voting Republican on a federal level due to the conservative tilt that the Republican party had been taking since Goldwater in 1964.
Carter's sweep of the south in 1976 had more to due with regionial pride than politics. After getting elected though most moderate and conservative southerners saw his liberal side and was turned off by it. (for better or worse.)
I think had Carter been re elected in 1980.
1.The South would still be a Democratic stronghold.
Carter was the last chance the Democrats had in holding the solid south.
2.The Republican party would have tilted more or less back to the Rockafeller wing. John Mccain would be or would have been President.
3. California would still be solidly Republican on the national level.
G. H. W Bush was the last Republican to carry that state in 1988.
4. The military build-up (began under Carter in 1978.) would have went on into the late 1980s minus S.D.I and somewhat less deficit spending.
F17 stealth fighter and B-2 spirit would have still been produced
5. The Berlin wall would have fallen in 1989.
East Germans and Eastern Europeans would have still grown tired of living under the yoke of Communisim with or without Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall speech. Actions speak louder than words. Reagan made speeches, The youth of eastern Europe were the ones who took to the streets and faced the dangers.
6. The Soviet Union would have collapsed in 1991. Russians were also tired of living in fear and being treated like children.
7. China would still be a rising superpower and it's Government would still be sending tanks against unarmed demostrators.
MerryPrankster, I held Carter's negotiating a treaty upfront while conspiring with one party to render it worthless to be immoral, not Camp David itself.
AMBOMB, Carter was given plenty of advance warning. Little things like the USSR seizing a few key locations IN Afghanistan while forming a 'government in exile' are not exactly subtle. He had the intell, he ignored it.
AMBOMB, under Reagan and Bush Sr how many countries in Latin America alone went from dictatorship to democracy? Uh, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and so on, not to mention other parts of the world.
AMBOMB, it is recognized that Carter promised to put the screws on Israel in his second term, and that the major reason no progress was made on peace talks under Reagan was that Egypt had been promised things Carter had no right to promise and which Reagan had no reason to honor.
The same man who wanted to pull out Korea is going to go all out to support an ideological enemy like Thatcher?
AMBOMB, Carter was given plenty of advance warning. Little things like the USSR seizing a few key locations IN Afghanistan while forming a 'government in exile' are not exactly subtle. He had the intell, he ignored it.
AMBOMB, under Reagan and Bush Sr how many countries in Latin America alone went from dictatorship to democracy? Uh, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and so on, not to mention other parts of the world.
AMBOMB, it is recognized that Carter promised to put the screws on Israel in his second term, and that the major reason no progress was made on peace talks under Reagan was that Egypt had been promised things Carter had no right to promise and which Reagan had no reason to honor.
The same man who wanted to pull out Korea is going to go all out to support an ideological enemy like Thatcher?
20/20 hindsight. History is rife with failures to anticipate military actions that, in retrospect, appear easy to have predicted.Grimm Reaper said:
Grimm Reaper said:
What peace talks? Egypt recognized Israel in 1979 and they established diplomatic relations.
I'm not sure why you call Thatcher an ideological enemy of Carter, but even if she was, that has nothing to do with the reasons I mentioned before.Grimm Reaper said:
AMBOMB, the Soviets launched a limited invasion, seized key points and air strips, cut Kabul off from the outside world, began dismantling Afghan heavy weapons which might have been used against them, mobilized 100,000+ on the border, murdered the US ambassador there, and formed a government in exile for Afghanistan on Soviet soil.
It would not take genius to realize the last step to take.
It would not take genius to realize the last step to take.
shane said:
Jimmy Carter was both a beneficiary and a victim of the 6% rule. He won in 1976 because of it and lost in 1980 because of it.
Why?shane said:
Why?shane said:
Why?shane said:
I agree that the Berlin Wall still would've fallen in 1989, but its fall had nothing to do with eastern European tiredness of living under communism.shane said:
Same deal here. I agree that the USSR still would've broken up in 1991, but the breakup had nothing to do with Soviet tiredness of living in fear and being treated like children.shane said: