Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

I understand the frustration and outrage, but I am proposing that events would change who said outrage goes to.

I agree. However, a key point I am trying to make is that these trends eroded trust *in government* and the intellectual establishment. This and resistance to liberal social trends benefited the political right not the left.

By 1980, the economy would be in even worse straits than IRL because of the Panama Canal getting damaged.

All else equal this might be true, but I am not sure we have enough information to conclude that. There are other factors in play due to butterflies. What is Fed policy like in this TL? As well, there is no Iranian hostage crisis and oil embargo, either. There may not have been a grain embargo against the Soviet Union.

And this people will want change.

Again, I don't disagree. However, at the time Reagan too was viewed as a significant break from the establishment as well.

Reagan becomes prime fodder as his deregulation policies would be framed as more of the Republican’s recent screwups and Ford likely would’ve done similar if not as much extremes as Reagan would. This along with the need for change is what would aid the Democrats.

As I highlighted earlier in the thread, deregulation was not unpopular at this point in history, most were advocating it, including the political left. Otherwise, again, I don't think we disgaree that much, just on the margin of Carey's likely victory.

And by providing aid and reform and actually doing the things that would help out for economic recovery along with things people would want like healthcare reform, that makes the Dems more popular. And thus, they would associate the progressive ideals with economic prosperity and in turn the older austere measures as not working.

Anyone can advocate for policies during an election, Carey obviously won't have the opportunity to implement them until he's POTUS. In the 1950s the majority of the electorate were Democrats and thought fondly of government. This was only after the successes of FDR and Truman, who the public credited for economic recovery form the lows of the depression. To achieve the same, Carey has to first implement popular policies before Americans can associate them with prosperity, assuming he is so lucky.

Like, as the economy heals in the 1980s and the Dems are likely in charge, when people look bad at how dismal the 1970s, what are they gonna remember? Oh yeah, who was in charge of that dismal decade? Oh yeah, the GOP. The conservatives.

I guess I would have to caution against overestimating the attention span of the median voter.
 
I agree. However, a key point I am trying to make is that these trends eroded trust *in government* and the intellectual establishment. This and resistance to liberal social trends benefited the political right not the left.
True, but at the same time, any politician could counter the claim by pointing out the trends caused by who in particular was in charge and perpepuating those trends.
All else equal this might be true, but I am not sure we have enough information to conclude that. There are other factors in play due to butterflies. What is Fed policy like in this TL? As well, there is no Iranian hostage crisis and oil embargo, either. There may not have been a grain embargo against the Soviet Union.
Well, we have to wait for what @KingSweden24 says so on the matter, but I reckon it would not unlike what happened here for a bit.
Again, I don't disagree. However, at the time Reagan too was viewed as a significant break from the establishment as well.

As I highlighted earlier in the thread, deregulation was not unpopular at this point in history, most were advocating it, including the political left. Otherwise, again, I don't think we disgaree that much, just on the margin of Carey's likely victory.
True, but it depends on what though. Some of it was needed, but that doesn't me for other things, especially for newer things.
Anyone can advocate for policies during an election, Carey obviously won't have the opportunity to implement them until he's POTUS. In the 1950s the majority of the electorate were Democrats and thought fondly of government. This was only after the successes of FDR and Truman, who the public credited for economic recovery form the lows of the depression. To achieve the same, Carey has to first implement popular policies before Americans can associate them with prosperity, assuming he is so lucky.

I guess I would have to caution against overestimating the attention span of the median voter.
Fair though I recall how many older folk I ran into kept blaming Carter for the economic issues in the 1970s and not talk as much on Nixon so if things are tough, the memories and the blame of who did what would sink in. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but I figure it could be noteworthy here.
 
Regarding the south- Consider that Reagan was running against a moderate southerner versus a northern liberal in this TL. As well, when arguing how close OTL's southern states voted in 1980, you should also factor in how much of a D to R swing Reagan was able to generate relative to four years earlier.
But here's the thing besides the fact that the circumstances of 84 are much different than here your forgetting about a factor in the south which I think is the most important one which is the way Carter lost in this fic.

He won all the deep south states by comfortable margins with the exception of Mississippi and got the endorsements of every prominent dixiecrat. He was the South’s candidate and in this story won the popular vote but lost because of a shady counts in Wisconsin and Ohio. You don't think that pissed southerners off and opened up old wounds of southern resentment?

To make it worse Reagan held a rally while the count was happening in Ohio for Ford to “hold the counters accountable”. This will be 100% brought up by the democrats to stir up resentment towards Reagan and the republican party in the south. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if throughout Ford’s term George Wallace and other southern democrats in the house &down state ballots have probably been doing their own version of stop the steal/election fraud claims about the 1976 elections to fan old flames lol.

Carter’s endorsement because of the way the election went in 1976 ITTL will hold a TON of weight among southern voters because I really think a lot of them would probably think of Carter as the legitimate president Lmao. His endorsement for sure will get Carey Georgia. Also Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill in 1967 is going to cause him major headache’s.
 
Last edited:
But here's the thing besides the fact that the circumstances of 84

I never mentioned 1984?

He won all the deep south states by comfortable margins with the exception of Mississippi and got the endorsements of every prominent dixiecrat. He was the South’s candidate and in this story won the popular vote but lost because of a shady counts in Wisconsin and Ohio. You don't think that pissed southerners off and opened up old wounds of southern resentment?

Did it piss some southerners off? Yes. Enough to drive them to vote for a New York City liberal in large numbers over a champion of states rights and the moral majority? Colour me skeptical.

To make it worse Reagan held a rally while the count was happening in Ohio for Ford to “hold the counters accountable”. This will be 100% brought up by the democrats to stir up resentment towards Reagan and the republican party in the south. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if throughout Ford’s term George Wallace and other southern democrats in the house &down state ballots have probably been doing their own version of stop the steal/election fraud claims about the 1976 elections to fan old flames lol.

I am not sure this would be as big of a deal as you think. Without straying too much into current politics, election denialism was not an acceptable thing in this era. Carter publicly conceded the race in this TL, and Democratic norms were much stronger than today.

His endorsement for sure will get Carey Georgia. Also Reagan’s signing of the abortion bill in 1967 is going to cause him major headache’s.

You're saying that Georgia, which previously voted for George Wallace, would "for sure" vote for Hugh Carey? I really don't think your level of certainty here is justified. As for Reagan and the abortion bill, I don't see why it would be any more damaging than in OTL. After all, Reagan, is (presumably) running an explicitly pro-life campaign and embracing the religious right (as he did in OTL) in an era when this was not the norm.
 
Did it piss some southerners off? Yes. Enough to drive them to vote for a New York City liberal in large numbers over a champion of states rights and the moral majority? Colour me skeptical.
It’s not about convincing southerners to vote for Carey as much as it is about convincing enough of them to stay home and not vote for Reagan. Which I really don’t think is that implausible considering that most people will know that Reagan isn’t winning it in 1980
I am not sure this would be as big of a deal as you think
It absolutely is a big deal, to this day there are plenty of people that are still sour about the shady 2000 election. Hell, in this story it’s specifically stated that things were incredibly tense during the recount and rally’s/protests were happening And that Ford winning the election in the way it did had an undeniable effect on the perception of his presidency.
I am not sure this would be as big of a deal as you think. Without straying too much into current politics, election denialism was not an acceptable thing in this era. Carter publicly conceded the race in this TL, and Democratic norms were much stronger than today
Electoral denialism wasn’t an acceptable thing before 2020 and yet here we are. And a lot of the main demographic of people that believe in election fraud of 2020 were people that voted for Carter in 1976.

Southern Democrats ran their candidates in 1948 and 1968 with the goal of getting enough electorates to force the election to the house and get concessions on civil rights for their vote. It‘s not that big of a leap imo for southern dems to put out rhetoric stating the 1976 recounts were a screw job considering they specialized in divisive and damaging reactionary rhetoric.
You're saying that Georgia, which previously voted for George Wallace, would "for sure" vote for Hugh Carey? I really don't think your level of certainty here is justified
I think Jimmy Carter’s endorsement would be enough considering that Georgia is his home state and ITTL would be pretty much be as close to politically untouchable as you could get.
After all, Reagan, is (presumably) running an explicitly pro-life campaign and embracing the religious right (as he did in OTL) in an era when this was not the norm.
I mean did he ever have to address it in any of his campaigns in real life? Also ITTL since Carter hasn’t “betrayed” evangelicals so I wouldn’t be surprised if they aren’t going to be as forgiving with Reagan for his abortion hypocrisies especially when the Evangelical golden boy in Carter is going after him for it. I also doubt if the top evangelical figures are really going to invest in a Reagan campaign they know his going to lose barring a miracle.
 
Last edited:
It’s not about convincing southerners to vote for Carey as much as it is about convincing enough of them to stay home and not vote for Reagan. Which I really don’t think is that implausible considering that most people will know that Reagan isn’t winning it in 1980
Perhaps, I think we may disagree on the extent to which race and social issues motivate voters in the deep south.

It absolutely is a big deal, to this day there are plenty of people that are still sour about the shady 2000 election. Hell, in this story it’s specifically stated that things were incredibly tense during the recount and rally’s/protests were happening And that Ford winning the election in the way it did had an undeniable effect on the perception of his presidency.

Electoral denialism wasn’t an acceptable thing before 2020 and yet here we are. And a lot of the main demographic of people that believe in election fraud of 2020 were people that voted for Carter in 1976.

The 1970s was a completely different era from the last 20 or so years, with far less polarization and ideological sorting than the twenty-first century. I think it's a major mistake to view the past through the lens of the present political environment. There may be plenty of people who were upset after 2000, but it was certainly not the norm for Democratic party leaders to claim the election was stolen. The taboos against this would have been stronger in the 1970s particularly after Carter vocally and publicly conceded the race.

I think Jimmy Carter’s endorsement would be enough considering that Georgia is his home state and ITTL would be pretty much be as close to politically untouchable as you could get.

I think you overestimate the value of the endorsement. Carter is a Democrat so of course he endorses the Democratic candidate.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, I think we may disagree on the extent to which race and social issues motivate voters in the deep south.
There’s a reason that prominent Dixiecrats in the late 70s started to moderate their views. James Eastland tried to get an endorsement from the NAACP and when he couldn’t decided not to seek re-election because Charles Evers was going to take away too much of the black vote. George Wallace famously during the late 70s and early 90s tried to rehabilitate his image and make amends with black people (genuine or not). John Stennis voted for the voting rights act expansion of 1982. John Sparkman’s successor openly supported affirmative action. I don’t disagree that race doesn’t play a big role in Deep South politics but the idea that it means Reagan is guaranteed to lock all of the deep south states.
The 1970s was a completely different era from the last 20 or so years, with far less polarization and ideological sorting than the twenty-first century. I think it's a major mistake to view the past through the lens of the present political environment
You think there isn’t political polarization when the candidate that won the popular vote lost the election because of a shady recount?
but it was certainly not the norm for Democratic party leaders to claim the election was stolen
southern democrats and especially Wallace don’t operate within Democratic Party “norms”. And again it wasn’t a norm for either party to deny election results before 2020 yet here we are
think you overestimate the value of the endorsement. Carter is a Democrat so of course he endorses the Democratic candidate
Carter isn’t just some democrat ITTL. He was the democratic presidential nominee that won the popular vote and lost on very shady circumstances. There are plenty of people ITTL that think he should be the president, This is magnified x2 given the state of the economy.

Don’t get me wrong this story probably isn't going to have southern dems question the election because if it did it would have been addressed. But it's hard for me to believe that southern voters and politicians would just be ok with the fact that THEIR guy who they backed in full force won the popular vote and lost the election in a shady way. It defies everything we know about how southern dems operate. There's no way they wouldn't use the way the election went in 1976 to their advantage to some old flames of resentment towards the republican party. I definitely don't think Carey could/would sweep the deep south but i definitely could see him winning a state or two
 
Last edited:
The 11th Five Year Plan
The 11th Five Year Plan

Yuri Andropov in August of 1980 was a man riding high; as the beginning of his third year in power quickly approached, he had consolidated his power over the machinery of the state, become associated publicly and within the CPSU as the face and instigator of a vast anti-corruption purge meant to "revitalize the Socialist system," and now had overseen a very successful Moscow Olympics in which Soviet athletes had won the total medal count, even though the United States (narrowly) earned the most golds.

Andropov decided to follow up the good feelings generated by the Olympics by outlining the third and final "arrow" in his reform plans, building out from his anti-corruption campaign and promotion of reformist officials to add now economic reforms inspired by the more consumer goods oriented, market developmentalist approach of the Hungarian economy which had given the Magyars the highest standard of living in the Eastern Bloc. During his presentation to the Presidium of the 11th Five Year Plan, Andropov described the targets in consumer goods production that the USSR would aim to hit, the revitalization of its grain industry to reduce reliance on foreign imports (particularly from the United States), and a program to use its gas and other natural resource production surpluses to finance new technologies, particularly in the field of "rationalized computer sciences," with it broadly understood to young risers like Legachev and Gorbachev that the concept was pointed at economic management to take things out of the hands of corrupt officials.

Historians have in many ways overstated how much of a departure the 11th Plan really was; the 9th and 10th Plans, devised under Brezhnev, had already begun to encourage consumer goods production. Much of the ideas Andropov incorporated into his regeneration program had been developed by Kosygin, nobody's idea of a young, starry-eyed reformer. [1] And for all the talk of the "Olympic spirit" underpinning "Goulash in the Kremlin" and a potential new time of openness and moderation from Moscow, Andropov remained the KGB spymaster he'd always been, seen most definitively in his hard-line against the Polish trade union movement that sprung to life concurrently with his introduction of the 11th Plan in August of 1980, a line that made it an open question on the other side of the Iron Curtain whether or not Andropov was in 1980 or '81 give Warsaw the Budapest '56 or Prague '68 treatment. Still, it was an important first step towards a more flexible, decentralized, and transparent Soviet economy to separate from the stagnation that had defined it for years, and the disciples of the early 1980s Andropov Reforms would by the middle of the decade dominate all levers of the Soviet government once Andropov himself was gone... [2]

[1] So basically, the Andropov Reforms are a mix of Goulash Communism and the 1979 reform program advocated by Kosygin before his death, and the latter not being a total failure. Not quite Dengism, but a far cry from the chaos of perestroika
[2] Andropov will live longer than IOTL without that random cold bench kidney failure incident, but not that much longer. The health of the Soviet gerontocracy was not great across the board, after all
 
Fascinating. Interested to see just how well the Soviets can pull off the segue towards a more market-friendly system. I suspect it will be much easier said than done, especially if OPEC runs into the same problems it did in OTLs 1980s.
Definitely. Still a lot of flaws inherent in the way the Soviets ran their economy that Andropov alone can't just handwave
 
I wonder how the Soviet economy would be like in the late 80’s and early 90’s . Especially without Regan forcing them into what boiled down to a dick measuring competition.
 
I wonder how the Soviet economy would be like in the late 80’s and early 90’s . Especially without Regan forcing them into what boiled down to a dick measuring competition.
There were a lot of things broken with the Soviet economy even before Reagan. I think the defense spending hike in the US gets a little too much credit for helping bring down the USSR and it was just a piece of a much bigger puzzle. That’s just my view of course
 
Yeah, the whole thing was a mess. That said, if supplyside economics was killed in the crib or not get up, then Gorbachev wouldnt have been influenced by it and likely gone with a more sensible economic policy, probably based on NEP. Would help a lot
 
Top