AHC: A Democratic Reagan-esque landslide

Lyndon Johnson won all but six states in '64, but that was post-Kennedy-assassination. Your challenge is to have a Democratic ticket get elected sometime in the eighties and win said election/re-election by 49-state landslides.

You can choose the divergence -- Reagan might never get elected, or Ford could win in '76, or maybe things change even further back. Or perhaps even a nuclear exchange -- that one's fun, right?
 
Assuming the Southern Strategy is still a thing, the Deep South is going to be solidly GOP unless they fuck up on a level I can’t even comprehend and a Democrat is inspiring enough to counteract the deep-rooted conservatism in the South.

That or the Dems run someone as popular as Clinton but without the stink of scandal and the GOP runs a steaming pile of shit, like an ineffective Rick Santorum who commits a slew of gaffes that leave the GOP leadership asking why the fuck they nominated such a useless pile of crap in the first place.

You want a Dem sweep, avert the Southern Strategy, and that may mean averting Nixon. Ironically that may mean getting Nixon elected in 1960 and having him either be a one-term President or the one Oswald shoots (assuming he’s persistent and similarly motivated and shoots Nixon under different circumstances.)

One particularly dark scenario: Nixon wins in 1960, fucks up the Cuban Missile Crisis, and at best, Castro’s pointing nukes at Miami in 1964 and at worst there’s no Miami to point nukes at in 1964. Either way, the Dems could take a shit in a box and run it against Nixon and President Shit-In-A-Box would win in a landslide. And assuming that this particular Democrat (I’m not thinking JFK but maybe his brother) manages to convince the Russians to get the nukes out of Cuba, or better yet, is reaponsible for Castro having some sort of “unfortunate accident” and a US-friendly leader takes over, you can count on a Democratic landslide that makes FDR’s 1936 win look like child’s play. He may even win in a shutout.
 
Nixon wins in 60; Cuba extends into a prolonged mess; Robert Kennedy sweeps the Dems into office, on a liberal platform. I guess the point here isn't just getting the Dems in on a landslide, it's allowing them to truly shift America into a liberal direction? For that, we'd require a strong enough leadership with a bold enough platform, not just a donkey with a blue rosette!
 
Romney doesn't chose Ryan as his running mate. Establishment Republicans don't lose control of the party and Tea Party/Conservatives bolt in 2012 forming a 3rd party which plays spoiler by drawing 10-15% in the red states which allows Obama a bigger win in 2012?
 
Note that in 1980, Carter still did better in the South than the North. The South isn't default Republican at this point - the Republican strength is in the West, and the "hold-out" state is most likely Utah.

Anyway, I think this is potentially do-able in 1988:
  • The stockmarket crash of October 1987 turns into a severe recession.
  • Pat Robertson wins the Republican nomination.
  • The Republican campaign does not hire Lee Atwater.
  • Willie Horton is hit by a bus before he can do anything.
  • Dukakis runs an excellent campaign, and there are no gotcha questions on the crime issue. Robertson as opponent means no tank idea.
That will get you a very comfortable Democratic victory in 1988. Maybe not 49 states, but certainly comfortable. If you take the best OTL poll for Dukakis, as an indicator, you move the election from R+7 to D+17. A shift of that magnitude applied evenly across all states gives the Democrats 47 states (the Republicans win Idaho, New Hampshire, and Utah).
 
Even if the Wall Street crash of 1987 turned into a serious recession by 1988 (and there is no reason it should), and even if the Democrats nominated a stronger candidate than Dukakis and the Republicans a weaker one than GHW Bush , there is no way the Democrats could sweep 49 states in 1988 any more than Obama or any other Democrat could have done so in 2008.

A slightly better chance for the Democrats to win a true landslide in the 1980's is if Ford wins in 1976 and does truly disastrously in the next four years. Even then, it is hard for me to see Arizona, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho or New Hampshire vote for the Democrat (NH did not become a swing state in presidential elections until 1992; in the 1970's and 1980's it was heavily Republican even in 1976).
 
A slightly better chance for the Democrats to win a true landslide in the 1980's is if Ford wins in 1976 and does truly disastrously in the next four years. Even then, it is hard for me to see Arizona, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho or New Hampshire vote for the Democrat (NH did not become a swing state in presidential elections until 1992; in the 1970's and 1980's it was heavily Republican even in 1976).
True. Among presidential elections in recent decades, Ford and Carter differed the least. Had Ford not made his statement about Soviet control in Eastern Europe in the televised debate, he might have defeated Carter. His performance would have been scarcely different from that of Carter. He had the same position on the Panama Canal. Inflation would rise to double digit levels. Iran would have differed little. No incumbent would be running in 1980. Frustration with the GOP would favor the Democrat in 1980. Then inflation would drop in 1983 for the same reason it did in OTL: petroleum would stabilize and demographics would slow the rush for real estate. The incumbent Democrat would be as undefeatable in 1984, as was Reagan.
 
Romney doesn't chose Ryan as his running mate. Establishment Republicans don't lose control of the party and Tea Party/Conservatives bolt in 2012 forming a 3rd party which plays spoiler by drawing 10-15% in the red states which allows Obama a bigger win in 2012?

2012 isn't going to work unless you have a POD earlier than the one you proposed (basically August 2012) - he wasn't nearly popular enough and Romney wasn't unpopular enough imo
 
Romney doesn't chose Ryan as his running mate. Establishment Republicans don't lose control of the party and Tea Party/Conservatives bolt in 2012 forming a 3rd party which plays spoiler by drawing 10-15% in the red states which allows Obama a bigger win in 2012?

Right-wing Republicans hated Obama far too much in 2012 to bolt, regardless of who Romney chose as his running mate. Indeed, some right-wingers like Ann Coulter actually supported Romney during the primaries.

Incidentally, there were four states--Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota--where Obama got less than one-third of the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012 This means that even if by some miracle the anti-Obama vote were split evenly between Romney and a third party (which was never going to happen) Obama would still have lost these states.
 
The economy takes a sharp downturn after the events of Black Monday.

Instead of Mike Dukakis getting nominated in '88, Al Gore gets nominated, and selects Bentsen as his vice presidential candidate.

As a moderate-to-blue dog candidate, Gore appealed to voters all along the Mississippi River (MO, AR, TN, MS, LA) that were once solidly Democratic but were trending more conservative. Bentsen, as Senator from TX with a personal connection to GHWB (having beaten him in his original Senate race in '70) appeals to Texan voters and more conservative Democrats and moderates.

With a ticket of new blood, a rising star in the party, along with the experienced elder statesmen, the pair barnstorm across Middle America throughout the summer of '88.

George Bush is unable to solidly land an attack on the ticket, as Al Gore never had any sort of baggage or controversial issues (unless one counts feuding with record companies). Any attack was quickly parried off and reversed, and George Bush continued to have to waste time dealing with Dan Quayle's endless stream of gaffes. Rather quickly, the election becomes defined as Change vs. a continuation of the Reagan Era.

Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra Scandal dragged him down further.

The debates went poorly for the Bush-Quayle Ticket; Gore attacked Bush hard for the "criminal" dealings with the Contras, and pointing out the hypocrisy of his tax pledge while Reagan signed a tax increase. The real exciting moment happened in the Vice Presidential Debate. Quayle attempted to link himself to the late JFK, then Bentsen giving his now famous line, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle was left speechless for a long moment and finally audibly muttered some obscenities about Bentsen. He never recovered his composure. The week was not over before Quayle was dropped from the ticket, and replaced by the perennial Senator Bob Dole.

By the last week of the election, it became increasingly clear that it was a lost cause for the Bush campaign. Conservatives, who roared out in record numbers for Reagan just 4 years ago, were openly critical of George Bush and promising to stay home. Congressional Republicans began campaigning on turning out to prevent super majorities for Democrats.

On Election Night it became clear that the Reagan Revolution was dead. Exit Polls indicated that Conservative turnout was sharply down, while Liberals, extremely confidant, turnout out in droves. It soon became clear that Gore was to be elected in a landslide, however it was yet to be seen how much.

(Figures taken from CBS as of 10:00 AM, EST)

GORE - 52,383,237 VOTES - 529 ELECTORAL VOTES

BUSH - 37,952,105 VOTES - 9 ELECTORAL VOTES

In the end, for the first time in anyone's memory, Idaho was a swing state, decided by a few thousand votes. Only that and NH and UT would be in his column.

Gore would be elected President, and ushered America into a prosperous and bountiful 90s, fueled by a project he could claim a part in, the World Wide Web.

(Figured out by subtracting 12% from Bush and giving 12% to Dukakis's percent in every state)
 

samcster94

Banned
The economy takes a sharp downturn after the events of Black Monday.

Instead of Mike Dukakis getting nominated in '88, Al Gore gets nominated, and selects Bentsen as his vice presidential candidate.

As a moderate-to-blue dog candidate, Gore appealed to voters all along the Mississippi River (MO, AR, TN, MS, LA) that were once solidly Democratic but were trending more conservative. Bentsen, as Senator from TX with a personal connection to GHWB (having beaten him in his original Senate race in '70) appeals to Texan voters and more conservative Democrats and moderates.

With a ticket of new blood, a rising star in the party, along with the experienced elder statesmen, the pair barnstorm across Middle America throughout the summer of '88.

George Bush is unable to solidly land an attack on the ticket, as Al Gore never had any sort of baggage or controversial issues (unless one counts feuding with record companies). Any attack was quickly parried off and reversed, and George Bush continued to have to waste time dealing with Dan Quayle's endless stream of gaffes. Rather quickly, the election becomes defined as Change vs. a continuation of the Reagan Era.

Bush's involvement in the Iran-Contra Scandal dragged him down further.

The debates went poorly for the Bush-Quayle Ticket; Gore attacked Bush hard for the "criminal" dealings with the Contras, and pointing out the hypocrisy of his tax pledge while Reagan signed a tax increase. The real exciting moment happened in the Vice Presidential Debate. Quayle attempted to link himself to the late JFK, then Bentsen giving his now famous line, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle was left speechless for a long moment and finally audibly muttered some obscenities about Bentsen. He never recovered his composure. The week was not over before Quayle was dropped from the ticket, and replaced by the perennial Senator Bob Dole.

By the last week of the election, it became increasingly clear that it was a lost cause for the Bush campaign. Conservatives, who roared out in record numbers for Reagan just 4 years ago, were openly critical of George Bush and promising to stay home. Congressional Republicans began campaigning on turning out to prevent super majorities for Democrats.

On Election Night it became clear that the Reagan Revolution was dead. Exit Polls indicated that Conservative turnout was sharply down, while Liberals, extremely confidant, turnout out in droves. It soon became clear that Gore was to be elected in a landslide, however it was yet to be seen how much.

(Figures taken from CBS as of 10:00 AM, EST)

GORE - 52,383,237 VOTES - 529 ELECTORAL VOTES

BUSH - 37,952,105 VOTES - 9 ELECTORAL VOTES

In the end, for the first time in anyone's memory, Idaho was a swing state, decided by a few thousand votes. Only that and NH and UT would be in his column.

Gore would be elected President, and ushered America into a prosperous and bountiful 90s, fueled by a project he could claim a part in, the World Wide Web.

(Figured out by subtracting 12% from Bush and giving 12% to Dukakis's percent in every state)
The Dem to Rep shift in the South in TTL is delayed then.
 
The problem with the whole; "Ford wins 1976, then Democrats Dominate the 80s scenario" is that while it is likely the Democrats would be in a good position win elections against the GOP in the 1980s, you still have the problem that the issues of the 1980s, by their nature tend to benefit the party of the right.

Issues like Rising Crime, a sense of moral decline and high levels of inflation are going to result in the Democrats being vulnerable to being attacked on these issues, a lot more than the GOP was in OTL. While this wont prevent the ATL Democratic president winning re-election in 1984 (perhaps even by a large margin), it will make it difficult for him to win by a Reagan style margin.
 
Top