Bush 80

Imagine a GOP who preach monetarism, not supply-side, and without the RR hydra that we know so well IOTL. GOP is still socially conservative but without the Religious Right fanning the flames. No great emphasis on charisma for a nominee, since the last charismatic Republican President ITTL is TR.
 
The Religious Right still exists, though. I can hardly see them devoid of political influence. Bush ran to the right of his initial position in OTL 1988 (not that everyone believed him) and could still decide that a similar shift is politically advisable.
 
That'd be a far better America. You have me wishing I could live there.

o Only an afford reasonable D buildup

o No voodoo economics - and that might persist 'til present, since nobody would've won with what amounted to a short-term bribe to the electorate on the back of the long term via massive debt.

o Clueful foreign policy.

o Of course Shrub/Cheney'd still've been a horror. But maybe he wouldn't've done the debt thing since the coalition built on debt hadn't yet been built.
 
The Religious Right still exists, though. I can hardly see them devoid of political influence. Bush ran to the right of his initial position in OTL 1988 (not that everyone believed him) and could still decide that a similar shift is politically advisable.

It is much weaker though and still in the woods. Remember, Carter helped bring the modern RR into politics inadvertedly.
 
Bush engages the Soviets and we have an earlier START treaty..

I'm by no means a Reagan fanboy, but the idea that he never engaged with the Soviets is a myth. What set Ronald Reagan apart was that, like Goldwater, he believed in walking a tough line rhetorically with respect to the goings on of his adversaries. A tough line coupled with perseverence is an effective strategy in negotiation because it moves the final terms in favor of the party taking the tough line. The goal shouldn't just be to prevent World War III, but rather to prevent said war on one's one terms or as close to one's own terms as possible.
 
I wonder whether his being more moderate will outweigh his being less charismatic when it comes to popularity. He should certainly do better in 1980 since Anderson won't be running, and probably better in 1984 as well. But I doubt the Republicans will prop him up as a symbolic president on the FDR/Lincoln level since he can't really be used as a conservative icon.
 
I wonder whether his being more moderate will outweigh his being less charismatic when it comes to popularity. He should certainly do better in 1980 since Anderson won't be running, and probably better in 1984 as well. But I doubt the Republicans will prop him up as a symbolic president on the FDR/Lincoln level since he can't really be used as a conservative icon.

I actually wonder about 1984. I think Bush could win, but I suspect his EV tally will be substantially less than Reagan's.
 
I actually wonder about 1984. I think Bush could win, but I suspect his EV tally will be substantially less than Reagan's.

Bush would win: the Dems were still clinging onto New Dealism for dear life, and Gary Hart would not be allowed anywhere near the nomination by the still-influential establishment. Plus the economic recovery, aided by a greatly reduced or nonexistent deficit, the benefits of a monetarist rather than voodoo GOP.
 
Bush would win: the Dems were still clinging onto New Dealism for dear life, and Gary Hart would not be allowed anywhere near the nomination by the still-influential establishment. Plus the economic recovery, aided by a greatly reduced or nonexistent deficit, the benefits of a monetarist rather than voodoo GOP.

But does Bush sweep 49 states?
 
Probably not, but 40-45 is definitely a possibility. He came within 4% of carrying NY against Dukakis in 1988 IOTL, remember.

Good point. He's definitely not getting Minnesota unless someone other than Mondale gets the nod on the Democratic side of things.
 
Top