AHC: George McGovern wins re-election to U.S. Senate in 1980.

Conservatives Plan $700,000 Drive To Oust 5 Democrats From Senate

New York Times (archives), Warren Weaver, Jr., Aug 17, 1979

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/17/...00-drive-to-oust-5-democrats-from-senate.html

' . . . The National Conservative Political Action Committee [NCPAC] announced that it would conduct television, radio and print campaigns in the next four months in an effort to unseat Senators Birch Bayh of Indiana, Frank Church of Idaho, Alan Cranston of California, John C. Culver of Iowa and George McGovern of South Dakota.

'The committee plans to spend about $700,000 on the brief, intensive effort to increase the negative poll ratings of the Democrats, attacking them on a series of issues and, in effect, softening them up for a conservative Republican opponent in 1980. . . '

.

.

' . . . “We believe that we can turn around a large percentage of the people in these states — 10, 15 or 20 — by convincing them that their Senator is doing a rotten job,” John T. Dolan, chairman of the conservative committee, said at a news conference. He later called the five Democrats “people who are basically disloyal to their constituents,” voting contrary to their asserted philosophy. . . '
So, this major conservative PAC is basically trying to make George one of their whipping boys.

How can he successfully defend himself and continue to push his own issues? That is, play offense as well, and at the time of the '79 energy crisis and the '80 recession, this has to include economic issues.
 
Last edited:
Abdnor defeated him by 18.8 points! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1980 This really looks like one of the least salvageable Democratic Senate seats of 1980. People like Frank Church and Gaylord Nelson had reasonable chances of surviving that year but not McGovern. Indeed, he had already been held to 53-47 by a not-very-strong GOP candidate in the very Democratic year of 1974--a clear warning sign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1974
 
If McGovern holds on by the skin of his teeth, he'll be working as a Democrat in the minority for the first time in his career. Politics was more bipartisan back then so it's possible he could push some centrist agricultural measures through with enough broad support, but since the 1980's was a very conservative time in US history I don't think McGovern will have much of an impact. He was already sidelined by the mainstream of his party after 1972. He retires in 1986 and spends the rest of his life as a figure on the margins as in OTL.
 
. . . he [George] had already been held to 53-47 by a not-very-strong GOP candidate in the very Democratic year of 1974--a clear warning sign. . .
I’m thinking a fair number of South Dakotans thought George McGovern had embarrassed the state by doing so poorly in his '72 run against Nixon.

And maybe more conservative-leaning voters welcomed having other reasons, now more socially acceptable, to vote against the guy in 1980.
 
Last edited:
https://books.google.com/books?id=E...ade no apologies for being a liberal"&f=false

' . . . McGovern made no apologies for being a liberal, which he defined as "one who believes the power of the U.S. government ought to be thrown on the side of the ordinary people." He also proved to be a shrewd campaign tactician. When a national conservative group passed out handbills that called McGovern, the father of five, a "baby killer" because he believed women should have a right to abortions, he made an issue of being smeared by out-of-staters. So many South Dakotans sided with Senator McGovern in public opinion polls that Abdnor had to disavow the group's support. . . '
Although I'm sure that George also made his mistakes, it definitely sounds like he did a lot of things right.

Maybe his biggest missed opportunity is that he didn't stake out early ground on economic issues.
 
Yes, the stagflation of the late 70s made 1976 a poisoned chalice. Even more so since it was a slow-motion crisis in which people were unsure what to do.

I respectfully disagree. Carter could have maintained Nixon's price controls, deflated currency as his appointee Volcker eventually did in 1981, and passed the economic stimulus legislation supported by Tip O'Neill. However he remained stubbornly committed to a balanced budget and deliberately caused a recession in 1979 thinking it would reverse stagflation. Not to mention that he removed the price controls, causing prices to skyrocket. And he could have been reelected in 1980 had he pursued a better policy with Iran after the revolution, resulting in the hostages being released early. A basically competent President could have handled that period OK, Carter was very far from that and he paid the price in 1980. (Not that Reagan was that much better...).
 
. . deflated currency as his appointee Volcker eventually did in 1981, . . .
No, Volcker didn’t do that, and thank goodness, for that would have made things a whole lot worse.

In fact, one reason the U.S. economy went from a stock market crash in 1929 to a full-fledged Great Depression by 1933 was that the currency deflated along the way. Yes, a single dollar could buy somewhat more, but there was just a lot less economic activity and a lot harder to get a job. 25% unemployment seems to be the figure I read most often.

Volcker may have been hardcore, but he wasn’t crazy.
 
P&B%2026.11%20Decrease%20Aggregate%20Supply.jpg

Stagflation

Following the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, the economy’s Supply Curve shifted inward. And that was that.
 
Ah, come on, please read up on your ‘70s economics. :)

Nixon ended most wage and price controls in 1973. Domestic oil was an exception.

But then Carter removed the remaining controls and prices skyrocketed. It was a move he himself condemned in the 1976 campaign, but then he did it anyway. So my point still stands.
 
latest_numbers_CUUR0000SA0L1E_1975_1984_all_period_M12_pct_12mths.gif

Inflation (starting from Jan. 1975)

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0L1E?output_view=pct_12mths
(pick any starting and ending date of your choice)

During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, inflation increased from 6.3% in March 1978 to 11.4% when he left office in January 1981.

Meaning, the 1979 energy crisis wasn’t the only cause. But then, that’s going to be typical. Economic events and measurements usually are going to have multiple causes.
 
Last edited:
latest_numbers_CUUR0000SA0L1E_1975_1984_all_period_M12_pct_12mths.gif

Inflation (starting from Jan. 1975)

https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
(pick any starting and ending date of your choice)

During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, inflation increased from 6.3% in March 1978 to 11.4% when he left office in January 1981.

Meaning, the 1979 energy crisis wasn’t the only cause. But then, that’s going to be typical. Economic events and measurements usually are going to have multiple causes.

So how precisely did stagflation come to an end? Most resources I've found aren't in depth on how it was actually solved. Was it Volcker raising interest rates and putting the economy into recession? That doesn't seem to make sense considering that made the economy worse during the 1979-1982 period.
 
. . stagflation come to an end? . .
Oil prices may have stabilized. Volcker’s dramatic actions, and he did different dramatic actions, may have been highly helpful in that these changed people’s expectations.

Reagan essentially ran Keynesian economics with tax cuts and increases in military spending. And plenty of foreigners were happy to buy U.S. treasury notes and so forth, which actually hurt Latin America and eastern Europe.

And yes, 1982 was bad. At the time, it was the worse downturn since the Great Depression. Of course it’s since been eclipsed by 2008 & 2009.


by the way, I think a modern economy is almost biologically complex
 
Last edited:
Top