AHC: Ronald Reagan (D) vs Jimmy Carter (R)

How could you arrive at a Presidential election where Ronald Reagan is running for President against Jimmy Carter...but the former is a Democrat while the latter is a Republican?

With an early enough POD, keeping Reagan as a Democrat is relatively easy given he was a New Deal liberal who campaigned for Truman and Hubert Humphrey in 1948. Given his charisma, Reagan could still very well go into politics but become known as a staunch advocate of labor liberalism while being criticized as a typical left-wing divorced Hollywood actor by the right.

Making Jimmy Carter a Republican is somewhat more difficult but still doable given that Jimmy Carter's 1970 gubernatorial run was to the right of the incumbent(and involved some racial dogwhistles) and he was a protege of Lester Maddox. I don't think its impossible for him to follow the path of other Southern Democrats like John Connolly or Strom Thurmond in becoming a Republican, especially given his evangelical beliefs.

What would the dynamics of such a reversed election look like? Who would be the most plausible running mates in this case?
 
Basically, we have to prevent the Great American Political Polarity Reversal. Your best bet would be to have Herbert Hoover be more active in addressing the plight of Black Republicans, and not have them become FDR Democrats.
 
Kick
In 1952 the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee open not to endorse Reagan for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal to win. Maybe Reagan opts to tone it down a little, maybe Reagan's intense anti-communism (six year at that time) compensates for the Liberalism. He proceeds to become something of a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

He would likely move right over time though. Nancy impacted his politics and moved him right. He also endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. Without GE theater he won't become as economically conservative as OTL, but he'll probably become something of a hawkish socially conservative economically centrist type as time goes on.


For Carter, perhaps the ABC screws him over in 1976 - prompting him to quit the Democratic Party. In 1980 he runs as a Republican against Reagan.
 
Reagan goes left, not right with the other actors. Meanwhile you get HHH/Johnson, so the party switch is sped up. Also, things go smoother in the 1960s so more moderates in both parties: civil rights happens, Abrams is put in as head commander in Vietnam early so no tet offensive. HHH then Johnson, then Nixon in '72. Carter runs in 1980 as the successor to Nixon's first veep, John Connally*.

You get an election between Nixon's veep*, a moderate Georgia republican representative and Ronald Reagan running as a more socially liberal and charismatic version of Scoop Jackson. Between the ongoing Iranian hostage crisis, Carter's unwillingness to go beyond not sending draftees to Vietnam to abolish it make sure 1980 is a walk for Ronald Reagan.

US shifted well to the "left" in some ways, but more old left -- expanded welfare state, UHC, UBI. Not so much "new left" without the McGovernites getting more influential although social liberalism. Social liberalism not recognizable identity politics is more prominent. US less polarized than OTL, although less diverse than OTL with a strongly pro-labor Reagan mostly reducing immigration. Perhaps we see a combo of an early *NAFTA and OTL EU development policies like in spain/portugal to pay off Mexico for having to live with the wall. Expect TTL's outsourced factories/call centers to be in Mexico instead of India/China.

Democrats are some hybrid of social democratic, more liberal elements of "third way" type and (in foreign policy/security stuff, to a much lesser extent crime) neocons. The GOP is the GOP of Nixon's heirs, but less socially conservative than either OTL GOP or Nixon's "center right" ideas due to the big Movement Con icon being Goldwater.

* Financial scandals take him down. He went GOP earlier due to the party switch happening and was (barely) acceptable in 1972.
* Butterflies
 
I rather doubt that if Reagan had remained a liberal Democrat, he would ever have become Governor of California. In 1958 (and 1962) the Democrats are still going to nominate their big vote-getter, Pat Brown--the man who had survived even the 1950 Warren/Nixon landslide. The years 1966-1974 were very conservative years in California, and that would have been true with or without Reagan as the conservative standard-bearer. In general, in California, liberal actors could be successful in liberal districts (like Helen Gahagan Douglas) but only conservative actors could win statewide--not just Reagan but George Murphy whose 1964 victory (along with the defeat of an open housing bill and Goldwater's better-than-his-national-average showing) showed California already moving to the right--and much later Schwarzenegger.

This may also be true of the nation as a whole. As I wrote here last year:

***
If we look at actors who actually ran for office and won (not actors who ran and lost or who were merely talked about as potential candidates) it seems Republicans (Reagan, George Murphy, Fred Thompson, Rex Bell, John Davis Lodge, Arnold Schwarzenegger--though of course he was ineligible to be POTUS--Fred Grandy, Robert Dornan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood) clearly outnumber the Democrats (Ben Jones, Al Franken, Helen Gahagan Douglas, Sheila Kuehl, and Will Rogers, Jr.) Note that all the Democrats I named except for Jones and Franken won in Los Angeles area districts.

I don't think the paucity of Democratic actors getting elected outside southern California is a coincidence. As I once wrote in soc.history.what-if, "Democratic actors are vulnerable to the 'Hollywood liberal' stereotype, whereas a Republican actor-politician has the advantage of defying that stereotype ('casting against type')"

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ould’ve-been-presidents.442265/#post-16914650
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In 1952 the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee open not to endorse Reagan for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal to win. Maybe Reagan opts to tone it down a little, maybe Reagan's intense anti-communism (six year at that time) compensates for the Liberalism. He proceeds to become something of a Scoop Jackson Democrat.

He would likely move right over time though. Nancy impacted his politics and moved him right. He also endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. Without GE theater he won't become as economically conservative as OTL, but he'll probably become something of a hawkish socially conservative economically centrist type as time goes on.


For Carter, perhaps the ABC screws him over in 1976 - prompting him to quit the Democratic Party. In 1980 he runs as a Republican against Reagan.
Why would you make a straight lift of this:

In 1952 the Los Angeles County Democratic Central Committee open not to endorse Reagan for an open House seat because they thought he was too liberal to win. Maybe Reagan opts to tone it down a little, maybe Reagan's intense anti-communism (six year at that time) compensates for the Liberalism.

from a 2008 thread rather than simply type out a different sentence? I mean you even kept the part inside the parentheses. It is a decent sentence and all, but really?

Unfortunately for you the member you improperly plagiarized is still active here and recognized his original work.

This may be the most unnecessary bit of plagiarism I've seen hereabouts.

Kicked for a week.
 
The issue with Jimmy Carter going Republican is that in contrast to, say, Texas, Georgia is very much a one-party Democratic state at this point. Thurmond had the advantage of being an existing Senator with extensive name recognition when he switched parties, and in any case was more comfortable with the Republicans on economics - Jimmy, by contrast, was a moderate. Carter becoming a Republican scuttles his career, I think.
 
The issue with Jimmy Carter going Republican is that in contrast to, say, Texas, Georgia is very much a one-party Democratic state at this point. Thurmond had the advantage of being an existing Senator with extensive name recognition when he switched parties, and in any case was more comfortable with the Republicans on economics - Jimmy, by contrast, was a moderate. Carter becoming a Republican scuttles his career, I think.
Who said that President Jimmy Carter had to be the Governor of Georgia? On his James Carter Sr.'s Wikipedia page, it says that Jimmy Carter's father worked as a travelling salesman across Texas after completing 10th grade, before moving back to his hometown of Plains to invest in an ice house and a laundry store. Suppose Carter Sr never moved out of Texas, and votes Republican for Goldwater, due to his segregationist views. As the Republican Party grows stronger in the state, we soon have Governor Jimmy Carter, a devoted member of the Religious Right and a rising star within the conservative movement. Given how left-wing Reagan's views were back in the day, it would be fun to see how the election would go off in this timeline.
 
I rather doubt that if Reagan had remained a liberal Democrat, he would ever have become Governor of California. In 1958 (and 1962) the Democrats are still going to nominate their big vote-getter, Pat Brown--the man who had survived even the 1950 Warren/Nixon landslide. The years 1966-1974 were very conservative years in California, and that would have been true with or without Reagan as the conservative standard-bearer. In general, in California, liberal actors could be successful in liberal districts (like Helen Gahagan Douglas) but only conservative actors could win statewide--not just Reagan but George Murphy whose 1964 victory (along with the defeat of an open housing bill and Goldwater's better-than-his-national-average showing) showed California already moving to the right--and much later Schwarzenegger.

This may also be true of the nation as a whole. As I wrote here last year:

***
If we look at actors who actually ran for office and won (not actors who ran and lost or who were merely talked about as potential candidates) it seems Republicans (Reagan, George Murphy, Fred Thompson, Rex Bell, John Davis Lodge, Arnold Schwarzenegger--though of course he was ineligible to be POTUS--Fred Grandy, Robert Dornan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood) clearly outnumber the Democrats (Ben Jones, Al Franken, Helen Gahagan Douglas, Sheila Kuehl, and Will Rogers, Jr.) Note that all the Democrats I named except for Jones and Franken won in Los Angeles area districts.

I don't think the paucity of Democratic actors getting elected outside southern California is a coincidence. As I once wrote in soc.history.what-if, "Democratic actors are vulnerable to the 'Hollywood liberal' stereotype, whereas a Republican actor-politician has the advantage of defying that stereotype ('casting against type')"

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/actors-who-could’ve-been-presidents.442265/#post-16914650

Reagan would be better off running for the Senate - not Governor - in 1958.

As for Carter, making him a Republican is difficult as even after the Civil Rights Act Georgia was heavily Democratic. Maybe he could become a pro-business Rockefeller Republican with a sufficient POD, but I doubt his career advances far enough to make him a serious presidential contender.
 
For Carter to become a Republican is a stretch but in 1964 Bo Calloway won a seat in the United States Congress as a Republican in the same district the Plains is in.
In 1966 Galloway ran for Governor and while he did get the most votes he lost because it was under 50% and the winner was determined in the state legislature which was dominated by Democrats who made Lester Maddox the winner.
So have Carter run as a Republican in 1966 for that seat and win then run for Senator or Governor later and win in 1970, Agnes resigns on schedule in 1973 and Nixon picks Carter for Vice President.
Carter becomes President in 1974 and that sets up Carter as the Republican nominee against Reagan the Democratic nominee in 1976.
 
1. Ronald Reagan convinces enough Democrats to endorse his candidacy for the US House in 1950. He wins and is elected to the US Senate in 1958.

2. Congressman Bo Calloway decides to run for re-election in 1966 instead of for Governor of Georgia. Jimmy Carter, a lame duck State Senator who did not make the Democratic primary runoff, stays neutral and gets a part-time job in Calloway's office (Calloway would likely maintain support from white conservative Democrats). In 1969, Carter quietly switches to the Republicans as Calloway becomes the de facto leader of the Georgia Republicans. In 1970, Calloway runs for Governor and Carter runs for his seat but falls short against the victorious Democrat. Calloway is elected Governor. Shortly after Senator Richard Russell dies in 1971, Governor Calloway appoints Carter to the Senate seat which he wins in 1972 thanks to Nixon's coattails. In 1976, Reagan wins the Democratic nomination for President and defeats Ford. Reagan encounters the same problems as Carter's OTL Presidency. In 1980, Carter wins the New Hampshire primary in an upset and sweeps the southern states. Therefore, the candidates for President in 1980 are

President Ronald Reagan/Vice President Reubin Askew (D) vs.
Senator Jimmy Carter/former Senator James Buckley (R)
 
1. Ronald Reagan convinces enough Democrats to endorse his candidacy for the US House in 1950. He wins and is elected to the US Senate in 1958.

2. Congressman Bo Calloway decides to run for re-election in 1966 instead of for Governor of Georgia. Jimmy Carter, a lame duck State Senator who did not make the Democratic primary runoff, stays neutral and gets a part-time job in Calloway's office (Calloway would likely maintain support from white conservative Democrats). In 1969, Carter quietly switches to the Republicans as Calloway becomes the de facto leader of the Georgia Republicans. In 1970, Calloway runs for Governor and Carter runs for his seat but falls short against the victorious Democrat. Calloway is elected Governor. Shortly after Senator Richard Russell dies in 1971, Governor Calloway appoints Carter to the Senate seat which he wins in 1972 thanks to Nixon's coattails. In 1976, Reagan wins the Democratic nomination for President and defeats Ford. Reagan encounters the same problems as Carter's OTL Presidency. In 1980, Carter wins the New Hampshire primary in an upset and sweeps the southern states. Therefore, the candidates for President in 1980 are

President Ronald Reagan/Vice President Reubin Askew (D) vs.
Senator Jimmy Carter/former Senator James Buckley (R)

Reagan would be quite vulnerable in this ATL 1980, though I wouldn't count him out. Reagan was a very skilled politician, whereas Carter was not. And remember that Reagan was re-elected by a landslide in 1984 despite presiding over a painful recession in his first term. I think 1980 is a toss up, with both candidates having advantages and disadvantages.
 
Reagan encounters the same problems as Carter's OTL Presidency.

I find this part a bit unlikely. Even assuming there aren't any butterflies from Reagan being in Congress for over twenty years, a party change wouldn't make his approach to the challenges of the presidency similar to Carter's, so things would undoubtedly go differently from OTL if he were in charge.
 
I find this part a bit unlikely. Even assuming there aren't any butterflies from Reagan being in Congress for over twenty years, a party change wouldn't make his approach to the challenges of the presidency similar to Carter's, so things would undoubtedly go differently from OTL if he were in charge.
well yes and no. Structurally the 70s were unlikely to be improved all that much. But if Reagan has a better working relationship with Democrats in Congress then he'd do a better job than Carter, most likely.
 
Top