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.
Also, I'd like to aviod POD's from before 1979.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Possible given the right circumstance, but it may be somewhat difficult. I believe in every shot at the Presidential Nomination Glenn tried to win, he lost badly, and much to his financial trouble.What about John Glenn?
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.![]()
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.