Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

Al D’Amato is pretty much guaranteed to lose. He barely won in a conservative year and 1980 ITTL certainly is far from favorable for him.

I wonder what lee atwater is up to
The question is not so much if D’Amato wins, it’s if Holtzmann is the successful Dem nominee with what’s likely a busier primary

Atwater as IoTL was on team Connally.(recommended by Thurmond, who mobilized his network for him) and after that i imagine he’d be a field operative in the south after Reagan nabbed the nom. So definitely not in a position of importance quite as quickly
 
The true goners of the Senate are McGovern (sad!) and Gravel; the ground had shifted a lot wrt how conservative their states trended in between the '74 elections where they were reelected and the 1980 election cycle; this is also where the New Right started really gunning aggressively for Dem scalps in vulnerable grounds (seeing their manifestos is a scary sight...). Gravel IOTL didn't even win renomination; here he may do so, but he's doomed either way.

Bayh is vulnerable; Quayle in many ways was an iffy opponent even back then, so the election seemed a bit close. Dick Lugar gave Bayh a run for his money in '74, which was a very Dem-favorable cycle, and Indiana was always the most Republican Midwest state, where Lugar beat Vance Hartke in a presidential year. I'd think Otis Bowen, as someone said before, is capable of knocking Bayh off his seat; Bayh would probably be in a Dem Cabinet if he's beat, anyways.

Other than that, maybe only John Culver and Warren Magnuson are vulnerable (Culver due to Chuck Grassley was a tough opponent, Magnuson because IOTL his margin of defeat was rather steep), maybe Denton scraps by in Alabama if the Dem ticket is not particularly strong there. Many of the defeats were due to Carter completely, utterly dragging down the Congress Dems with him to the very end (story goes that many Dems didn't show up to vote in the Western USA once Carter quickly accepted and announced his defeat). Frank Church will be there for another term, Goldwater is screwed (blessed TL), Pennsylvania has Flaherty win (recalling that Specter won the gubernatorial election in '78), New York has Holtzman or whoever wins the Dem primary, it's gonna be an extremely Dem dominated Senate for the first two years.
 
Other than that, maybe only John Culver and Warren Magnuson are vulnerable (Culver due to Chuck Grassley was a tough opponent, Magnuson because IOTL his margin of defeat was rather steep)...
OK, but do we actually have a reason for why Magnuson's defeat was so steep OTL, other than Carter's poisoned coattails? I mean this guy was the most senior Democrat in the Senate, and nationally at least, he seems to have had a good reputation -- is there any reason he'd be vulnerable or doomed with a completely different 1980?

On the Senate composition as a whole -- given how much @KingSweden24 has already wanked the Democrats in 78, I'm going to guess that TTL is likely to see a filibuster proof majority for at least a few years (certainly past 82), meaning the next Democratic President will be in a position to really get stuff done, assuming he plays his cards right.
 
Last edited:
OK, but do we actually have a reason for why Magnuson's defeat was so steep OTL, other than Carter's poisoned coattails? I mean this guy was the most senior Democrat in the Senate, and nationally at least, he seems to have had a good reputation -- is there any reason he'd be vulnerable or doomed with a completely different 1980?
Iirc, the reason the press assumed was because he was outdated and out of touch with his state, but I do suspect the most pressing reason was Magnuson being dragged down by the anti-coattails of Carter, and also the bitter primary of the governor race between Dixy Lee Ray and Jim McDermott weakening the party overall; Dixy hated Senator Maggie. One is reminded that John Spellman did end up winning the governorship alongside Slade Gorton winning the Senate seat; I think the local factors strengthened the GOP quite a bit in that particular year, but I'm no expert so a native Washingtonian could probably answer better.

Here's a neat little article I found:
You may need to bypass a paywall, though. Magnuson was also rather old, and that appearance took its toll on his campaign.
 
The true goners of the Senate are McGovern (sad!) and Gravel; the ground had shifted a lot wrt how conservative their states trended in between the '74 elections where they were reelected and the 1980 election cycle; this is also where the New Right started really gunning aggressively for Dem scalps in vulnerable grounds (seeing their manifestos is a scary sight...). Gravel IOTL didn't even win renomination; here he may do so, but he's doomed either way.

Bayh is vulnerable; Quayle in many ways was an iffy opponent even back then, so the election seemed a bit close. Dick Lugar gave Bayh a run for his money in '74, which was a very Dem-favorable cycle, and Indiana was always the most Republican Midwest state, where Lugar beat Vance Hartke in a presidential year. I'd think Otis Bowen, as someone said before, is capable of knocking Bayh off his seat; Bayh would probably be in a Dem Cabinet if he's beat, anyways.

Other than that, maybe only John Culver and Warren Magnuson are vulnerable (Culver due to Chuck Grassley was a tough opponent, Magnuson because IOTL his margin of defeat was rather steep), maybe Denton scraps by in Alabama if the Dem ticket is not particularly strong there. Many of the defeats were due to Carter completely, utterly dragging down the Congress Dems with him to the very end (story goes that many Dems didn't show up to vote in the Western USA once Carter quickly accepted and announced his defeat). Frank Church will be there for another term, Goldwater is screwed (blessed TL), Pennsylvania has Flaherty win (recalling that Specter won the gubernatorial election in '78), New York has Holtzman or whoever wins the Dem primary, it's gonna be an extremely Dem dominated Senate for the first two years.
OK, but do we actually have a reason for why Magnuson's defeat was so steep OTL, other than Carter's poisoned coattails? I mean this guy was the most senior Democrat in the Senate, and nationally at least, he seems to have had a good reputation -- is there any reason he'd be vulnerable or doomed with a completely different 1980?

On the Senate composition as a whole -- given how much @KingSweden24 has already wanked the Democrats in 78, I'm going to guess that TTL is likely to see a filibuster proof majority for at least a few years (certainly past 82), meaning the next Democratic President will be in a position to really get stuff done, assuming he plays his cards right.
Iirc, the reason the press assumed was because he was outdated and out of touch with his state, but I do suspect the most pressing reason was Magnuson being dragged down by the anti-coattails of Carter, and also the bitter primary of the governor race between Dixy Lee Ray and Jim McDermott weakening the party overall; Dixy hated Senator Maggie. One is reminded that John Spellman did end up winning the governorship alongside Slade Gorton winning the Senate seat; I think the local factors strengthened the GOP quite a bit in that particular year, but I'm no expert so a native Washingtonian could probably answer better.

Here's a neat little article I found:
You may need to bypass a paywall, though. Magnuson was also rather old, and that appearance took its toll on his campaign.
The consensus view among many historians is also that Magnuson, Church and on offense Kulongoski were all harmed by Carter’s very early concession and turnout collapsed out West as a result.

Indiana and then Oklahoma are the only two races left im indecisive about. In both, the incumbent very nearly lost in 1974, and the margin was favorable but not overwhelming in favor of the Republican in 1980. Nickles was not a great candidate and won his primary thanks to two oil millionaires destroying each other; whether he’d run without a Carter admin, and the still-strong OK Dems getting a better recruit with this environment (Glenn English, perhaps) is a possibility.

As for Indiana, Bowen seems like he was a terrific governor but would he have wanted to be a Senator with the likelihood high of being deep in the minority of a Dem trifecta? Bayh was probably too liberal for his state but in a 1980 where the GOP brand is toxic I could see it being a last hurrah. Either way the total Dem upside is a net of one or two more seats max, IMO
 
The consensus view among many historians is also that Magnuson, Church and on offense Kulongoski were all harmed by Carter’s very early concession and turnout collapsed out West as a result.

Indiana and then Oklahoma are the only two races left im indecisive about. In both, the incumbent very nearly lost in 1974, and the margin was favorable but not overwhelming in favor of the Republican in 1980. Nickles was not a great candidate and won his primary thanks to two oil millionaires destroying each other; whether he’d run without a Carter admin, and the still-strong OK Dems getting a better recruit with this environment (Glenn English, perhaps) is a possibility.

As for Indiana, Bowen seems like he was a terrific governor but would he have wanted to be a Senator with the likelihood high of being deep in the minority of a Dem trifecta? Bayh was probably too liberal for his state but in a 1980 where the GOP brand is toxic I could see it being a last hurrah. Either way the total Dem upside is a net of one or two more seats max, IMO
A republican 76 scenario especially one that goes badly is basically a glitch in the system. The country made it clear in the 1970s it wants to go to the right but in this scenario it has to basically give the dems the opportunity to govern with a mandate because things have been bad with republicans. 1981-1982 is an interesting year because it will be a year where the government is a lot more liberal than it's constituents
 
A republican 76 scenario especially one that goes badly is basically a glitch in the system. The country made it clear in the 1970s it wants to go to the right but in this scenario it has to basically give the dems the opportunity to govern with a mandate because things have been bad with republicans. 1981-1982 is an interesting year because it will be a year where the government is a lot more liberal than it's constituents
Definitely - though, that being said, politics and culture are intertwined. A general sense of conservative failure in the 70s makes the right less attractive/able to make its case. It’s hard to advocate for a change to the New Deal/postwar settlement when you’ve been in charge for 12 increasingly rough years.
 
1980 Democratic National Convention
1980 Democratic National Convention
For Hugh Carey, the 1980 Democratic National Convention was about as close to a coronation as one could get after a collegial though still actively contested primary that had lasted late into spring. It was being held at Madison Square Garden in New York City, his hometown and the beating heart of the American economy in the state of which he was the second-term governor; key speakers included both former mayor Abe Beame and the incumbent (and close Carey ally) Mario Cuomo, both of whom spoke on the opening night to emphasize the theme of Carey being "the man who saved New York" and that he would carry the same energy and vigor to restore America next. The keynote speaker on the next night was Geraldine Ferraro, a first-term Congresswoman from Queens, who officially read out that Carey had been nominated as the next Democratic candidate for President and then gave a star-making address that immediately made her a name to watch in the House moving forward. Ted Kennedy gave a famed address where he hearkened back to the legacy of his slain brothers and famously declared, "The dream shall never die!" - though Carey was about as far from a Kennedyesque figure as there was, drawing a connection from the last Irish Catholic President to the man who was likely the next one was meant to cast Carey as the next natural step in the evolution of the New Deal coalition over the past fifty years.

The speeches were the sideshow to speculation about the Veepstakes, however, with it being understood that Carey would announce his running mate during the convention, as was practice. The delegates in theory were in charge of such decisions but it was unlikely they would foist somebody upon Carey whom he did not want. The debates inside both the DNC as well as the Carey camp were lively and went in two directions. The first was that, with the Republicans badly unpopular after twelve deteriorating years in the White House, Governor Ronald Reagan badly lagging in the polls (and with the Republicans holding their convention in mid-August, after the Moscow Olympics had ended) [1] and Carey having enjoyed broad support across the party without an acrimonious primary, it was time to "go bold," as his speechwriter Bob Shrum [2] and pollster Pat Caddell (who had he snagged from the successful 1976 Carter primary campaign) suggested. To them, this meant picking a candidate who would invigorate the left wing of the party that while tolerant of Carey as a vessel to defeat the GOP after being locked out of power for twelve years could use a jolt of "excitement" that would show commitment to truly transformative policy that was what it would take to shake America out of its decade-long malaise of stagflation - the Second New Deal's chief prophet, in other words, a bridge between the Old Left and the New. Caddell was intrigued by the idea of either Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Jordan as genuine out-of-the-box choices of placing not just a woman but a Black woman on a national ticket, while Shrum for his part was a bit more muted, instead suggesting a Midwestern progressive like Wisconsin's Bill Proxmire, Iowa's John Culver or Minnesota's Warren Spannaus (it was broadly accepted that Mondale did not want to reappear on a Presidential ticket again).

Carey's "Brooklyn Boys," so named for being his New York-based brain trust of consultants and political allies, saw things differently, and were able to leverage their personal relationship with the Governor and his own biases about the best course of action to take to turn the campaign's eyes south. The success of the GOP in breaking through in the South beginning in the 1960s was a threat to the national dominance of the Democratic Party, and though Carter had nearly swept the Old Confederacy save suburbanized Virginia [3] that had been on his own strength as a good old boy peanut farmer from Georgia. A gruff Irish New Yorker would have a very different appeal and it seemed plain that despite Reagan not carrying a single Southern state in the GOP primaries, that it was the most fertile ground for him to go on offensive with the GOP on their back heels elsewhere. Go bold, or be smart - that was the way Carey ally Congressman Mario Biaggi later termed the debate. Being smart meant putting a Southerner on the ticket for geographic balance and to not abandon the region to the Republicans, with Reagan regarded as highly likely to name a Southern running mate himself. The debate then curiously turned into a bunch of very distinctly New York men and women arguing over who the best Southern Veep would be.

Carey's personal choice won out. It was thought that Cuomo or his son Andrew, a key campaign staffer for Carey, were the biggest partisans in favor of the runner-up from the primaries, Florida Governor Reuben O. Askew, but it turns out that Carey himself was Askew's biggest admirer. "If I hadn't run, I'd have voted for the guy!" Carey chuckled in a documentary of the 1980 campaign released in 1990; the upsides seemed obvious. Askew's political bonafides on their own were impeccable, having cleaned up the South's most notoriously corrupt but fastest-growing state, swept the South in the primaries, and managing to balance the needs of a polity that was simultaneously liberal, moderate and conservative on different issues all at once. Askew gave Carey a foot not just in the Northeast and Midwest, where his style seemed likely to excel, but in the booming Sunbelt and together he and Askew formed a ticket that had won a hyper-majority of Democratic primary votes - a tangible partnership of two very different personality types but whom had both succeeded in appealing to actual primary voters, not hypothetical ones waiting to be inspired by a bolder choice. A few other names were bandied about - Biaggi was a big supporter of Texas's Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Abrams pushed hard for Kentucky's Walt Huddleston - but it was Askew who Carey had grown to like and respect during the campaign and Askew who was seen as bringing the most upside. Carey called Askew, who earlier in the convention had given an enthusiastic speech encouraging his delegates to vote for Carey, to let him know he was the choice.

Carey's acceptance speech emphasized the key themes of his campaign - national renewal in tackling the problems of inflation and wage stagnation through infrastructure spending, employment programs and other Keynesian injections - with a key phrase: "Fifty years ago, the Republicans ran the American economy into the ground behind an ideology of greed, of laziness, and of corruption, and fifty years ago it took a Governor of New York who had helped fix his home state to know how to fix the country and make it whole again. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, perhaps one of if not the greatest Presidents we have ever had. Now, fifty years later, what do you know? They've gone and done it again! And so fifty years later, just like then, a New York Governor is gonna go to Washington to roll up his sleeves to fix it!"

There was absolutely no doubt what Carey was promising something more akin to Humphrey in '68 than the last two cycles - a full-throated defense of the New Deal and an excoriation of a GOP that shifted away from it. This was the Brooklyn Boxer coming out swinging, not with vague paeans to personal integrity like Carter or dazzling the young Left like McGovern. A line had been drawn in the sand - and a month later, in August, the Republicans would have their chance to give their own answer...

[1] The inverse of the order of OTL's 1980 conventions
[2] Who still writes Kennedy's speech for him
[3] NoVA and Greater Richmond were once Republican bastions
 
Hey its back! Good update.

Refresh my memory please - is the USA boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics here? And if so, is the USSR boycotting 1984's games if they are still held in Los Angeles ITTL?
 
Hey its back! Good update.

Refresh my memory please - is the USA boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics here? And if so, is the USSR boycotting 1984's games if they are still held in Los Angeles ITTL?
No Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, partially due to shifting of US interest from Afghanistan which is still Marxist to Iran, which still hasn't fallen to the Religious.
 
Hey its back! Good update.

Refresh my memory please - is the USA boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics here? And if so, is the USSR boycotting 1984's games if they are still held in Los Angeles ITTL?
No Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, partially due to shifting of US interest from Afghanistan which is still Marxist to Iran, which still hasn't fallen to the Religious.
@naraht has it correct - since the USSR didn’t invade a slightly-more stable Afghanistan after Brezhnev died the Moscow Olympics are much less controversial
 
Nice update! Three questions though '
  1. Taking place in New York City and with speeches by Abe Beam and Cuomo, do the Democrats really want a convention that heavily dominated by New Yorkers? Or is this a genuine play to win over ethnic white working/middle class voters in the Northeast and Midwest?
  2. Carey Askew is an intriguing pick, however neither on the ticket have much Foreign Policy experience, the first all Governor ticket since 1948. During the Cold War, with the preeminence of Foreign Policy as an issue, Senators had a big leg up for nominations (both Top and Bottom of the ticket). It is why people like Sargent Shriver and George H.W. Bush were nominated despite limited electoral experience. Considering this having two Governors could be seen as a liability, and the pressure to pick a Southern Democrat (Ideally one with Foreign Policy or Defence experience) would be significant. There is also a historical reason for this pressure, in that the Military Industrial complex was a big reason Southern Democrats stayed with the New Deal for so long, all those plum committee posts allowed them to shovel defence funds to their states and appeal to their constituents in states with higher rates of service than non southern states.
  3. What about the 45th President and his Family? What role are they playing in this story? I know this is a justifiable taboo subject and in timelines like this it is often crass to bring up future significant people, but the Trump's were described at the time as connected to the Brooklyn machine of Governor Hugh Carey of New York.
 
Last edited:
Nice update! Three questions though '
  1. Taking place in New York City and with speeches by Abe Beam and Cuomo, do the Democrats really want a convention that heavily dominated by New Yorkers? Or is this a genuine play to win over ethnic white working/middle class voters in the Northeast and Midwest?
  2. Carey Askew is an intriguing pick, however neither on the ticket have much Foreign Policy experience, the first all Governor ticket since 1948. During the Cold War, with the preeminence of Foreign Policy as an issue, Senators had a big leg up for nominations (both Top and Bottom of the ticket). It is why people like Sargent Shriver and George H.W. Bush were nominated despite limited electoral experience. Considering this having two Governors could be seen as a liability, and the pressure to pick a Southern Democrat (Ideally one with Foreign Policy or Defence experience) would be significant. There is also a historical reason for this pressure, in that the Military Industrial complex was a big reason Southern Democrats stayed with the New Deal for so long, all those plum committee posts allowed them to shovel defence funds to their states and appeal to their constituents in states with higher rates of service than non southern states.
  3. What about the 45th President and his Family? What role are they playing in this story? I know this is a justifiable taboo subject and in timelines like this it is often crass to bring up future significant people, but the Trump's were described at the time as connected to the Brooklyn machine of Governor Hugh Carey of New York.
1. This was my concern as well. I assume they would have a more diverse slate, particularly some Midwesterners given that Carter's failure in that region is what caused his loss. For this reason, I question why the convention would have been in NYC to begin with. I would have guessed it would have been in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan or Illinois. Maybe Cincinatti? It's in a critical MW state but also right across the river from another target- Kentucky.
2. In his defense, Carey was in the house from 1961-74, and was one of the first Congressmen to publicly oppose the war in Vietnam (which I could see him using as a retort). In addition, he could respond to Reagan's attacks on this front by noting his opponents hawkish history in this regard.

Notably, Carey will be the first nominee in a long-time to be unmarried. In OTL's 1980 he was a widow, his wife having died in 1974 (his son was also killed in a car accident in 1969).

I can also see Reagan making a racially-charged gaffe referencing the increasing ethnic diversity of Hugh Carey's former house district.
 
1980 Democratic National Convention
For Hugh Carey, the 1980 Democratic National Convention was about as close to a coronation as one could get after a collegial though still actively contested primary that had lasted late into spring. It was being held at Madison Square Garden in New York City, his hometown and the beating heart of the American economy in the state of which he was the second-term governor; key speakers included both former mayor Abe Beame and the incumbent (and close Carey ally) Mario Cuomo, both of whom spoke on the opening night to emphasize the theme of Carey being "the man who saved New York" and that he would carry the same energy and vigor to restore America next. The keynote speaker on the next night was Geraldine Ferraro, a first-term Congresswoman from Queens, who officially read out that Carey had been nominated as the next Democratic candidate for President and then gave a star-making address that immediately made her a name to watch in the House moving forward. Ted Kennedy gave a famed address where he hearkened back to the legacy of his slain brothers and famously declared, "The dream shall never die!" - though Carey was about as far from a Kennedyesque figure as there was, drawing a connection from the last Irish Catholic President to the man who was likely the next one was meant to cast Carey as the next natural step in the evolution of the New Deal coalition over the past fifty years.

The speeches were the sideshow to speculation about the Veepstakes, however, with it being understood that Carey would announce his running mate during the convention, as was practice. The delegates in theory were in charge of such decisions but it was unlikely they would foist somebody upon Carey whom he did not want. The debates inside both the DNC as well as the Carey camp were lively and went in two directions. The first was that, with the Republicans badly unpopular after twelve deteriorating years in the White House, Governor Ronald Reagan badly lagging in the polls (and with the Republicans holding their convention in mid-August, after the Moscow Olympics had ended) [1] and Carey having enjoyed broad support across the party without an acrimonious primary, it was time to "go bold," as his speechwriter Bob Shrum [2] and pollster Pat Caddell (who had he snagged from the successful 1976 Carter primary campaign) suggested. To them, this meant picking a candidate who would invigorate the left wing of the party that while tolerant of Carey as a vessel to defeat the GOP after being locked out of power for twelve years could use a jolt of "excitement" that would show commitment to truly transformative policy that was what it would take to shake America out of its decade-long malaise of stagflation - the Second New Deal's chief prophet, in other words, a bridge between the Old Left and the New. Caddell was intrigued by the idea of either Shirley Chisholm or Barbara Jordan as genuine out-of-the-box choices of placing not just a woman but a Black woman on a national ticket, while Shrum for his part was a bit more muted, instead suggesting a Midwestern progressive like Wisconsin's Bill Proxmire, Iowa's John Culver or Minnesota's Warren Spannaus (it was broadly accepted that Mondale did not want to reappear on a Presidential ticket again).

Carey's "Brooklyn Boys," so named for being his New York-based brain trust of consultants and political allies, saw things differently, and were able to leverage their personal relationship with the Governor and his own biases about the best course of action to take to turn the campaign's eyes south. The success of the GOP in breaking through in the South beginning in the 1960s was a threat to the national dominance of the Democratic Party, and though Carter had nearly swept the Old Confederacy save suburbanized Virginia [3] that had been on his own strength as a good old boy peanut farmer from Georgia. A gruff Irish New Yorker would have a very different appeal and it seemed plain that despite Reagan not carrying a single Southern state in the GOP primaries, that it was the most fertile ground for him to go on offensive with the GOP on their back heels elsewhere. Go bold, or be smart - that was the way Carey ally Congressman Mario Biaggi later termed the debate. Being smart meant putting a Southerner on the ticket for geographic balance and to not abandon the region to the Republicans, with Reagan regarded as highly likely to name a Southern running mate himself. The debate then curiously turned into a bunch of very distinctly New York men and women arguing over who the best Southern Veep would be.

Carey's personal choice won out. It was thought that Cuomo or his son Andrew, a key campaign staffer for Carey, were the biggest partisans in favor of the runner-up from the primaries, Florida Governor Reuben O. Askew, but it turns out that Carey himself was Askew's biggest admirer. "If I hadn't run, I'd have voted for the guy!" Carey chuckled in a documentary of the 1980 campaign released in 1990; the upsides seemed obvious. Askew's political bonafides on their own were impeccable, having cleaned up the South's most notoriously corrupt but fastest-growing state, swept the South in the primaries, and managing to balance the needs of a polity that was simultaneously liberal, moderate and conservative on different issues all at once. Askew gave Carey a foot not just in the Northeast and Midwest, where his style seemed likely to excel, but in the booming Sunbelt and together he and Askew formed a ticket that had won a hyper-majority of Democratic primary votes - a tangible partnership of two very different personality types but whom had both succeeded in appealing to actual primary voters, not hypothetical ones waiting to be inspired by a bolder choice. A few other names were bandied about - Biaggi was a big supporter of Texas's Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Abrams pushed hard for Kentucky's Walt Huddleston - but it was Askew who Carey had grown to like and respect during the campaign and Askew who was seen as bringing the most upside. Carey called Askew, who earlier in the convention had given an enthusiastic speech encouraging his delegates to vote for Carey, to let him know he was the choice.

Carey's acceptance speech emphasized the key themes of his campaign - national renewal in tackling the problems of inflation and wage stagnation through infrastructure spending, employment programs and other Keynesian injections - with a key phrase: "Fifty years ago, the Republicans ran the American economy into the ground behind an ideology of greed, of laziness, and of corruption, and fifty years ago it took a Governor of New York who had helped fix his home state to know how to fix the country and make it whole again. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, perhaps one of if not the greatest Presidents we have ever had. Now, fifty years later, what do you know? They've gone and done it again! And so fifty years later, just like then, a New York Governor is gonna go to Washington to roll up his sleeves to fix it!"

There was absolutely no doubt what Carey was promising something more akin to Humphrey in '68 than the last two cycles - a full-throated defense of the New Deal and an excoriation of a GOP that shifted away from it. This was the Brooklyn Boxer coming out swinging, not with vague paeans to personal integrity like Carter or dazzling the young Left like McGovern. A line had been drawn in the sand - and a month later, in August, the Republicans would have their chance to give their own answer...

[1] The inverse of the order of OTL's 1980 conventions
[2] Who still writes Kennedy's speech for him
[3] NoVA and Greater Richmond were once Republican bastions
Woo-hoo! I predicted a Carey-Askew ticket!
 
(Deleting first 3 responses as being too close to current politics)
In regard to 45Pres, the "obvious" answer would be HUD, but the problem there is that we haven't seen anything iTTL indicating that Education was split out from HEW during Ford's Second Term.

But unless things have changed *Greatly* for Donald, he just isn't a major enough player to get anything significant. iOTL, the opening of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in 1980 brought him to the notice of the average New Yorker, as far as I can tell.
 
(Deleting first 3 responses as being too close to current politics)
In regard to 45Pres, the "obvious" answer would be HUD, but the problem there is that we haven't seen anything iTTL indicating that Education was split out from HEW during Ford's Second Term.

But unless things have changed *Greatly* for Donald, he just isn't a major enough player to get anything significant. iOTL, the opening of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in 1980 brought him to the notice of the average New Yorker, as far as I can tell.
I’ll address The Donald first - I do have something planned for him a bit down the line, still politically related but a bit of a different dynamic than OTL…

(And, as was pointed out, his family did have connections to Carey and that’ll help him a bit in the rough and tumble world of New York)
Woo-hoo! I predicted a Carey-Askew ticket!
Congrats!
Nice update! Three questions though '
  1. Taking place in New York City and with speeches by Abe Beam and Cuomo, do the Democrats really want a convention that heavily dominated by New Yorkers? Or is this a genuine play to win over ethnic white working/middle class voters in the Northeast and Midwest?
  2. Carey Askew is an intriguing pick, however neither on the ticket have much Foreign Policy experience, the first all Governor ticket since 1948. During the Cold War, with the preeminence of Foreign Policy as an issue, Senators had a big leg up for nominations (both Top and Bottom of the ticket). It is why people like Sargent Shriver and George H.W. Bush were nominated despite limited electoral experience. Considering this having two Governors could be seen as a liability, and the pressure to pick a Southern Democrat (Ideally one with Foreign Policy or Defence experience) would be significant. There is also a historical reason for this pressure, in that the Military Industrial complex was a big reason Southern Democrats stayed with the New Deal for so long, all those plum committee posts allowed them to shovel defence funds to their states and appeal to their constituents in states with higher rates of service than non southern states.
  3. What about the 45th President and his Family? What role are they playing in this story? I know this is a justifiable taboo subject and in timelines like this it is often crass to bring up future significant people, but the Trump's were described at the time as connected to the Brooklyn machine of Governor Hugh Carey of New York.
1. This was my concern as well. I assume they would have a more diverse slate, particularly some Midwesterners given that Carter's failure in that region is what caused his loss. For this reason, I question why the convention would have been in NYC to begin with. I would have guessed it would have been in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan or Illinois. Maybe Cincinatti? It's in a critical MW state but also right across the river from another target- Kentucky.
2. In his defense, Carey was in the house from 1961-74, and was one of the first Congressmen to publicly oppose the war in Vietnam (which I could see him using as a retort). In addition, he could respond to Reagan's attacks on this front by noting his opponents hawkish history in this regard.

Notably, Carey will be the first nominee in a long-time to be unmarried. In OTL's 1980 he was a widow, his wife having died in 1974 (his son was also killed in a car accident in 1969).

I can also see Reagan making a racially-charged gaffe referencing the increasing ethnic diversity of Hugh Carey's former house district.
1. So mea culpa here I decided to just use OTL’s 1980 convention sites (the GOP going to Detroit with an outgoing President Ford makes perfect sense anyways). Beame/Cuomo are certainly not the whole show, at all, but Carey is leaning *hard* into his white ethnic base for a reason.
2. This is a fair point. Carey does have a bit of FoPo experience, of course, but also Askew is from a pretty military-heavy state himself - NAS Pensacola, McDill, Kings Bay, etc, just to name a few, plus Cape Canaveral and proximity to Cuba and Latin America. He’d be pretty well-versed in issues that affect that sphere. Besides personal affinity, Carey is trying also to recast New Dealism as “outsider” and “populist” measures by having two Governors run against a corrupt DC GOP. That’s the strategy, at least.

(Also I’d imagine it’s an open secret within Dem circles at this point that Scoop Jackson will get his pick of Foggy Bottom or the Pentagon for dropping out and endorsing Carey after Iowa)

As for Carey being a widower… that’s going to become VERY important
 
Great update. Carey/ Askew is a pretty good ticket. I like Carey bringing the ideas of the New Deal back without any neoliberalism changes. The Democrats go into this election strong and united unlike the GOP after 12 years in power. Good job 👍
 
Top