Don’t get me wrong I love Mo Udall, he should have been President and could have been a great one—but 1976 was his year. Best case running in 1980 scenario? Have him keep it close with Carter in the primaries, very much the “if only we had picked Mo / too many liberals” thought—by 1980 the liberals do in fact consolidate around him and Mo is forced into it with no Kennedy and no Bayh.

Man I miss @Andrew T, so more importantly, how does popular culture change? (More intriguing thoughts at the link)

Here's the thing. Carter was still pretty obscure and losing to Ford would mean they'd go a safer bet and hence why we'd have Udall. That and 1976 was a poisoned chalice of an election year so whichever party got it was screwed.
 
Here's the thing. Carter was still pretty obscure and losing to Ford would mean they'd go a safer bet and hence why we'd have Udall. That and 1976 was a poisoned chalice of an election year so whichever party got it was screwed.

If Udall was such a strong candidate, then why did he lose to the "pretty obscure" Carter?
 
If Udall was such a strong candidate, then why did he lose to the "pretty obscure" Carter?

"The 1976 campaign featured a record number of state primaries and caucuses, and it was the first presidential campaign in which the primary system was dominant. However, most of the Democratic candidates failed to realize the significance of the increased number of primaries, or the importance of creating momentum by winning the early contests. The one candidate who did see the opportunities in the new nominating system was Jimmy Carter, a former state senator and Governor of Georgia."

Jimmy Carter won being a dark horse candidate and for campaigning smart. That, and he used his relative obscurity to his advantage from what I saw. Him losing, albeit tightly, in 1976, would give the opportunity for his more experienced and well-known political contemporaries to adapt their strategies to the new era of politics.

Carter won his nomination through being smart and taking advantage of growing times. Carter won the presidency due to also the gaffes of the GOP (Ford's comment and also Dole's as well). Here, with Ford winning and the GOP screwing up more, more left-leaning politicians would be welcomed.
 
Here's the thing. Carter was still pretty obscure and losing to Ford would mean they'd go a safer bet and hence why we'd have Udall. That and 1976 was a poisoned chalice of an election year so whichever party got it was screwed.

Udall is a liberal with Parkinson’s—he’s the risky bet. The safe bet is, as @dw93 and @Yes like, Hugh Carey, fiscal moderate Catholic with Kennedy backing. Or Jerry Litton, but he’s no liberal alas. If Bayh’s beloved wife lives he’d be perfect for a liberal 1980s, but unless that’s your POD it’s unlikely.

I also heartily disagree on the conventional wisdom about 1976—obviously Saudi Arabia failing to hold OPEC in line for low prices 1978-79 is tough to butterfly but the Iranian Revolution was very fluid and domestic issues on oil deregulation and Wall Street panic could have gone differently. But that’s a different thread.

If Udall was such a strong candidate, then why did he lose to the "pretty obscure" Carter?

Too many liberals dividing the left vote / volunteer base. Too little money, hard to keep with Carter’s rock concert funded campaign. Coming in a narrow second in a number of key primaries, usually because of the above factors. (Another factor was internal campaign problems late 1975, early 1976—worst possible time.)

Indeed Udall was only marginally better known than Carter in ‘76.
5E88BC3F-B65A-41A3-8832-42550C78A0DA.png
 
Last edited:
Udall is a liberal with Parkinson’s—he’s the risky bet. The safe bet is, as @dw93 and @Yes like, Hugh Carey, fiscal moderate Catholic with Kennedy backing. Or Jerry Litton, but he’s no liberal alas. If Bayh’s beloved wife lives he’d be perfect for a liberal 1980s, but unless that’s your POD it’s unlikely.

I also heartily disagree on the conventional wisdom about 1976—obviously Saudi Arabia failing to hold OPEC in line for low prices 1978-79 is tough to butterfly but the Iranian Revolution was very fluid and domestic issues on oil deregulation and Wall Street panic could have gone differently. But that’s a different thread.

Too many liberals dividing the left vote / volunteer base. Too little money, hard to keep with Carter’s rock concert funded campaign. Coming in a narrow second in a number of key primaries, usually because of the above factors. (Another factor was internal campaign problems late 1975, early 1976—worst possible time.)

Indeed Udall was only marginally better known than Carter in ‘76.
View attachment 453024
Hugh Carey seems possible, but going against pro-choice would kinda kill him there and Jerry Litton died in 1976. So neither would really catch the attention of a 1980s for leftist crowd. I will concede to Ted Kennedy or Jerry though there.

As for Iran, I don't think Ford would do anything different and I could see only Reagan making things worse.

True, but in 1980s, things would be a bit different. Carter would not have the strategy edge like he did in 1976, and others would focus more on the primaries. Mo Udall was risky, but you could look at other candidates and say the same.
 
This would also cause some pretty big changes in comic books. We might not have the grungey 90s Dark age of comics. The Bronze age may continue and maybe a bit lighter. I reckon we'd still have Crisis of Infinite Earths, but it'd serve more to clean up continuity and not kill off as many characters. The potential lack of a Dark Age of comics would be interesting.

It does seem likely we'd still get Watchman though it'd either be more optimistic or maybe not published by DC comics and like by Image or something.

This would leave some Dark Age to be more underground or perhaps not as active in the US. Granted, that could change with the fall of the USSR or may have different contexts if the Democratic administration does things differently. Citing an example regarding corporations, that would be something to note.

Instead of Reagan, some Democrat would order Superman to kill Batman in The Dark Knight Returns.
 
Stassen was a joke by 1992. Anderson on the other hand would be old news. I'd say that John Heinz would make a formidable candidate if his 1991 plane crash were to be butterflied away (entirely plausible if he is running for President).

Heinz was planning to run for governor in 1994.

Maybe he could be a candidate in 2000. Also means Kerry is a bachelor which might work against him in 2004 - we haven't had a bachelor make a serious run at a nomination.
 
Heinz was planning to run for governor in 1994.

Maybe he could be a candidate in 2000. Also means Kerry is a bachelor which might work against him in 2004 - we haven't had a bachelor make a serious run at a nomination.

Why do you think that Kerry wouldn't marry someone else? He divorced his first wife in 1988, 16 years before the 2004 election. That's plenty of time to remarry.
 
Why do you think that Kerry wouldn't marry someone else? He divorced his first wife in 1988, 16 years before the 2004 election. That's plenty of time to remarry.

He might have. I was just assuming a limited number of available women in his social circle.
 
This would also cause some pretty big changes in comic books. We might not have the grungey 90s Dark age of comics. The Bronze age may continue and maybe a bit lighter. I reckon we'd still have Crisis of Infinite Earths, but it'd serve more to clean up continuity and not kill off as many characters. The potential lack of a Dark Age of comics would be interesting.

It does seem likely we'd still get Watchman though it'd either be more optimistic or maybe not published by DC comics and like by Image or something.

This would leave some Dark Age to be more underground or perhaps not as active in the US. Granted, that could change with the fall of the USSR or may have different contexts if the Democratic administration does things differently. Citing an example regarding corporations, that would be something to note.
I suspect that without the elimination of Frank Miller, we still see the his runs on Daredevil and The Dark Knight Returns which more or less lunched the Dark Ages of Comics.
At best you could tone down the dark age some but I don't think that you can avoid the Dark Age.
 
I suspect that without the elimination of Frank Miller, we still see the his runs on Daredevil and The Dark Knight Returns which more or less lunched the Dark Ages of Comics.
At best you could tone down the dark age some but I don't think that you can avoid the Dark Age.

I do not think the Dark Age is avoidable, but I do picture it would be more different and probably more subtle. Like seen more in Image, but the political and cultural climate would not be as fitting, at least not in American comics as much. Hence, I could see differing publishers and more independent ones, but I do not think it will be really big in the mainstream
 
That and 1976 was a poisoned chalice of an election year so whichever party got it was screwed.

I'm getting tired of this whole "whoever won in '76 was destined to lose in 1980" cliche that pops up in every single thread involving 1976. Carter didn't lose in 1980 because of unavoidable outside factors that made his defeat inevitable. Carter lost because he was a poor leader who, despite the advice of practically everyone around him, made specific choices that ultimately undid his administration. He couldn't work with Congress on hardly anything, making it impossible to pass major pieces of legislation. He removed price controls on oil (breaking a campaign promise not to do so), causing oil prices to spike. He appointed a Fed Chairman who responded to stagflation by raising interest rates, helping to cause the 1980 recession. He granted the Shah asylum, sparking the Iran Hostage Crisis - a crisis he made even worse via Operation Eagle Claw, which his own Secretary of State warned him not to do. After making a major speech blaming America's problems on peoples' greed, Carter shuffled his cabinet - devastating the public's ability to trust him. The result was a landslide loss in 1980. These events and their ultimate outcome was by no means inevitable and could've been avoided with better leadership from the Oval Office.
 
I'm getting tired of this whole "whoever won in '76 was destined to lose in 1980" cliche that pops up in every single thread involving 1976. Carter didn't lose in 1980 because of unavoidable outside factors that made his defeat inevitable. Carter lost because he was a poor leader who, despite the advice of practically everyone around him, made specific choices that ultimately undid his administration. He couldn't work with Congress on hardly anything, making it impossible to pass major pieces of legislation. He removed price controls on oil (breaking a campaign promise not to do so), causing oil prices to spike. He appointed a Fed Chairman who responded to stagflation by raising interest rates, helping to cause the 1980 recession. He granted the Shah asylum, sparking the Iran Hostage Crisis - a crisis he made even worse via Operation Eagle Claw, which his own Secretary of State warned him not to do. After making a major speech blaming America's problems on peoples' greed, Carter shuffled his cabinet - devastating the public's ability to trust him. The result was a landslide loss in 1980. These events and their ultimate outcome was by no means inevitable and could've been avoided with better leadership from the Oval Office.

All right then, that's fair.

So how would Ford do then here? From the bits I heard here, the point would be ultimately to have a Democratic president in 1980, though that would also be more from people getting sick of the GOP by that point, especially after Nixon
 
Last edited:
All right then, that's fair.

So how would Ford do then here?

I think Ford might do a bit better, since he had more experience. He also had a good relationship with Tip O'Neill. But Ford wasn't that great a decision maker either. Removing price controls on oil and granting the Shah asylum are actions that Ford would've likely taken in his second term. (In his OTL term Ford had wanted to remove the controls and Kissinger, who persuaded Carter to grant the Shah asylum, would've told Ford to do the same). Even if the 1980 economy is better than OTL and Ford handles the hostage crisis better, 1980 is likely to be a Democratic year due to party fatigue. I don't think it would be a complete blowout like Reagan's victory, but Ford will be the last GOP President for at least the next eight years.
 
I think Ford might do a bit better, since he had more experience. He also had a good relationship with Tip O'Neill. But Ford wasn't that great a decision maker either. Removing price controls on oil and granting the Shah asylum are actions that Ford would've likely taken in his second term. (In his OTL term Ford had wanted to remove the controls and Kissinger, who persuaded Carter to grant the Shah asylum, would've told Ford to do the same). Even if the 1980 economy is better than OTL and Ford handles the hostage crisis better, 1980 is likely to be a Democratic year due to party fatigue. I don't think it would be a complete blowout like Reagan's victory, but Ford will be the last GOP President for at least the next eight years.

Yeah, that makes sense. So, if Udall is a bit of a long shot and of Carter’s more conservative approach is not as appealing, you think Jerry Brown or Ted Kennedy would become President?
 
Yeah, that makes sense. So, if Udall is a bit of a long shot and of Carter’s more conservative approach is not as appealing, you think Jerry Brown or Ted Kennedy would become President?

I don't think Kennedy would run. And when Brown ran in 1992, when the political environment was more favorable to his centrist views, that didn't end well. IMO Carey, Bayh, or Jackson are more likely.
 
I don't think Kennedy would run. And when Brown ran in 1992, when the political environment was more favorable to his centrist views, that didn't end well. IMO Carey, Bayh, or Jackson are more likely.
Ted ran against Carter in OTL 1980 though.

Birch Bayh and who else?
 
Ted ran against Carter in OTL 1980 though.

Birch Bayh and who else?

Kennedy didn't want to be President (otherwise he would've run in 1976). He only ran in 1980 because Carter failed to deliver on healthcare, and Congress' Democratic leadership was so fed up with the President they wanted a primary challenge. Kennedy's campaign was really a liberal protest against Carter more than anything else. Without Carter, Kennedy doesn't run in 1980.
 
I'm getting tired of this whole "whoever won in '76 was destined to lose in 1980" cliche that pops up in every single thread involving 1976. Carter didn't lose in 1980 because of unavoidable outside factors that made his defeat inevitable. Carter lost because he was a poor leader who, despite the advice of practically everyone around him, made specific choices that ultimately undid his administration. He couldn't work with Congress on hardly anything, making it impossible to pass major pieces of legislation. He removed price controls on oil (breaking a campaign promise not to do so), causing oil prices to spike. He appointed a Fed Chairman who responded to stagflation by raising interest rates, helping to cause the 1980 recession. He granted the Shah asylum, sparking the Iran Hostage Crisis - a crisis he made even worse via Operation Eagle Claw, which his own Secretary of State warned him not to do. After making a major speech blaming America's problems on peoples' greed, Carter shuffled his cabinet - devastating the public's ability to trust him. The result was a landslide loss in 1980. These events and their ultimate outcome was by no means inevitable and could've been avoided with better leadership from the Oval Office.

Fair points.

But another trap we tend to fall into is assuming too much divergence too soon after the POD - if we have a Democrat in 1968 we necessarily end up with a liberal utopia by 1980, or a Republican in 1960 means a sharp turn to the right. Divergence is a little slower than that, and politics is as much a reflection of culture as it is a driver.

The external factors beyond a President's control aren't going to change in the short term, and these discussions aren't ISOTs where you know to arrange an unfortunate accident for certain people.

The Iran problem was set in motion with the coup against Mossadegh, and a lot of the economic troubles were inherited. A better leader, either D or R, might have survived 1980, but I don't think changing presidents is going to cure the Vietnam hangover, make the economy significantly better, or prevent disco.
 
Top