A Carter Victory in 1980: What Does His Second Term and America's Future Look Like?

[PresidentZinn]

Assume that due to a combination of butterflies Ted Kennedy decides not to Primary Carter in 1980, and further, Operation Eagle Claw is a success. Additionally, assume Carter runs a better campaign and successfully manages to portray Reagan as an extremist, which in tandem with several gaffes allows Carter to squeak by on election day.

Taking these premises into account (which I hope are not ASB):

1) How would Carter's second term play out? Could his administration achieve anything significant between 1981-1985 given that his approval ratings are likely to remain low until the economy revives in the 1983-1984 timeframe?

2) What would be the long-run effects of an averted Reagan Presidency and a second Carter term on American politics?

3) How would the 1984 election play out? What were Mondale's chances of succeeding Carter? Who would the GOP nominate?

4) How would Carter's legacy be different?

 

[Cymraeg]

Assume that due to a combination of butterflies Ted Kennedy decides not to Primary Carter in 1980, and further, Operation Eagle Claw is a success. Additionally, assume Carter runs a better campaign and successfully manages to portray Reagan as an extremist, which in tandem with several gaffes allows Carter to squeak by on election day.

Taking these premises into account (which I hope are not ASB):

1) How would Carter's second term play out? Could his administration achieve anything significant between 1981-1985 given that his approval ratings are likely to remain low until the economy revives in the 1983-1984 timeframe?

2) What would be the long-run effects of an averted Reagan Presidency and a second Carter term on American politics?

3) How would the 1984 election play out? What were Mondale's chances of succeeding Carter? Who would the GOP nominate?

4) How would Carter's legacy be different?

Well, as my wife puts it, it took eight years of Clinton-Gore to undo the damage inflicted on America's roads and bridges by Reagan-Bush and the disaster that was Reaganonomics. She and I are not fans of the disastrous deregulation that inflicted such terrible damage on America in the long term, not to mention the little matter of Iran-Contra. Oh and there's the little of issue of whether or not the man with his finger on the button had dementia in the last years of his presidency. Joy.
Here's an interesting little link - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_better_off_without_a_reagan_presidency.html that brings up one interesting question - would Walter Mondale have embraced Gorbachev the way that Reagan did?

 

[Dunning Kruger]

1) How would Carter's second term play out? Could his administration achieve anything significant between 1981-1985 given that his approval ratings are likely to remain low until the economy revives in the 1983-1984 timeframe?

Carter needs to get rid of the sweater speech and have a somewhat healthy economy to get re-elected in the first place.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Avoid the hostage crisis or have a successful rescue, keep the "malaise speech" (which was at the time received as an honest assessment by a politician) and avoid the firing of the cabinet. The cabinet issue was what sunk Carter because it made people feel the government was spinning back out of control after that malaise speech made them feel Carter was taking the reins. Have him wait until after the election to make changes to the cabinet.

 

[Marky Bunny]

Carter wins a squeaker (based on the closest states in OTL)

Carter 271 ev
Reagan 267 ev

 

[sciscisciortino]

There's probably a GOP wave in '82, but Mondale will easily get elected in '84, Carter really was just a foreshadowing of Reaganomic restructuring, but more fiscally conservative.

After nominating a conservative doesn't work I'm guessing Bush/Baker.

 

[Emperor Julian]

There's probably a GOP wave in '82, but Mondale will easily get elected in '84, Carter really was just a foreshadowing of Reaganomic restructuring, but more fiscally conservative.

After nominating a conservative doesn't work I'm guessing Bush/Baker.

If Bush was a failed VP candidate, he'll have the loser stigma. Plus, he would not have been in any office for eight years, so a Baker would probably be at the top of the ticket.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Bottom of the ticket would be interesting. It'd probably be someone like Phil Crane or Paul Laxalt, to placate the right.

Mondale's VP is a good question too. Won't be Ferraro.

 

[NickCT]

Here is the 218 novel I wrote on this very topic, if you're interested.

 

[mlp]

South Korea will be democratised by 1980, 1981 at the latest.
There won't be any junta governments ruling, not under Carter's watch.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

Here is the 218 novel I wrote on this very topic, if you're interested.

Do you have a pdf available?

 

[NickCT]

Do you have a pdf available?

No, unfortunately, you'll need to purchase it.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

No, unfortunately, you'll need to purchase it.

I think he was referring to a kindle edition.

 

[FuroraCeltica]

Carter wins a squeaker (based on the closest states in OTL)

Carter 271 ev
Reagan 267 ev

That electoral college map is interesting, as it would have meant Ohio lost its status as a bell weather for who would win

 

[AdmiralBlake]

in economic terms carter was on the right, but nowhere near the extent as Reagan was

a more ethical foreign policy, probably means democracy in argentina and brazil a few years earlier

Mondale or Hart in 1984, vs Dole or Bush, I think the democrats would probably win

republicans would win in 1992 on a moderate conservative platform

 

[V-J]

That electoral college map is interesting, as it would have meant Ohio lost its status as a bell weather for who would win

Ohio has come close to doing that on a few occasions; it's been more Republican-leaning (albeit relatively mildly so most of the time) than the nation in every presidential election in recent decades.

 

[Realpolitik]

South Korea will be democratised by 1980, 1981 at the latest.
There won't be any junta governments ruling, not under Carter's watch.

I'm not sure about that. South Korea by 1980 wasn't exactly in the same position that Rhee was in 1953. Carter by 1979 was developing a "harder" foreign policy, and probably wouldn't press things other than verbally.

South Korea will still democratize at the same time, same place. The Olympics were the big factor, along with the clear "winning" of the Cold War by that point.

 

[THE OBSERVER]

I think he was referring to a kindle edition.

That too. When will there be a Kindle?

 

[oreocruncher]

I'm not sure about that. South Korea by 1980 wasn't exactly in the same position that Rhee was in 1953. Carter by 1979 was developing a "harder" foreign policy, and probably wouldn't press things other than verbally.

South Korea will still democratize at the same time, same place. The Olympics were the big factor, along with the clear "winning" of the Cold War by that point.

Carter may not support Chun with the Gwangju Uprising...I think that's what zepplinair means by that...
Especially if they realize that the people there aren't North Korean agents, but actually South Koreans wanting democracy...

 

[SlideAway]

Avoid the hostage crisis or have a successful rescue, keep the "malaise speech" (which was at the time received as an honest assessment by a politician) and avoid the firing of the cabinet. The cabinet issue was what sunk Carter because it made people feel the government was spinning back out of control after that malaise speech made them feel Carter was taking the reins. Have him wait until after the election to make changes to the cabinet.

That would also have resulted in G. William Miller remaining Fed Chair. That means no Volcker appointment, so inflation will continue to be very high, but it also means no Volcker-induced 1980 recession, no 20% interest rates, and no rise in unemployment. Whether higher inflation would outweigh these things isn't obvious but maybe on net this would benefit Carter.