AHC: Make most electoral maps look like '76

Sabot Cat

Banned
With a Point of Divergence no later than July 12, 1976, make most U.S. presidential election maps (here used figuratively to describe the way states actually go in the election, to preempt a snarky literalist response) resemble the one from that election, and to a lesser extent, the election after it:

349px-ElectoralCollege1976.svg.png

1976_mov.png

1980_mov.png



That is to say, get Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, D.C., and most of the South to vote together for the Democrats or skew Democratic.
 
Hmm. Some sort of consensus needs to be constructed between the Northeast and the South. Maybe you can make the old left remain the power bloc in the Democratic Party. Maybe you can make someone other than McGovern, preferably someone pro-labor, reform the Democratic Party, and this keeps the Old Left in control. That may be enough to keep the South in line.

But another major factor to keep in mind is that the thing that lost the South from the Democrats was civil rights. It may be absurdly simple, but if Nixon were elected in 1960, he would be the one to push for civil rights, and this may make enough Southerners hate the Republicans to the point they have no choice to remain Democratic, and this would have the side effect of keeping the Old Left (not Humphrey's kind of Democrat; more opposed to civil rights) in control of the Democratic Party, but enough Northeastern Democrats are chosen as candidates that the Northeast turns blue.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
@fjihr

As far as I can tell, Carter was neither Old Left nor anti-civil rights, though. He lost the White South, just by a narrower margin than later Democrats, and overwhelmingly carried African-American voters like most modern Democrats have.

"I think the greatest thing that ever happened to the South was the passage of the civil rights acts and the opening up of opportunities to black people, to have a chance to vote, hold a job, buy a house, go to school, and participate in public affairs. It not only liberated black people but it also liberated the whites.

There has been no concerted effort given to the needs of those who are both poor and black, or poor and who speak a foreign language. But it doesn't take just a quiet, dormant, minimum enforcement of the law. It requires an aggressive searching out and reaching out to help people who especially need it. And that's been lacking in the last 8 years."

- Jimmy Carter, October 22, 1976 in a nationally televised debate with Gerald Ford

The South would be his strongest region not only in 1976, but in 1980, too.

So what did Jimmy do that no other Democrat since him couldn't, I guess is the question?
 
@fjihr

As far as I can tell, Carter was neither Old Left nor anti-civil rights, though. He lost the White South, just by a narrower margin than later Democrats, and overwhelmingly carried African-American voters like most modern Democrats have.

"I think the greatest thing that ever happened to the South was the passage of the civil rights acts and the opening up of opportunities to black people, to have a chance to vote, hold a job, buy a house, go to school, and participate in public affairs. It not only liberated black people but it also liberated the whites.

There has been no concerted effort given to the needs of those who are both poor and black, or poor and who speak a foreign language. But it doesn't take just a quiet, dormant, minimum enforcement of the law. It requires an aggressive searching out and reaching out to help people who especially need it. And that's been lacking in the last 8 years."

- Jimmy Carter, October 22, 1976 in a nationally televised debate with Gerald Ford

The South would be his strongest region not only in 1976, but in 1980, too.

So what did Jimmy do that no other Democrat since him couldn't, I guess is the question?

To put it bluntly not follow Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter's presidency was a complete disaster that the Democrats didn't recover from until the Clinton Administration. High inflation rate, high interest rate and high unemployment rate all at the same time. This is almost unique in US history . Generally you have a high inflation rate or a high unemployment rate, very rarely do you have both at the same time.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
To put it bluntly not follow Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter's presidency was a complete disaster that the Democrats didn't recover from until the Clinton Administration. High inflation rate, high interest rate and high unemployment rate all at the same time. This is almost unique in US history . Generally you have a high inflation rate or a high unemployment rate, very rarely do you have both at the same time.

So Carter with a good economy would do the trick?
 
Avoid the iranian Revolution and Carter could win narrowly in 1980. But then how does Mondale win the South in 84?
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Avoid the iranian Revolution and Carter could win narrowly in 1980. But then how does Mondale win the South in 84?

No Iranian Revolution means Carter doesn't have a rally 'round the flag effect in early '80, which means he will probably be in an unenviable position to win the 1980 Democratic primary let alone the general.

And yeah, Mondale probably isn't the best bet to keep the South on the same page.
 
No Iranian Revolution means Carter doesn't have a rally 'round the flag effect in early '80, which means he will probably be in an unenviable position to win the 1980 Democratic primary let alone the general.

And yeah, Mondale probably isn't the best bet to keep the South on the same page.

Completely forgot about how serious Chappaquiddick Ted's primary challenge was. You also need to prevent that to get Carter a second term as well.
 
No Iranian Revolution means Carter doesn't have a rally 'round the flag effect in early '80, which means he will probably be in an unenviable position to win the 1980 Democratic primary let alone the general.

And yeah, Mondale probably isn't the best bet to keep the South on the same page.

No, that's no hostage crisis. No Iranian Revolution means the economy doesn't go into complete meltdown due to the oil shock and Carter's approval rating doesn't fall to 28%. Instead the situation as of 1978 would continue, a mediocre economy with high inflation that limps along, similar to 2012 for Obama. Carter gets re-elected narrowly instead as the economy is doing Ok and people conclude he's doing an average job. See the 1978 midterms, unlike 1980 the Democrats did mostly OK in them, or at least not badly.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
No, that's no hostage crisis. No Iranian Revolution means the economy doesn't go into complete meltdown due to the oil shock and Carter's approval rating doesn't fall to 28%. Instead the situation as of 1978 would continue, a mediocre economy with high inflation that limps along, similar to 2012 for Obama. Carter gets re-elected narrowly instead as the economy is doing Ok and people conclude he's doing an average job. See the 1978 midterms, unlike 1980 the Democrats did mostly OK in them, or at least not badly.

Ah sorry, I thought you were conflating the two! That makes much more sense.
 
Carter's first two years as President were excellent economically, actually, but other than that I agree with Pericles.

Edit: to fulfill the map challenge have Carter pick Church as VP instead. Butterflies from his reforming the CIA and intelligence services result in a more positive outcome in Iran. And Church will die at about the right time for a fresh southerner to take the Democratic Party into their third term.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Carter's first two years as President were excellent economically, actually, but other than that I agree with Pericles.

Edit: to fulfill the map challenge have Carter pick Church as VP instead. Butterflies from his reforming the CIA and intelligence services result in a more positive outcome in Iran. And Church will die at about the right time for a fresh southerner to take the Democratic Party into their third term.

This is a really elegant POD, great job.
 

jahenders

Banned
With a Point of Divergence no later than July 12, 1976, make most U.S. presidential election maps (here used figuratively to describe the way states actually go in the election, to preempt a snarky literalist response) resemble the one from that election, and to a lesser extent, the election after it:

That is to say, get Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, D.C., and most of the South to vote together for the Democrats or skew Democratic.

Interesting. It's hard to imagine too many situations today where NY and the South vote the same and where CA and NY vote opposite.

One aspect, of course, would be a strong regional (Southern) candidate, but again it's hard to imagine a strong Southern candidate that's beloved by NYers.

I think the 1976 map kind of shows a mid-point of the evolution of the parties and the affections of the states. In the South this partially reflects the remnants of the Democratic party's popularity in the South as the party fighting desegregation -- meaning you have a lot of old folks who've always voted Democrat and who continue to do so, but they're fading around that time. In California, it shows Republican strength before the impact of minorities, growth of liberal centers, etc shifted the balance to Democrats, though that's in part because (in 80) Reagan was a strong CA candidate.
 
Another thing to explore is what happens to the Republicans. Somehow make Rockefeller Republicans take/ regain control of the Republican Party.

One simple POD is that Ford gets assassinated in 1975. Nelson Rockefeller becomes President. One possible sequence of events is that Rocky narrowly defeats Reagan for renomination, then Carter in the election, and then somehow dies same time as in IOTL. He has wound up picking Reagan as VP, and Reagan is there for the economy and Iran to go south. The Democrats nominate Carter a second time (combination of him coming really close in 1976, plus the Kennedy campaign imploding), who defeats Reagan. The Republicans then start nominating northern liberals in the other elections. Another possible sequence is Reagan defeating Rockefeller in 1976 for the nomination, losing badly to Carter in the general election, then the Republicans decide to nominate someone like Charles Percy in 1980.

It could also be something as simple as Reagan dying in 1978 and Rockefeller managing to live longer, and then winning the Republican nomination in 1980 against a weak field.

But you need a combination of liberals from the Northeast or at least the Midwest winning a sequence of Republican presidential nominations, while the Democrats keep nominating southern moderates, and to somehow keep Reagan from being nominated in 1980 (he would have been too old to run in 1984 if he hadn't already been the incumbent). And the Bushes are not enough since the family moved to Texas and pivotted to the right.
 
Top