How could Carter win the 1980 presidential election and defeat Regan to become POTUS. What would the effects be?
Carter wins the 1980 election
- Thread starter ChadMachine999
- Start date
-
- Tags
- america carter regan
Carter might be able to negotiate the release of the hostages to be a little earlier? Especially if it was a day or two before polling day this could win back the south (much of it was very close) as well as New York and the midwestern states to deliver him a narrow victory.
We’d probably see Carters successor (obviously Mondale is in prime position) face a moderate like Dole in the 84 election after the 80 loss is attributed to Reagan being too far to the right. Dole would probably beat Mondale and be a two termer leading to the Democrats winning in 1992. Carter would probably also be better remembered as the economy will likely get better in his second term.
We’d probably see Carters successor (obviously Mondale is in prime position) face a moderate like Dole in the 84 election after the 80 loss is attributed to Reagan being too far to the right. Dole would probably beat Mondale and be a two termer leading to the Democrats winning in 1992. Carter would probably also be better remembered as the economy will likely get better in his second term.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Please notice the big thick vertical line for the 1982 recession. At the time, this was the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA
So, whether Carter gets blamed for the problems, or credit for the recovery, I think it could go either way.
I was referring to the recovery he may get credited for, similarly to how Reagan was on thin ice during the recession but came back roaring in 84. Obviously with Democrat fatigue it might not be enough for Mondale
Here's a post I made on an AHC to re-elect Jimmy Carter:
"The problem with the Carter Presidency is that Jimmy Carter made many easily avoidable mistakes, and generally shot himself in the foot over and over. Often he lost popularity for the sake of pursuing a morally correct policy position (e.g. not pursuing a variety of military options during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, for fear of that the hostages would be killed, even though it would've dramatically boosted his popularity), and other times, he pursued policies that he personally believed were good, but were incredibly agitating for the Democratic base (e.g. deregulating the transportation industry in spite of past support from the Teamster's Union, Carter's crackdown on 'pork barrel' legislation in Democratic districts).
Many of these positions couldn't be changed without dramatically altering Carter's personality, but others could be corrected. Carter could've easily won re-election with an 'ideal' 1978 PoD that would have to be followed by a series of smart decisions, Carter could've won a tight but do-able 1979 PoD, and might've even been able to pull off a 1980 PoD.
1978 PoD (ideal, but unlikely scenario for Carter's re-election): Anwar Sadat pulls out of the Camp David Negotiations. Carter publicly blames Sadat, which gets the Jewish lobby back on his side (IOTL, many Jewish-American organizations, especially in New York, backed Ted Kennedy's primary challenge as they felt the Camp David Accords were a betrayal of Israel). There may be another war in the Middle East, but Carter won't be blamed for it, if anything he'll be praised for trying to prevent it. Domestically, everything continues as IOTL, until the 'Crisis of Confidence' speech. Contrary to popular belief, it was a very well received speech; the problem was Carter immediately squandered all his political capital by having his entire cabinet resign. If he doesn't do that, he could use his momentum with the public to use more monetarist policies to combat inflation than the Democrats in Congress would typically be comfortable with. As for Iran, you could either have the American embassy close up shop after the first attempt at seizing the embassy in February 1979 (thus preventing the successful September 1979 seizure) or have Operation: Eagle Claw succeed by orchestrating the operation with an astrological team involved, who could've advised when it would be best to launch the operation, thereby avoiding the sandstorms that ruined the whole thing IOTL. That being said, if you want to make Carter as popular as possible, a successful operation is better than one not being necessary in the first place. If, ITTL, Ted Kennedy even bothers to run, having the Jewish lobby behind Carter could land him a New York win, and prevent a drawn-out primary challenge. The cherry on top would be Carter not participating in the Presidential debates with Reagan. Although not taking part did hurt him, once he got on the stage with Reagan, the results hurt him even more. With all of these combined, Carter would've been able to win handily. This PoD is far enough back for it to possibly be Carter vs. Bush in the election (rather than Carter vs. Reagan vs. Anderson), but he would've won re-election regardless.
1979 PoD: Similar to the first scenario, but with the PoD being the 'Crisis of Confidence' aftermath rather than Camp David. As in the last scenario, he successfully uses the political capital of the speech, and pulls a successful Eagle Claw. He would still have to duke it out in a prolonged fight with Ted Kennedy, but it should be enough for a close shave, especially if he doesn't debate Reagan. You could say this is the most 'good' result, as you get the Camp David Accord, and a largely bloodless resolution to the hostage crisis. This would be an even tighter win with Carter vs. Bush, but it would still be do-able.
1980 PoD: Operation: Eagle Claw succeeds. This doesn't make the economy any better, but no matter what, it would be a huge boost in the polls. If Carter doubles down on the negative campaigning against Reagan to make him look like an unhinged warmongering anarcho-capitalist, and doesn't debate him, Carter may be able to pull off a squeaker of a win."
"The problem with the Carter Presidency is that Jimmy Carter made many easily avoidable mistakes, and generally shot himself in the foot over and over. Often he lost popularity for the sake of pursuing a morally correct policy position (e.g. not pursuing a variety of military options during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, for fear of that the hostages would be killed, even though it would've dramatically boosted his popularity), and other times, he pursued policies that he personally believed were good, but were incredibly agitating for the Democratic base (e.g. deregulating the transportation industry in spite of past support from the Teamster's Union, Carter's crackdown on 'pork barrel' legislation in Democratic districts).
Many of these positions couldn't be changed without dramatically altering Carter's personality, but others could be corrected. Carter could've easily won re-election with an 'ideal' 1978 PoD that would have to be followed by a series of smart decisions, Carter could've won a tight but do-able 1979 PoD, and might've even been able to pull off a 1980 PoD.
1978 PoD (ideal, but unlikely scenario for Carter's re-election): Anwar Sadat pulls out of the Camp David Negotiations. Carter publicly blames Sadat, which gets the Jewish lobby back on his side (IOTL, many Jewish-American organizations, especially in New York, backed Ted Kennedy's primary challenge as they felt the Camp David Accords were a betrayal of Israel). There may be another war in the Middle East, but Carter won't be blamed for it, if anything he'll be praised for trying to prevent it. Domestically, everything continues as IOTL, until the 'Crisis of Confidence' speech. Contrary to popular belief, it was a very well received speech; the problem was Carter immediately squandered all his political capital by having his entire cabinet resign. If he doesn't do that, he could use his momentum with the public to use more monetarist policies to combat inflation than the Democrats in Congress would typically be comfortable with. As for Iran, you could either have the American embassy close up shop after the first attempt at seizing the embassy in February 1979 (thus preventing the successful September 1979 seizure) or have Operation: Eagle Claw succeed by orchestrating the operation with an astrological team involved, who could've advised when it would be best to launch the operation, thereby avoiding the sandstorms that ruined the whole thing IOTL. That being said, if you want to make Carter as popular as possible, a successful operation is better than one not being necessary in the first place. If, ITTL, Ted Kennedy even bothers to run, having the Jewish lobby behind Carter could land him a New York win, and prevent a drawn-out primary challenge. The cherry on top would be Carter not participating in the Presidential debates with Reagan. Although not taking part did hurt him, once he got on the stage with Reagan, the results hurt him even more. With all of these combined, Carter would've been able to win handily. This PoD is far enough back for it to possibly be Carter vs. Bush in the election (rather than Carter vs. Reagan vs. Anderson), but he would've won re-election regardless.
1979 PoD: Similar to the first scenario, but with the PoD being the 'Crisis of Confidence' aftermath rather than Camp David. As in the last scenario, he successfully uses the political capital of the speech, and pulls a successful Eagle Claw. He would still have to duke it out in a prolonged fight with Ted Kennedy, but it should be enough for a close shave, especially if he doesn't debate Reagan. You could say this is the most 'good' result, as you get the Camp David Accord, and a largely bloodless resolution to the hostage crisis. This would be an even tighter win with Carter vs. Bush, but it would still be do-able.
1980 PoD: Operation: Eagle Claw succeeds. This doesn't make the economy any better, but no matter what, it would be a huge boost in the polls. If Carter doubles down on the negative campaigning against Reagan to make him look like an unhinged warmongering anarcho-capitalist, and doesn't debate him, Carter may be able to pull off a squeaker of a win."
Democrats in 2019 would be even more sanctimonius and prudish than OTL's party since Carter's shit would have worked to get him in twice.
Does the Berlin Wall come down and Soviet Union fracture roughly as per OTL in this scenario?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I was 19 during the 1982 recession, and the weird thing is that no one said nothing. My dad blamed me for not trying hard enough to find a job. My friend’s dad who had also been our scoutmaster didn’t say anything.
Even one freshman economics professor didn’t say anything.
In retrospect, it would have been damn nice if a responsible adult had said, look, job-hunting is always a numbers game, but now more than ever.
———-
Later edit: I lived in Houston which had a considerably better-than-average economy. On the other hand, I’m most probably aspie, which helps with quirky, original writing , but doesn’t exactly help in hunting for standard corporate jobs!
Last edited:
You'd need to have the OTL US recieve zero settlers from england and be settled from anywhere else in western europe to get anything like that result being possible. Anglosphere cultures tend to have a curious combination of gullibility and sadism that works in the favor of defending big business.
manav95
Banned
I imagine the bulk of the losses happened in the Rust Belt and Northeast parts of the country. This hit already struggling industrial areas, which pretty much kept it fairly quiet and to themselves. And it also devastated the declining black neighborhoods in cities, leading to the rise of a crack epidemic. But outside of that, I don't think it hurt the country that much.
That sounds true. By 1984, as inflation ebbed, the party in control was pretty much undefeatable as few spoke of the recession.
Was this post intended for a different thread?
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I very much enjoy the fiesty spirit this is made in.
even though people are people and generally share the same traits, but certain strains of pleasure-denying, people-blaming Protestantism do seem to help matters along (the belief that, only a few will be saved!)
If Carter wins will this mean that the US will have a much larger nuclear energy industry?
Nope, for this thread. Geographydude was asking "what if there was a conversation about the lack of good jobs" and i provided an easy way to accomplish this.
Max Sinister
Banned
Apparently they thought things were just like they had been in their youth and didn't bother to check whether they had changed. Yes, looking at statistics should have sufficed, but there you have people: Too many would rather commit suicide than admit that they might have been wrong. (Especially in front of their kid.)
The voters definitely noticed, as the 1982 elections showed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections Also, Reagan's job approval rating reached its nadir in January 1983: 35 percent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating
That being said, a similar economic performance under the Democrats in 1982 would probably have led to even lower ratings, because they could not make the argument that "it's the fault of the previous administration's policies, which will take us some time to overcome."
On Eagle Claw, I'll repeat what I posted here a couple of months ago:
***
One thing that is often neglected in "what if Operation Eagle Claw had succeeded" discussions is that the time of the attempted rescue mission, there were still Americans who were walking around free in Iran. If Eagle Claw had succeeded, Iran could simply make them the new hostages.
Cyrus Vance pointed that out in objecting to the proposed rescue mission:
"I reminded the group that even if the rescue mission did free some of the embassy staff, the Iranians could simply take more hostages from among the American journalists still in Tehran. We would then be worse off than before, and the whole region would be severely inflamed by our action." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA82
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the leading advocate within the administration of a rescue mission, did pay some attention to this possibility. He argued "that we should consider taking prisoners back with us, so that we would have bargaining leverage in the event that the Iranians seized other Americans as hostages..." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA86
In any event, IMO even if the helicopters function perfectly, Eagle Claw is going to lead to a lot of US corpses, Delta and hostage, during the extraction at the stadium. Because of the tendency of US voters to rally behind the president at a time of crisis, it may nevertheless lead to a temporary boost in Carter's ratings, but no, it won't allow him to beat Reagan--the election after all is several months way and by that time the glow would be off the "victory" and people would be asking how Carter allowed the US to get into the hostage crisis to begin with, as well as devoting their attention to such issues as double digit inflation [1], rising unemployment, [2] the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and how the Carter administration's response via the grain embargo hurt US farmers) etc. The notion that Carter lost only because there still were hostages on Election Day seems implausible to me. (For one thing, people forget how low Carter's job approval ratings were before the hostage crisis gave them a temporary boost. https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/bn1a9jq9g0qlldcnggvpea.png For another, the Democrats are still going to have a severe unity problem, thanks to Edward Kennedy's challenge to Carter's renomination.)
[1] http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table
[2] It rose from 5.9 to 7.5 percent between November 1979 and November 1980. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt
***
One thing that is often neglected in "what if Operation Eagle Claw had succeeded" discussions is that the time of the attempted rescue mission, there were still Americans who were walking around free in Iran. If Eagle Claw had succeeded, Iran could simply make them the new hostages.
Cyrus Vance pointed that out in objecting to the proposed rescue mission:
"I reminded the group that even if the rescue mission did free some of the embassy staff, the Iranians could simply take more hostages from among the American journalists still in Tehran. We would then be worse off than before, and the whole region would be severely inflamed by our action." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA82
Zbigniew Brzezinski, the leading advocate within the administration of a rescue mission, did pay some attention to this possibility. He argued "that we should consider taking prisoners back with us, so that we would have bargaining leverage in the event that the Iranians seized other Americans as hostages..." http://books.google.com/books?id=RH5SZHYfMI4C&pg=PA86
In any event, IMO even if the helicopters function perfectly, Eagle Claw is going to lead to a lot of US corpses, Delta and hostage, during the extraction at the stadium. Because of the tendency of US voters to rally behind the president at a time of crisis, it may nevertheless lead to a temporary boost in Carter's ratings, but no, it won't allow him to beat Reagan--the election after all is several months way and by that time the glow would be off the "victory" and people would be asking how Carter allowed the US to get into the hostage crisis to begin with, as well as devoting their attention to such issues as double digit inflation [1], rising unemployment, [2] the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and how the Carter administration's response via the grain embargo hurt US farmers) etc. The notion that Carter lost only because there still were hostages on Election Day seems implausible to me. (For one thing, people forget how low Carter's job approval ratings were before the hostage crisis gave them a temporary boost. https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/bn1a9jq9g0qlldcnggvpea.png For another, the Democrats are still going to have a severe unity problem, thanks to Edward Kennedy's challenge to Carter's renomination.)
[1] http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table
[2] It rose from 5.9 to 7.5 percent between November 1979 and November 1980. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt
This is very difficult. As other posters have pointed out: Carter was his own worst enemy, and would often burn his political capital for a moral victory. Perhaps if he did the following:
-Didn't alienate the Democrats (who controlled both houses of Congress), and worked with them to pass legislation that addressed the economy..
-Didn't give the "Malaise" speech; essentially didn't blame Americans for the problems facing the country.
-Either encouraged the Shaw to end the repression in Iran and facilitate elections, or, failing that, taken stronger action in response to the Hostage Crisis.
-Put Ted Kennedy on the ticket in 1980 and promise him a voice in administration decisions.
-Didn't alienate the Democrats (who controlled both houses of Congress), and worked with them to pass legislation that addressed the economy..
-Didn't give the "Malaise" speech; essentially didn't blame Americans for the problems facing the country.
-Either encouraged the Shaw to end the repression in Iran and facilitate elections, or, failing that, taken stronger action in response to the Hostage Crisis.
-Put Ted Kennedy on the ticket in 1980 and promise him a voice in administration decisions.