Bicentennial Man: Ford '76 and Beyond

With superminorities in both houses of Congress as well as state governorships (and, I’d presume, legislatures, but I’m not doing that math haha) there’s only so much the GOP can do. The conservatives Kennedy has to negotiate with are southerners like Eastland et al, who can often be gettable with enough bri- errrr pork
I think with Mississippi and Alabama probably getting a good amount of federal aid because of their high unemployment Stennis, Eastland, and Hefflin will vote to end the guaranteed filibuster of kennedycare as a gesture of goodwill to the president but I doubt they’d vote for it. However them voting to end the filibuster of KennedyCare is much more valuable to Kennedy than them actually voting for it.
What I'm most curious to see is how President Carey combats what I think will be a significant attempt by the Right at a Backlash towards him
The issue for the right is that I don’t think Carey is really going to seen in an ideological way by most Americans. Carey’s tough no-nonsense and pragmatic personality works very well for the economic and political climate of TTL’s early 80s. I think most voters won’t see his legislation as “tax and spend liberal at it again” and seeing it more like he’s doing what needs to be done to get things right especially with the context of being president after one who people at this time think is the modern day Herbert Hoover
 
A Hundred Days of Action - Part II
A Hundred Days of Action - Part II

The retirement of Byron White in order to serve as Attorney General had been in many ways engineered to give Carey a seat to fill with a younger, more liberal jurist right off the bat. White, nobody's fool, understood this better than most, and made it plain as day to Carey that while he wasn't opposed to such an obvious maneuver to try to offset the remarkable impact the Nixon-Ford years had left on the Court and shifting it firmly to the right, he had a price like everybody else - in his case, he expected a Westerner like himself appointed and was clear that he wanted a fair deal of influence with the White House Counsel's office on selecting not just his replacement but future judicial appointments as well. Carey was amenable to the first piece and shrugged at the second one, with both men leaving their first one-on-one meeting after inauguration with substantially different definitions of the word "influence." The choice was easy for Carey and White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler - Ninth Circuit Judge Shirley Hufstedler, who had been born in White's home state of Colorado and lived basically everywhere in the West since then before settling in California. She was a trailblazer for women attorneys and regarded as a mainstream liberal, perhaps a notch left of the typical Democratic appointee but less progressive than Thurgood Marshall or, increasingly, William Brennan. The only downside to her was that she was not the first woman appointee - that was Justice Carla Anderson Hills - but with Reagan outperforming even the typically strong Republican baseline with women voters in 1980, particularly married women which was one of the few demographic groups he won outright, Carey and other chief advisors knew that Democrats needed to stanch the bleeding and Hufstedler made a world of sense. That she did not have very many controversial rulings to attack helped a fair bit, though the issue became instead that her nomination instead emerged as a bargaining chip in the Senate as the ESA neared passage.

O'Neill lost only 32 Congressmen, almost all Southerners or rural conservatives from out West, in the whip count for the Economic Stabilization Act and thirty-three Republicans crossed the floor to vote for it. While not as polarized as signature legislation would be in later years, the whip count in the House demonstrated the unusual regional and ideological coalitions underpinning both parties. What created issues in the Senate was that any one Senator could hold it up in committee or on the floor, and the biggest antagonist emerged not as one of the "usual suspects," as White House staffer and future Senate Majority Leader Andrew Cuomo phrased it, but rather Robert Byrd, the Senate Majority Leader.

Small, petty issues had already bogged down the ESA. The White House had elected to largely box out the Republican Party on crafting the bill, and though there was nothing that constituted a red line for most of the Senate Republican conference, Baker had elected to leave the vote as a "conscience call" for his caucus while announcing that due to the White House's decision to "go it alone" he would personally vote against. Internally, Baker and his chief aides - namely Ted Stevens of Alaska and rising star Alan Simpson of Wyoming - had resigned themselves to the ESA passing, likely by broad margins, but wanted to keep Democrats guessing until the very end how much Republican support it would win on the floor and thus rather than whipping against the bill like Minority Leader John Rhodes had done in the House instead elected to keep their powder dry for what was expected to be a titanic fight over healthcare in the fall, but instead deployed what Simpson jokingly called in later years "the whip of silence," telling their conference to refuse to state how they will vote and instead see what happened if Democrats had to negotiate primarily with themselves and then take advantage however they could of the fallout, suspecting for a variety of reasons that doing this would probably encourage Southern Democrats to shift the bill rightwards. [1]

The gamble didn't quite go as Baker and Simpson expected it, largely because Byrd threw himself into the process late and demanded his own contributions to the act. Several Southern Senators had already chafed at the imperious attitude Chief of Staff Paterson had shown in negotiations [2] and Byrd took advantage of this by informing the White House that he had a "Gang of Twelve" including himself that wanted to see some small concessions on the act, most prominently subsidies for coal matching what was being plowed into nuclear, natural gas and "new energy." "Do not leave our miners behind, or they will leave us," he warned Paterson. To make his point even blunter, Byrd surprised the Washington press corps by announcing that a floor vote on Hufstedler's nomination would be held over until after the passage of the ESA, even though Eastland's Judiciary Committee had already voted to approve her passage to the full floor with several Republican votes in favor for the relatively uncontroversial nominee.

Alarmed, Carey decided to involve himself in the negotiations directly, bringing Senate leadership to Camp David for the first time of his Presidency. What exactly occurred at Camp David in late March of 1981 has been described differently by different parties, but Carey was able to quietly knock heads together, particularly the feuding Kennedy and Byrd (Byrd being completely convinced that Kennedy still wanted his job), and get a final compromise bill hashed out. The proposed Department of Education would not have influence over primary and secondary schooling, which eliminated bitter memories of busing, and Carey agreed to appoint Terry Sanford, a former North Carolina Governor and beloved President of Duke University, as its first head. Coal miner pensions would be bailed out and coal liquification technology would receive a boost in funding. More money would be spent on port dredging and modernization in Southern states. And in return for sending this reworked package to a conference committee with the House, Byrd would move Hufstedler through immediately.

It was good that he did, because conservative activists led by Phyllis Schlafly had taken advantage of the lull between her clearing committee and her eventual floor vote to start a public relations campaign against her, accusing her of being a radical feminist, describing her as an abortionist lesbian and calling her "Justice ERA." The campaign didn't work - Hufstedler was voted through 94-0 - and two days later Byrd brought the ESA to the floor, and after three days of spirited debate it passed 82-17, and when re-voted in the House fewer Southern defections were noted, though two liberal Democrats decided to vote against it this time around in a surprise. The episode had proven, though, that the constellation of emerging media-savvy and interconnected conservative activist groups that had moved the party right in the late 1970s and powered Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns wasn't going anywhere and was now repositioning itself for a different purpose - that of a true opposition, perhaps to both established parties.

The ESA was the first major piece of economic legislation passed in close to a decade, a comprehensive injection of money into infrastructure and research with backstops for unemployment. The third quarter of 1981 saw the first positive economic growth since early 1979, and 1982 would see low but tangible growth across all four quarters and unemployment shifted below double digits for the first time in two years. Economists have debated to this day how much the tax and unemployment provisions really helped; while the 1978-81 recession ended earlier in the United States than elsewhere, the decline in inflation was much slower there than every OECD country save Canada and the United Kingdom, leading to questions about whether something was wrong with the "Anglo Model", and steel and automobile employment never recovered to pre-crisis levels. Tax code changes built into the act encouraged commercial real estate in city centers, leading to an unprecedented boom in office construction that changed many blighted downtowns into office meccas but ghost towns at night, with many stating that cities had seen little than shiny new skylines but no tangible changes to the underlying issues of their declining residential tax bases or rising crime. [3] The one undeniable benefit of course was the energy provisions, which helped see dozens of additional nuclear reactors that would not have been finished otherwise completed, but no new build nuclear began in the course of the 1980s as natural gas, wind and solar projects took immediate precedence, leading to an electricity glut by 1990 in tandem with the collapse of world oil prices that led to a commensurate boom in more efficient automotive sales and "leisure driving." Mortgage reform provisions were left out of the act, and with the shift of many firms to the commercial space the decline in homebuilding begun at the start of the 1978 supply shock would persist through almost the entire following decade.

Nonetheless, the worst of the economic travails in the United States seemed to be in the rearview, and the ESA was trumpeted by the Carey administration from high and low as part of the reason...

[1] To put it mildly, there's a lot of way this strategy can go wrong for the Senate GOP
[2] I'll leave it to you to guess what problem Southern Senators might have with the first Black chief of staff
[3] Like the OTL mid-to-late 1980s, just without all those junk bond casinos and shopping malls
 
Great post! Really impressed with your knowledge of the bolded parts. A lot of people seem to forget that older voters, up until the 2000's were a lot more Democratic. What I'm most curious to see is how President Carey combats what I think will be a significant attempt by the Right at a Backlash towards him. The GOP is in a far worse position than they were in OTL 1993 and 2009, but would be even more bitter in ATL 1981. The reason I say this is that Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford were relatively moderate Presidents despite the GOP base becoming more conservative. And the GOP has held the Presidency here for 20 of the last 30 years, and largely did not role back the accomplishments of the Democrats.

I'm hoping, as a Rust Belt resident, that the early 1980's economic climate is better than real life. The 1982 Recession seems to have become an almost forgotten economic downturn that really damaged the region to the point where further economic decline was inevitable. And the macroeconomic trends that came out of the 1983/1984 Recovery locked in the neoliberal economic philosophy that lead to Free Trade, Financial Deregulation, and Union Busting that worsened the situation, especially in the 2000's.

On a closing note, I've been intrigued at a Hugh Carey Presidency after a Ford upset in 1976 since 2011. I think Carey has the best realistic combination of experience that a President could have. Twelve years in the House of Representatives and Six Years as Governor of a large state. This timeline is much more realistic than Jeff Greenfield's take on this scenario.
Thank you!

There's definitely some things that were globally macroeconomic rather than purely policy related that moved the Rust Belt decline along, but not having an actively hostile union-busting admin in charge does help quite a bit.
 
Carey agreed to appoint Terry Sanford, a former North Carolina Governor and beloved President of Duke University, as its first head
I’m curious if you meant this to mean that the southern delegation in the senate leadership requested Terry Stanford to be the head or Kennedy. I know it’s unnecessary but would you be able to create list of the leadership on both sides?
I'll leave it to you to guess what problem Southern Senators might have with the first Black chief of staff
I can’t imagine how awkward it would be to regularly meet and speak to people who have openly worked to hold ur people down and think your inferior because of ur race.
 
future Senate Majority Leader Andrew Cuomo
That's quite the doozy! Wonder if (and if yes, how) it'll all come crashing down for him ITTL.
It was good that he did, because conservative activists led by Phyllis Schlafly had taken advantage of the lull between her clearing committee and her eventual floor vote to start a public relations campaign against her, accusing her of being a radical feminist, describing her as an abortionist lesbian and calling her "Justice ERA."
And in other news Phyllis Schlafly still sucks.
that of a true opposition, perhaps to both established parties.
Well now. That's got potential to go somewhere.
 
Great update. Andrew Cuomo being a future Majority Leader will definitely be interesting when the time comes👀 Phyllis Schlafly still is a pain even in this TL.
 
Hurrah for Hufstedler! Part of me is very curious as to the two liberal senators who defected on the ESA. Have to say Alan Simpson's always been a bit of a fascinating character for me reading about his resume. Given that he ran for a higher position in OTL but got shut out by Lott, it makes me wonder if he's got a better chance of winning it in the near future. Cuomo's status is both interesting and very, very worrying. The new status quo is really interesting, particularly given....well, the Southern Delegation and Basil Patterson's role could make things get very awkward soon.
 
I mean Congress is basically a retirement home for sex offenders so he'll fit right in.
Sort of related to this lol but I wonder if the Democratic Party might develop an incumbent problem overtime. With POD’s there are going to be a lot more democratic incumbents than IRL. In the mid-90s there might be some chaos with the mass retirements that will be happening with the old guard
 
Sort of related to this lol but I wonder if the Democratic Party might develop an incumbent problem overtime. With POD’s there are going to be a lot more democratic incumbents than IRL. In the mid-90s there might be some chaos with the mass retirements that will be happening with the old guard
I think we talked earlier in the thread about how long the Dems are likely to hold Congress; given the sheer depth, I'd say it's probably President Carey keeps majorities in both houses of congress at least through his first six years. If the Democrats manage to win both re-election in 1984 and 1988 (far from impossible), then this kind of "incumbent fatigue" would absolutely become an issue in the 1990's.

Even so, I think the Dems could avoid going into full opposition for too long, at least for the time being -- if a Republican is elected President in 1992, then Dems have a good shot of holding/retaking Congress in 1994; if said president in re-elected in 1996, they can come back again with a vengeance in 1998 and 2000. All told, the Democrats may well avoid losing control of either house of congress for more than four years (or even two) all the way through the latter 2000's, effectively making 1933 to 2006 in TTL a period of near continuous Democratic predominance.
 
I’m curious if you meant this to mean that the southern delegation in the senate leadership requested Terry Stanford to be the head or Kennedy. I know it’s unnecessary but would you be able to create list of the leadership on both sides?

I can’t imagine how awkward it would be to regularly meet and speak to people who have openly worked to hold ur people down and think your inferior because of ur race.
Southern Dems requested Sanford, but its not like that got too much pushback since Sanford was always tight with the Kennedys (there's an old rumor Jack was mulling dumping LBJ in '64 and replacing him with Terry Sanford, incidentally)

Sure thing.

Senate Dem Leadership:

Majority Leader: Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Majority Whip: Alan Cranston (D-California)
Dem Caucus Secretary: Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
DCCC Senate Chair: Wendell Ford (D-Kentucky)
President pro tempore: Warren Magnuson (D-Washington)

Senate Rep Leadership:

Minority Leader: Howard Baker (R-Tennessee)
Minority Whip: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Rep Conference Chair: James McClure (R-ID)
Rep Conference Secretary: Jake Garn (R-UT)
NRSC Chair: Mark Hatfield (R-OR) [1]
Policy Committee Chair: Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina)

House Dem Leadership

Speaker: Tip O'Neill (D-MA)
House Majority Leader: Jim Brademas (D-IN)
House Majority Whip: Jim Wright (D-TX)
Chief Deputy Whip: Bill Alexander (D-AR)
Dem Caucus Chairman: Gillis Long (D-LA)
Dem Caucus Secretary: Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY)
DCCC House Chair: Tony Coelho (D-CA)

House Rep Leadership:

Minority Leader: Bob Michel (R-IL)
Minority Whip: Trent Lott (R-MS)
Chief Deputy Whip: David Emery (R-ME)
Rep Conference Chair: John B. Anderson (R-IL) [2]
Rep Conference Vice-Chair: Jack Edwards (R-AL)
Rep Conference Secretary: Jack Kemp (R-NY)
Rep Policy Committee Chair: Clair Burgener (R-CA)
RCCC Chair: Guy Vander Jagt (R-MI)

[1] Since Packwood was defeated in 1980, his fellow tenured Oregonian gets the spot instead
[2] Anderson staying in GOP good graces and not running for President in a quixotic Indy bid lets him keep his Conference Chair position (probably with Ford's influence, considering their connections back in the House), and humps Kemp and Burgener down the totem pole. Otherwise, everything is basically the same as OTL leadership wise

Hurrah for Hufstedler! Part of me is very curious as to the two liberal senators who defected on the ESA. Have to say Alan Simpson's always been a bit of a fascinating character for me reading about his resume. Given that he ran for a higher position in OTL but got shut out by Lott, it makes me wonder if he's got a better chance of winning it in the near future. Cuomo's status is both interesting and very, very worrying. The new status quo is really interesting, particularly given....well, the Southern Delegation and Basil Patterson's role could make things get very awkward soon.
Liberal House members rather than Senators, sorry about that.

Yeah, my longer term plan here is to have Simpson become the dominant figure of the Senate GOP, which should give you an idea of the direction the GOP is headed ITTL vs our own
I mean Congress is basically a retirement home for sex offenders so he'll fit right in.
Yikes, buuuuuuuut also kinda true
Sort of related to this lol but I wonder if the Democratic Party might develop an incumbent problem overtime. With POD’s there are going to be a lot more democratic incumbents than IRL. In the mid-90s there might be some chaos with the mass retirements that will be happening with the old guard
I think we talked earlier in the thread about how long the Dems are likely to hold Congress; given the sheer depth, I'd say it's probably President Carey keeps majorities in both houses of congress at least through his first six years. If the Democrats manage to win both re-election in 1984 and 1988 (far from impossible), then this kind of "incumbent fatigue" would absolutely become an issue in the 1990's.

Even so, I think the Dems could avoid going into full opposition for too long, at least for the time being -- if a Republican is elected President in 1992, then Dems have a good shot of holding/retaking Congress in 1994; if said president in re-elected in 1996, they can come back again with a vengeance in 1998 and 2000. All told, the Democrats may well avoid losing control of either house of congress for more than four years (or even two) all the way through the latter 2000's, effectively making 1933 to 2006 in TTL a period of near continuous Democratic predominance.
This is definitely something we'll be exploring - think the House banking scandal and other myriad headaches Democrats found themselves with in the early 90s, only exacerbated and now dangling over an incumbent Dem President too around the same time, with the Southern/not-Southern split bubbling up inside the caucus. You'll have a lot of men who are quite frankly fossils sticking around well past their sell-by date across Congress, particularly the Senate. And yeah, you're basically looking at any Republican resurgence as being fairly temporary, although keep your eye on those 1990 midterms - they have the possibility of being a 2010-style wipeout on steroids, on the heels of a very exposed Class III Senate cohort in 1986.

My philosophy is that you can't really write utopian timelines as they're too unrealistic; the Democrats won't be problem-free ITTL, they'll just have a completely different set of problems in the 80s and 90s that come with incumbency than being in opposition to the Reagan Revolution. That's a trade that most Democrats (including myself, not to get too into current politics) would surely take, but exploring the ramifications of such will be interesting.
 
French Presidential election, 1981
French Presidential election, 1981

Nobody would describe French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing as a charismatic man, and as a President of France, he was not particularly beloved. His political program had been one of cautious but inventive economic conservatism and incremental social liberalism, describing himself and his Union Democratique Francaise as of the broad center, a thinly inhabited and politically brittle place to stand in any country. He had begun the process of major public infrastructure projects such as a breakneck expansion of France's nuclear energy fleet and massive investments into high-speed rail, while surprising many political observers by pushing hard to legalize abortion, which had collapsed his credibility with the Gaullist right and social conservatives he would need after his excruciatingly narrow 1974 victory over Francois Mitterrand. The position of the UDF as a catch-all centrist liberal party left it exposed to the rhetorical artillery of both left and right, and Giscard - known colloquially as VGE - had seemed a few years earlier to be limping into the 1981 elections, especially as the decent economy of the 1970s eroded once again in the second inflation crisis of 1978-90 mere years after the heels of the traumatic 1973 oil embargo and subsequent energy price shock that had ended France's Treinte Gloriouses. VGE was not a canny politician and though the French economy had held up better than several Western peers (most notably Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom), stubbornly high unemployment and inflation continued to dog his administration as the May 1981 elections loomed; more than a few detractors derisively called him "France's Gerald Ford." Six months before voters headed to the polls, VGE's chief confidant and Prime Minister, Raymond Barre, made insensitive remarks after a bomb exploded in a Parisian synagogue and killed sixty people, the worst terrorist attack in French history, and the campaign was considered stillborn before it even began after Barre was not cashiered by the UDF. [1]

That all said, VGE was down, but not out. He had one major advantage that in the spring of 1979 one would never have expected - the effective removal of his two most formidable opponents from the political scene. Mitterrand had died of cancer the previous June less than a year after fending off a challenge from the PS's moderate faction, led by Michel Rocard, who while more popular with the general public was disliked by the PS's traditional left-wing base. Efforts to mend fences had begun in earnest in the wake of the Metz Congress, most notably Mitterrand finding a role for Rocard's close ally Pierre Mauroy, but now with his death it appeared to be a clear path for the Rocardiens to take over the party, particularly with Mauroy still in the catbird seat thanks to his installation there by Mitterrand before his death, and Rocard was duly made the PS's standard bearer against VGE. Rocard effectively abandoned Mitterrand's soft-socialist Common Programme for a narrow, targeted Keynesian platform that was more or less just a slightly red-tinted version of VGE's own policy platform with a number of market capitalist and social democratic reforms, aiming for what he called a "new path" between socialism and capitalism that would take the best from both worldviews. [2] This approach was met with skepticism if not hostility by prominent mitterandistes such as Lionel Jospin or Laurent Fabius, and much of the private sniping spilled out into public view through juicy newspaper scoops which hobbled Rocard's campaign and boosted the fortunes of the Parti Communiste Francaise at the PS's expense. The "De Gaulle of the Left" having died had left a leadership vacuum among French social democrats, socialists, and communists, and Rocard in the spring of 1981 was the standard-bearer so many came to very reluctantly.

VGE's bigger concern had always been to his right, however, what with French Presidents in the Fifth Republic having consistently come from some form of conservative background. Despite the narrow win in 1974, men such as outside advisor and European Parliamentarian Jean Lecaunet or young strategist Francois Bayrou considered Mitterrand a washed-up creature of the past irrelevant to the 1980s and actually worried more about the resurgent Gaullist right which had consolidated into the RPR party, led by VGE's former Prime Minister Jacques Chirac. Chirac was, by French political standards, a young rising star, the hard-charging and bombastic Mayor of Paris who had been sacked from the Ministry in 1976 over disagreements with VGE and replaced by Barre, and had since then used his platform outside the broad center-and-center-right coalition to promote himself, first into the Mayoralty where he had a large and very public platform in the capital and then trying to launch himself into the Presidency in 1981 to vanquish both VGE's tepid centrism and then the left on behalf of the Gaullist movement. Things went awry for the conservative champion, however, when he suffered a devastating car accident in December of 1978 which left him paralyzed from the waist down; [3] while he had initially used it as a rallying cry, issuing the Call of Cochin (named after the hospital of his convalescence) - a nationalist and euroskeptic policy program intended to imply VGE cared more about European integration than the French people - he had clearly lost a step once wheelchair bound and his long recovery from severe internal injuries blunted his momentum through much of 1979 and the political celebrity he had been rapidly accruing seemed lost.

It was through this remarkably lucky confluence of events that VGE won the most votes in the first round and Rocard narrowly placed ahead of Chirac, who despite a longtime leadership of the RPR would not appear on a Presidential ballot again; in the second round, VGE triumphed by nearly a million votes, with Chirac giving a begrudging endorsement and many more left-wing voters, not seeing any particular difference between the incumbent and the challenger, failing to turn out. A man who had seemed to be a walking corpse politically just a year earlier had earned another term in the Palais d'Elysees, a remarkable achievement in a country that famously despises its Presidents and where the political spectrum had been polarizing through the 1970s towards two personalities much bigger than his own that he did not have to face head-to-head. The French right had a hobbled champion, and the French left had its feuding factions - it seemed, at least for the short-term, that Valery Giscard d'Estaing's bland, pro-European liberal centrism in the meantime would have to do...

[1] The insensitive remarks are real, but like the Munich bombing the attack here is worse than IOTL, where the bomb went off in the street before it could be placed inside the synagogue
[2] You can make a very credible argument that Rocard was the first person to articulate what in the 1990s became known as Third Way liberalism, and in many ways the Mitterrand of the 1980s IOTL actually did implement a much more moderate, Third Way-adjacent political program to the surprise of his supporters on the left, though that's more because the Mauroy ministry put most of its focus on making welfare programs more accessible/universal than stuff like nationalizations etc like the French left wanted
[3] A real accident, but killing off Chirac too felt cheap to me after doing that with Mitterrand, so wheelchair it is
 
And yeah, you're basically looking at any Republican resurgence as being fairly temporary, although keep your eye on those 1990 midterms - they have the possibility of being a 2010-style wipeout on steroids, on the heels of a very exposed Class III Senate cohort in 1986
honestly the 1986 and 1990 maps aren't horrible when u consider that u consider southern senate seats are very likely going Dem so they have more than enough resources to dedicate helping senate incumbents especially in the west but the dems are definitely taking some losses. But that’s not taking into account any major potential POD’s.

I think it’s clear though that the republicans are going to have to focus on closing the polling gap they have with minorities and in particular african americans ITTL. They aren’t going to get enough of a share of white voters anytime soon to be able to consistently get away with having bad polling with minorities like they have for the most part IRL. Black voters in this 80s scenario are more powerful than they’ve ever been IRL and it’s going to bite Republicans in the ass in the 80s because they pretty much abandoned trying to get the black vote in the 70s and embraced the cultural backlash and black voters aren’t going to forget about it.

Also worrying for republicans in the long-term is that Latino and Asian immigration is going to spike in the 80s like it did IRL and Latino immigration is going to be even bigger with the shit-show that South America has become. Democrats are going to be more than happy to push immigration reform to make the path to citizenship easier and without Reagan or another Republican being president to embrace it republicans might be left in the wind even more with minority voters especially if Latino’s blame Ford and by extension the republicans for the instability in South America
 
Last edited:
A man who had seemed to be a walking corpse politically just a year earlier had earned another term in the Palais d'Elysees, a remarkable achievement in a country that famously despises its Presidents and where the political spectrum had been polarizing through the 1970s towards two personalities much bigger than his own that he did not have to face head-to-head. The French right had a hobbled champion, and the French left had its feuding factions - it seemed, at least for the short-term, that Valery Giscard d'Estaing's bland, pro-European liberal centrism in the meantime would have to do...
Yeah, I walk on the mild side! But seriously the infrastrucutre projects are well chosen and I appreciate turning up the nose at the social conservatives on abortion. His term lasts seven years so he'll be a primary player throught the 80's. I imagine the global economic situation will be healthier in by 88 and there aren't term limits...
 
honestly the 1986 and 1990 maps aren't horrible when u consider that u consider southern senate seats are very likely going Dem so they have more than enough resources to dedicate helping senate incumbents especially in the west but the dems are definitely taking some losses. But that’s not taking into account any major potential POD’s.

I think it’s clear though that the republicans are going to have to focus on closing the polling gap they have with minorities and in particular african americans ITTL. They aren’t going to get enough of a share of white voters anytime soon to be able to consistently get away with having bad polling with minorities like they have for the most part IRL. Black voters in this 80s scenario are more powerful than they’ve ever been IRL and it’s going to bite Republicans in the ass in the 80s because they pretty much abandoned trying to get the black vote in the 70s and embraced the cultural backlash and black voters aren’t going to forget about it.

Also worrying for republicans in the long-term is that Latino and Asian immigration is going to spike in the 80s like it did IRL and Latino immigration is going to be even bigger with the shit-show that South America has become. Democrats are going to be more than happy to push immigration reform to make the path to citizenship easier and without Reagan or another Republican being president to embrace it republicans might be left in the wind even more especially if Latino’s blame Ford and by extension the republicans for the instability in South America
That’s a decent point, Reagan’s push for refugee resettlement and amnesty in the 1986 bill did a lot to keep immigrants on-side for a while
Yeah, I walk on the mild side! But seriously the infrastrucutre projects are well chosen and I appreciate turning up the nose at the social conservatives on abortion. His term lasts seven years so he'll be a primary player throught the 80's. I imagine the global economic situation will be healthier in by 88 and there aren't term limits...
Worth noting that VGE was a supporter of the five-year term so that could come earlier than OTL. I’ve never seen a French Presidency without term limits appear in a TL before, though, so it could be intriguing if he shortens the term (meaning his term expires 1986) but he’s eligible to run again. But can luck strike three times?

One big butterfly here too is that without Mitterrand, France could be seen as the birthplace of Third Way-ism rather than Clinton and Blair, and there’s also yuuuuuuuge implications for the EU, since it was Mitty who helped make Jacques Delors a thing, and Delors was probably the biggest driver as President of the European Commission for major integration measures, most prominently the single currency and pan-European monetary and industrial policy (a neoliberal he was not) while being a major factor in reconciling the left across Europe to the EU. The left tended before the late 80s to be much more Euroskeptical than the right, and that’ll persist OTL *looks nervously towards the UK, where fierce Euroskeptic autarkic lefty Peter Shore is Chancellor of the Exchequer)
 
Excellent stuff! Now that we've hit 1980, I imagine Marshal Tito passes on schedule. Here's hoping for a less grim future for Yugoslavia.
Thank you! I think I did a Marshal Tito death entry but yes, Yugoslavia is going to be much better off ITTL. Dzemal Bijedic is in charge as a groomed successor having survived IOTL and that will have big effects, such as Ante Markovic having influence earlier
 
Top