AHC: Make Walter Mondale president but not in '84.

Carter picks John Glenn as VP in 1976. They win.

Medium-level butterflies up until 2013, when a surprise nuclear strike on D.C. turns the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House into finely cooked ash. President Pro Tempore Walter Mondale (D-MN) is out of town on a fishing trip.

There you go.
 
Well, having Carter die in office is too easy, so here are two alternatives I have posted about in the past:

(1) Ford wins in 1976, and things go so badly for the country in 1977-1980 that nobody (including Reagan) can save the GOP brand in 1980 against any plausible Democratic candidate (including Mondale).

(2) In OTL, Mondale runs for the Senate in 1982 (Durenberger was vulnerable and IMO Mondale would have been a stronger candidate than the young Mark Dayton, despite the latter's money), skips the 1984 and 1988 presidential races (feeling that it will be hard for a Democrat to win the presidency given peace and prosperity), gets re-elected in 1988 (a good year for Democrats in the Upper Midwest) and then runs for president in 1992, sensing that GHW Bush is vulnerable. (And even if he isn't, Mondale would still after all be able to keep his Senate seat, at least until 1994.)

Why do I think he might get the nomination in 1992? Because all the other major Democratic candidates in 1992 (Clinton, Tsongas, Brown) were trying to show they were in some way or other "different" from traditional Democrats. Mondale can be "different" simply by *not* being different--by being an old-fashioned New Deal labor-liberal. (I am of course assuming that Mario Cuomo again decides not to run.) There are enough such voters in the Democratic primaries in 1992 to give him a real chance of winning against divided opposition. Remember that a Mondale who had not run against Reagan would not have any particular reputation as a "loser"; that the Carter-Mondale ticket lost so badly in 1980 would be blamed mostly on Carter.

Could he win the general election (which we'll assume will still be a three-way race)? No doubt he would be more vulnerable ideologically than Clinton but (a) he would not be vulnerable on the "character issue", and (b) he could win even if he lost every one of the Southern states Clinton carried. In fact, let's say he not only loses Arkansas (6 electoral votes), Georgia (13), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), and Tennessee (11) but that by doing worse in rural and small-town areas of Ohio than Clinton did in OTL, he also loses that state (21). Also have him lose four other narrow Clinton states: Nevada (4), New Hampshire (4), Montana (3) and New Jersey (15). He would still have 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary to win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

I like the 2nd alternative the best. A classic New Deal Liberal governing in the '90s would be interesting to see.
 
Why do I think he might get the nomination in 1992? Because all the other major Democratic candidates in 1992 (Clinton, Tsongas, Brown) were trying to show they were in some way or other "different" from traditional Democrats. Mondale can be "different" simply by *not* being different--by being an old-fashioned New Deal labor-liberal. (I am of course assuming that Mario Cuomo again decides not to run.) There are enough such voters in the Democratic primaries in 1992 to give him a real chance of winning against divided opposition. Remember that a Mondale who had not run against Reagan would not have any particular reputation as a "loser"; that the Carter-Mondale ticket lost so badly in 1980 would be blamed mostly on Carter.
Also if Mondale sat out in 1984, then Hart had a good chance of winning the nomination, so if he loses the Reagan it could be seen as a sign that a new, more moderate path isn't necessarily victory for the Democrats, maybe somewhat discrediting them.
 
What about his running in 1976?

He kind of did. He geared up to run in 1976, but pulled out early on, in about 1975 IIRC. (He'd had trouble raising money, but cited the sheer strain of running on the new rules - a very widespread complaint about a presidential run even decades later, but something new at the time)

I guess he could change his mind on that score, though - in which case a lot of the candidates you cite wouldn't even run, as they were working off the back of Mondale and Ted Kennedy not running. You surely would not get the Humphrey toe-dipping/draft attempts of OTL at the very least if Mondale commits.
 
Also if Mondale sat out in 1984, then Hart had a good chance of winning the nomination, so if he loses the Reagan it could be seen as a sign that a new, more moderate path isn't necessarily victory for the Democrats, maybe somewhat discrediting them.
It was pretty much certain that the Dems wouldn't beat Reagan.
 
I know it's the popular perception that Reagan had a lock on 1984.

But . . . how much emotional energy people's memories of 1982 recession where unemployment exceeded 10%, yes, really. Whether some of Ronnie's comments regarding Soviet Union are viewed as strong, rather than unnecessary warmongering.

Plus, and this is a whole 'nother potential thread: Nancy did not want Ronnie to run again in '84 fearing for his sheer physical safety.
 
Top