DBWI: Carter elected in 1976

In perhaps the greatest political upset in American history, incumbent Gerald Ford, who was considered dead in the water after pardoning Nixon and after the 1974 midterms, narrowly defeated Jimmy Carter, the outsider governor of Georgia who endeared many but ran a vague, inept general election campaign. Ford performed strongly in the debates and managed to define himself as a leader outside of Nixon's shadow, and achieved a narrow 284-254 electoral victory thanks to razor-thin victories in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi.

What if Carter hadn't snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? If we assume that the Carter administration would have faced similar problems to Ford's term (the continued energy crisis, stagflation, the Iranian Revolution and Soviet-Iranian War), how would it have responded to such issues? Just as Jerry Brown won a landslide in 1980 over Vice President Howard Baker, would a Republican (like Ronald Reagan or Bob Dole) be favored to defeat Carter for re-election?
 
Last edited:
Reagan was too old by 1980, which is why his primary effort against Baker was so weak. He knew 1976 was his last real chance.

A Carter win probably ends the unofficial Democratic Party ban on nominating Southerners (and, no, Bob Graham doesn't count. The Democrats knew they were going to lose 1996, and he was the sacrificial lamb).
 
Reagan was too old by 1980, which is why his primary effort against Baker was so weak. He knew 1976 was his last real chance.

A Carter win probably ends the unofficial Democratic Party ban on nominating Southerners (and, no, Bob Graham doesn't count. The Democrats knew they were going to lose 1996, and he was the sacrificial lamb).

Simply put, the Dems were in a tailspin in 1996 - the plane crash that took out President Gore left the Dems in a world of hurt, especially since Dukakis was a complete fuckup in office. Dukakis didn’t want the job, the Dems didn’t want him, and everyone knew John McCain was getting the win in 1996.

The 90s were weird, though - coming off four years of Dollars and Sense Donald, the Gore tragedy, Dukakis being ineffective, and then leading us into McCain thwarting an attack on the World Trade Center and all but discrediting the religious right.
 
Simply put, the Dems were in a tailspin in 1996 - the plane crash that took out President Gore left the Dems in a world of hurt, especially since Dukakis was a complete fuckup in office. Dukakis didn’t want the job, the Dems didn’t want him, and everyone knew John McCain was getting the win in 1996.

The 90s were weird, though - coming off four years of Dollars and Sense Donald, the Gore tragedy, Dukakis being ineffective, and then leading us into McCain thwarting an attack on the World Trade Center and all but discrediting the religious right.
Which has led to a weird shift in the GOP. Before, they were rather socially conservative, as well as their anti-regulation attitude. But now they've sorta splintered into the old GOP/'American Christian Party' which has exactly one senate seat to their name, and the actual GOP, which has actually socially liberalized to almost match the DNC, if not as liberal
 
Which has led to a weird shift in the GOP. Before, they were rather socially conservative, as well as their anti-regulation attitude. But now they've sorta splintered into the old GOP/'American Christian Party' which has exactly one senate seat to their name, and the actual GOP, which has actually socially liberalized to almost match the DNC, if not as liberal

My favorite snippet of that shift came in 2003 when Pat Robertson was talking to President McCain somewhat off the record. Robertson said with a stern tone, “Those gays in Vermont want to get married,” almost growling when he said the word “married.”

McCain stares at him and said flippantly, “Who gives a shit?”
 
For one thing, 'California Über Alles' doesn't top the chart ITTL.

Sorry to drag things back to this, but I was just reading about Mission of Burma's career, and it just made me realise how lucky we were that Jello convinced them to turn down their instruments when they supported the Dead Kennedys on the Fresh Fruit tour. Roger Miller also mentioned that in hindsight, his tinnitus was getting so much worse at the time, and if they'd kept playing such loud gigs, Mission of Burma probably wouldn't have made it out of the 80s. They were so damn important for punk and alternative rock, and it's so hard to imagine a world where they weren't a major part of the alternative music scene. (I mean, personally I can give or take Vs., but Signals is the greatest EP of all time and Forget is one of the greatest albums of all time, not to mention their self-titled and The Horrible Truth About Burma.)
 
Well without the abysmal second term Ford had We wouldn't have had the "Return to Camelot" with Teddy in the 80s.
Without a pro Irish Republican President Anglo American relations would have remained a lot closer. That might not have been a good thing as the lack of trust between the two counties prompted the increase in the UK Defence budget.
 
At least Jimmy C. has proven to be a more capable and influential Senator since his election to the Senate in 1980 and so maybe it was a good thing he did not get elected to the presidency four years earlier.
 
At least Jimmy C. has proven to be a more capable and influential Senator since his election to the Senate in 1980 and so maybe it was a good thing he did not get elected to the presidency four years earlier.
Yeah, he has never been the most effective communicator
 

Deleted member 109224

At least Jimmy C. has proven to be a more capable and influential Senator since his election to the Senate in 1980 and so maybe it was a good thing he did not get elected to the presidency four years earlier.

He got elected as an Independent and has stuck to that brand for 39 years. It's amazing that he still manages to do the job and work with habitat for humanity on top of it.

He'll probably retire in 2022, but I wouldn't be shocked if he somehow stuck around. May Senator Carter serve forever!


The Democratic Party was very divided after Carter's loss and a lot of it amount to northern liberals bashing the Southern Carter. McCarthy covered the spread in MS, OH, and WI and many other states and the party liberals used that to argue that Carter scared off liberals. Jerry Brown later used that argument in the 1980 Primary to argue that he could win those McCarthy voters if he were made nominee.

You can't get elected as a Democrat in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, or South Carolina because of that liberal backlash. Democrats became Republicans and archconservatives became ACes (American Christian Party) Members. Hence why Mississippi's two Senators are Republican Mike Espy (who is basically a New Democrat) and ACe Chris McDaniel.



Carter's been a pretty consistent New Dixiecrat mix of moderate conservatism, social centrism, and promoting programs for the poor. In the Senate he was pretty friendly towards oil and gas and towards deregulation in general. I don't think he'd have been all that different from Ford on the big issues of deficits, monetary policy, and the emerging deregulatory consensus that took hold in the late 80s. He'd probably be a bit more liberal on healthcare and labor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 109224

Brown's administration was weird. It was economically pretty right of center aside from environmental and labor policy. Socially very liberal, to the point that he irked a lot of members of his own party. And he had those pet projects that gave people a national patriotic excitement.

Considering how into boosting NASA he was, no wonder he picked John Glenn as running mate.

National VAT, simplifying the tax code to two rates, minimum income (funded by modest payroll increase, estate taxes, land-value tax, leasing fees on federal lands, and natural resource extraction taxes), nixing lots of deductions, reverse engineering bussing (open enrollment plus "distance vouchers" for public schools pretty much creating the same effect), boosting the state infrastructure bank, creating the AERPA energy-research program, boosting NASA, deregulation (energy, airlines, trucking, shipping, killing the jones act, finance, alcohol), decriminalizing marijuana, appointing gay judges, decriminalizing "homosexual conduct", financing primary care clinics, tax deductions for healthy living, reforming the FDA to simplify the drug approval process in the face of the AIDS Crisis, passing the balanced budget amendment, passing the national popular vote amendment after Carter got screwed in 76, passing the line-item veto amendment, passing the Wyoming Amendment, balancing the budget and generating a surplus, allowing nurse practitioners to open their own practices (as well as funding other weird stuff, like acupuncture and midwifery), getting persons living in common the right to visit one another in the hospital (great for gay rights), appointing gay judges, working hard to get Harvey Milk elected to Congress, expanding the national parks, getting more environmental protections passed, boosting Americorps (so that voluntary national service would guarantee people a modest annual pension and free education at any state or community college), getting the nonvoting House Members the right to vote in Congress (Jesse Jackson from DC, the Cherokee and Choctaw Representatives, Representatives from PR, USVI, Guam, and American Samoa), getting us a big ol' budget surplus, surveillance reform, whistleblower protections, lobbying reform, making Cesar Chavez the Secretary of Labor, etc.


Simply put, the Dems were in a tailspin in 1996 - the plane crash that took out President Gore left the Dems in a world of hurt, especially since Dukakis was a complete fuckup in office. Dukakis didn’t want the job, the Dems didn’t want him, and everyone knew John McCain was getting the win in 1996.

The 90s were weird, though - coming off four years of Dollars and Sense Donald, the Gore tragedy, Dukakis being ineffective, and then leading us into McCain thwarting an attack on the World Trade Center and all but discrediting the religious right.

Then-Secretary Rumsfeld was probably the only Republican who could have won in 1988. The Brown Administration was broadly pretty popular, even with a lot of folks who didn't like his social policies, and Vice President Glenn basically promised all the good of Brown with a bit less weirdness and a bit more midwestern wholesomeness.

Rumsfeld was seen as the face of the Ford Administration's supporting Iran and Afghanistan in their struggle against the Soviets, so there was a lot of goodwill on the part of the public towards him. Movement conservatives also loved him because of his being a pretty hardcore free marketeer and fairly hawkish. He also supported the Civil Rights Act and did decently in picking Jack Kemp as his running mate (managing to both double down on economic conservatism but also broaden the ticket's appeal as well). Rummy's Pro-Israel positions also helped a bit with Jewish and fundamentalist Christian voters.

Rummy had significant Foreign Policy Achievements to his name, economic accomplishments, educational accomplishments, etc. What screwed him in 92 was that the ACes forced the election to the House of Representatives and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate.


McCain invading Sudan over their harboring of Bin Ladin was a bit of mess. The US unilaterally chopping a country in three also was a precedent that caused issues down the line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose it depends (to a degree at least) on how Carter wins. Are we proposing he keeps at least some of the huge lead he enjoyed earlier on in the 76 campaign and wins comfortably? Or is he winning in a squeaker, let's say by Ford having a bad night at one of the debates? The latter scenario is more likely imho.

All things being equal, I agree with those who say Carter wouldn't have been all that different from Ford in a lot of ways, Ford was hampered in many respects by the economy, something I don't see being much better under a Carter admin. I know some historians have argued that Carter, having only been in office for 4 years, would be less vulnerable in the election than the Republicans were and would've been able to pull off a victory. However, as mentioned in this Thread, Carter isn't too stellar a communicator/campaigner at the best of times and if he can't even win against Ford in 1976 in OTL under what was a perfect storm for him (and only just manages to do it ITTL), he's hardly going to be in an ideal position to win an upset victory himself ITTL 4 years later unless we radically change his skills as a politician. So, come 1980, I'd imagine we're looking at a republican victory.

I agree with those who say Reagan was probably a non-starter in 1980, especially if his run for the nomination is as lacklustre as his 1980 (and especially his 1984) attempts were. Having said that, we all know that by 1980 OTL, he had been fronting that political chat show of his for around 18 months, probably realising the republicans (with Baker or himself as candidate) were going to lose the WH after 12 years of GOP control, barring a fluke. My point is, with Carter in office probably not performing much better than Ford did OTL, might Reagan have mounted a far more serious campaign ITTL? His age would be a factor, but Dean's run for the WH in 2016 is proof that such barriers can be overcome. I think his conservatism would be more of a hindrance than his age, personally. I know it's a bit of an AH cliche, but I think Baker is the front runner for the 1980 nod ITTL, especially if we assume that Ford's loss in 1976 is close. While Dole will probably enter the race, I can't see him winning (though maybe I'm making too many assumptions based on his campaign for the 1988 nomination in OTL).
 
Top