Alternate 80's Presidents

Other than Ronald Reagan and George Bush, who else would have been contenders for the Presidency in the 80's?

Also, I'd like to aviod POD's from before 1979.
 
From the OTL candidates' lists...

Democratic

Gary Hart (D-CO)
Mario Cuomo (D-NY)
Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)
Al Gore (D-TN)
Bill Clinton (D-AR)
Dick Gephardt (D-MO)

Republican

Bob Dole (R-KS)
Al Haig (R-PA)
Donald Rumsfeld (R-IL)
Howard Baker (R-TN)
Paul Laxalt (R-NV)
 
Other than Ronald Reagan and George Bush, who else would have been contenders for the Presidency in the 80's?

Also, I'd like to aviod POD's from before 1979.

Hard to see too many post-1979 PODs that don't result in the same candidates running for president as in real life.

In '88, Mario Cuomo, Sam Nunn and Bill Bradley could run for the Democrats - all were expected to and chose not to. Also, Chuck Robb of Virginia was seen by many as a potential national candidate during the '80s.

If you look at pre-79 PODs, like, say, if Ford won reelection in '76, then you get some major differences.

For Democrats: Hugh Carey, Walter Mondale (in '80), Adlai Stevenson III would all have been very plausible candidates in 1980.

For Republicans: Bob Dole would probably have been the 1980 nominee and if he loses, then in '84 you could get figures like John Warner, Pete Domenici, etc. Down the road, like in '88, you may get George Deukmejian (assuming he still wins the CA governorship in '82).
 
There was no way in the world Carter could have been re-elected, even without the Iran hostage crisis. He was just a bad president. The Democrats should have dropped him from the ticket in '80, even though he was the incumbent. However, the Democratic convention was deadlocked between Carter and Kennedy. Edmund Muskie was considered as a compromise candidate before Kennedy finally bowed out to Carter. Had he not, Muskie might have become the dark horse candidate. Muskie, who was the front runner in the 1972 Democratic primary, was a strong candidate and likely would have done much better against Reagan than Carter. Thus, there is a good chance that Ed Muskie could have been the 40th President of the United States.

In 1984, the Democrats would have chosen incumbent Ed Muskie for re-election. However, by '84, Reagan would have been deemed too old to run, opening the Republican nomination to a bevy of candidates. George H.W. Bush, the VP candidate in '80, would have been the front runner in '84, joined by John Connally, Bob Dole, and Howard Baker. Bush probably would have been chosen for the '84 election despite the qualifications of the others. By this time, Muskie was 70 years old, but in good health. He could have easily won re-election.

By 1988, Muskie was 74 years old. After eight years of an elderly president, both parties probably would have turned to younger candidates. Senator Gary Hart was considered the front runner for the Democrats. The 52 year old Senator from Colorado was young, popular, and moderate. Standing against Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore, Hart won the nomination despite a scandal involving Hart's affair with Donna Rice. The Republicans nominated the 56 year old Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense during the Ford administration. Due to the scandal involving Hart, Rumsfeld narrowly won the '88 general election, becoming the 41st President.

How about that, Rumsfeld gets to become president after all. :p
 
There was no way in the world Carter could have been re-elected, even without the Iran hostage crisis. He was just a bad president. The Democrats should have dropped him from the ticket in '80, even though he was the incumbent. However, the Democratic convention was deadlocked between Carter and Kennedy. Edmund Muskie was considered as a compromise candidate before Kennedy finally bowed out to Carter. Had he not, Muskie might have become the dark horse candidate. Muskie, who was the front runner in the 1972 Democratic primary, was a strong candidate and likely would have done much better against Reagan than Carter. Thus, there is a good chance that Ed Muskie could have been the 40th President of the United States.

Carter wasn't a bad President. He was just the President at a bad time. The economy was tanking, you had stagflation, and a national malaise. Ford himself would have faced the same situation and had the same successes against them as Carter, or perhaps even less. Same for Reagan should he have won in 1976.

Carter actually did a number of things to attempt to alleviate the problems of the day, albeit (and unluckily for him) any success came in the long run when his administration was too much politically damaged to repair, or after he had left. Carter, before Reagan, began deregulation, and gave the rich a tax break. He was also the one who hired Volcker, who is a big reason for the 1980's recovery.

Were the hostage crisis not to have occurred or had the rescue gone off successfully, and had perhaps he seen recovery sooner thanks to Volcker, he could have been reelected I think. It would have been by a hair, but I think it's conceivable. And were he to have been, the 1980's would have seen a recovery regardless thanks to Volcker which would have benefited Carter's legacy.
 

The Vulture

Banned
President Alexander Haig- that's a scary thought.

I think Rumsfeld is a credible alternate president for the 80s, as well. Supposing he is elected in, say, 1984, it'd be interesting to see how US foreign policy develops over the next four years.
 
I'm still not convinced that Carter was a good president, even with the situation he was thrown into. Plus, in my opinion, deregulation, especially of the airline industry, was a bad thing. But I digress...
 
Carter was far too inexperienced, but he emerged from a crowded field of much better-qualified contenders like McGovern did in '72. Dubya, Carter and Obama have had the shortest Presidential CVs, and it shows. Quite visibly.
 
I'm still not convinced that Carter was a good president, even with the situation he was thrown into. Plus, in my opinion, deregulation, especially of the airline industry, was a bad thing. But I digress...
I'm not saying he was a good President (I'm not ga-ga over Carter), but he didn't suck either. He was just faced with natural forces which sucked.

Carter was far too inexperienced, but he emerged from a crowded field of much better-qualified contenders like McGovern did in '72. Dubya, Carter and Obama have had the shortest Presidential CVs, and it shows. Quite visibly.

Lincoln was a member of the House of Representatives for two years in the 1840's and won the Presidency. Franklin Roosevelt had a two year stint in the State Senate, was Governor of New York for three, and his longest service was as Secretary of the Navy for seven years. So the length of governmental service is not necessarily an indicator of what can be achieved or how great a President one can be.

Carter was actually a pretty big workaholic and micromanager. Were it a stabler time, he'd have been an ok President in all likelihood. Does that absolve him of those problems he truly had, no (I think he didn't get along well in his relationship with other governmental offices if I recall correctly) but he wasn't horrendous.
 
Last edited:
Well, if Kennedy runs as the candidate of the Democratic left (one point where I agree with Carter) in '80 instead of on his name and has a better ground game, then he could take the nomination. He'd still lose to Reagan regardless of circumstances IMO.
 
Well, if Kennedy runs as the candidate of the Democratic left (one point where I agree with Carter) in '80 instead of on his name and has a better ground game, then he could take the nomination. He'd still lose to Reagan regardless of circumstances IMO.
He probably would. The problem with party is its a dual edged sword. You achieve unity and a quick umbrella of ideology so you don't have to address every point in a campaign. On the other, people look not just at you but at your party as a whole. If all goes well under a party, others ride the coattails. If things go badly, your party gets readily blamed as a whole, whether you agree with Politician A or Politician B or if you don't. Not to mention campaigning as himself, Reagan offered a readily acceptable star spangled message.
 
There was no way in the world Carter could have been re-elected, even without the Iran hostage crisis. He was just a bad president. The Democrats should have dropped him from the ticket in '80, even though he was the incumbent. However, the Democratic convention was deadlocked between Carter and Kennedy. Edmund Muskie was considered as a compromise candidate before Kennedy finally bowed out to Carter. Had he not, Muskie might have become the dark horse candidate. Muskie, who was the front runner in the 1972 Democratic primary, was a strong candidate and likely would have done much better against Reagan than Carter. Thus, there is a good chance that Ed Muskie could have been the 40th President of the United States.

In 1984, the Democrats would have chosen incumbent Ed Muskie for re-election. However, by '84, Reagan would have been deemed too old to run, opening the Republican nomination to a bevy of candidates. George H.W. Bush, the VP candidate in '80, would have been the front runner in '84, joined by John Connally, Bob Dole, and Howard Baker. Bush probably would have been chosen for the '84 election despite the qualifications of the others. By this time, Muskie was 70 years old, but in good health. He could have easily won re-election.

By 1988, Muskie was 74 years old. After eight years of an elderly president, both parties probably would have turned to younger candidates. Senator Gary Hart was considered the front runner for the Democrats. The 52 year old Senator from Colorado was young, popular, and moderate. Standing against Michael Dukakis, Jesse Jackson, and Al Gore, Hart won the nomination despite a scandal involving Hart's affair with Donna Rice. The Republicans nominated the 56 year old Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense during the Ford administration. Due to the scandal involving Hart, Rumsfeld narrowly won the '88 general election, becoming the 41st President.

How about that, Rumsfeld gets to become president after all. :p

Have to disagree about this. If a Democrats win in 1980, I really don't see how George H.W. Bush is the nominee four years later. Yes, Republicans have a "next in line" tradition, but Bush would have been an eight-years out of office, FAILED vice presidential nominee whose highest office had been CIA Director. And John Connally's presidential hopes were dead after his '80 presidential bid, which was similar to Rudy Giuliani's.
 
Have to disagree about this. If a Democrats win in 1980, I really don't see how George H.W. Bush is the nominee four years later. Yes, Republicans have a "next in line" tradition, but Bush would have been an eight-years out of office, FAILED vice presidential nominee whose highest office had been CIA Director. And John Connally's presidential hopes were dead after his '80 presidential bid, which was similar to Rudy Giuliani's.

You're probably right, but I don't think Dole or Baker could have beaten an incumbent Muskie either. Perhaps had Bush or Connally done anything post-1980 they'd have a shot, but maybe not. Hard to say for sure.
 
Top