DBWI: Carter had lost in 1980

IOTL, the 1980 Presidential election was close, and when Carter ultimately won re-eletion he still ended up losing the popular vote. Had one or two close states voted for Reagan instead of Carter, how would his presidency had gone?
 
I heard Reagan wanted even more radical tax cuts than Carter allowed in his second term. With Reagan in charge, the top tax rate might be under 50 percent today.

But at least Carter redeemed himself in his second term. He held steady on economics and responded well to AIDS, pumping all kinds of funds into the CDC to box it in here in the US and helping people big time in Africa. I imagine Reagan would have done something but he wouldn’t have been nearly as effective.
 
In truth, by the time his Second Term came to a close, the Economy was well on the path to recovery. But, IMHO, that had more to do with Global Factors than specific decisions made during his Term.

Didn't stop him receiving the credit for said Recovery though, and is part of the reason for the 1980's being very much a Democrat Decade.

Thus, had Reagan managed to clinch victory in 1980, he would've been President at the time the economy fired up again, so it's more than likely he could've become the first 2-Term President since Eisenhower as opposed to Carter. This could have led to the 1980's being a Republican Decade, and who could truly say what that would have meant from the 1990's onwards.
 
In OTL 1984 Vice President Mondale beat Bob Dole by a popular vote margin of 50-47%. In his autobiography Mondale says that he would have still run for President in 1984 had Carter lost to Reagan. If Mondale could beat Dole, it's possible that Reagan would have been re-elected and Mondale might never have become President. What would be the impact of no Mondale Presidency?
 
IOTL, the 1980 Presidential election was close, and when Carter ultimately won re-eletion he still ended up losing the popular vote. Had one or two close states voted for Reagan instead of Carter, how would his presidency had gone?

Well, dictorships in the Southern Cone might have endured way longer, instead of falling between 1982 (Argentina) and 1984 (Chile and Uruguay).

The case of Argentina is particulary illustrative: the Carter administration did not condone human right violations commited by the military government, in spite of the fact that such government was strongly anticommunist. When massive demostrations took place in Buenos Aires in March 1982, the US Deparment of State made it clear that massive arrests and widespread use of force would not be tolerated. Internationally isolated, the Argentinean government anounced that they would hold elections by the end of 1982, elections which the Radical Civic Union would win, which would lead to a peacefull transition to democracy.

(OOC: With Carter in power, the members of the military junta in Argentina would not have deluded themselves to think the US would side with them in a conflict against the UK -or at least would remain neutral- given that the Argentine government was strongly anticommunist and was helping the Reagan administration in their fight against "communism" in Central América. So Argentina would not have landed forces in Malvinas in April 1982. The peacefull end of all military governments before 1984 in this scenario requieres a little of wishfull thinking, though.)
 
The Argentine military junta had ideas plans drafted for potential wars with the United Kingdom and Chile. Perhaps they'd have enacted one of them if they saw a need to bolster their regime (assuming no Democratic transition).

Thatcher left the Falklands pretty vulnerable. Perhaps the OTL already pretty-smashing alliance victory of over 50% would be even greater TTL with the negative impact of a lost war?

In OTL 1984 Vice President Mondale beat Bob Dole by a popular vote margin of 50-47%. In his autobiography Mondale says that he would have still run for President in 1984 had Carter lost to Reagan. If Mondale could beat Dole, it's possible that Reagan would have been re-elected and Mondale might never have become President. What would be the impact of no Mondale Presidency?

Mondale's administration was broadly defined by three things: Foreign Policy Centrism, the failed attempt at the Equal Rights Amendment, and deficit hawkery.
Reagan probably makes deficits and tax cuts the defining political tendency instead of tight money and small deficits, the hallmark of the Carter-Mondale years. Reagan would be more hawkish, boosting defense budgets (and hurting deficits) and pushing for a nuclear buildup - in contrast to Mondale's nuclear freeze (which was good for the budget, although the Soviets got a bit pushier about things...). Mondale failed to get the ERA through, suffered a political loss, and proceeded to face the Conservative Revolution of 86' and be ousted by Conservative Icon Donald Rumsfeld in 1988.


If Carter loses, expect more hawkishness, bigger deficits, bigger tax cuts, and maybe a looser monetary policy.
 
I wonder if Hinckley's assassination attempt still happens ITTL. Reagan might not have been as lucky as Carter considering that he would have been 70 at the time.
 
I wonder if Hinckley's assassination attempt still happens ITTL. Reagan might not have been as lucky as Carter considering that he would have been 70 at the time.

Would Reagan have made the same religious pivot that Carter did? Carter got pretty religious after surviving that.

-----

Would Reagan have doubled down on the drug war? Carter really changed the direction of things by pushing for marijuana decriminalization.
 
The Argentine military junta had ideas plans drafted for potential wars with the United Kingdom and Chile. Perhaps they'd have enacted one of them if they saw a need to bolster their regime (assuming no Democratic transition).

Thatcher left the Falklands pretty vulnerable. Perhaps the OTL already pretty-smashing alliance victory of over 50% would be even greater TTL with the negative impact of a lost war?

50% between two parties mind. The FPTP Voting System tends not to allow smaller parties to break through until a critical threshold is attained. Selective Seat Contesting and backing each other tipping the balance here and letting them govern as a Coalition.


Mondale's administration was broadly defined by three things: Foreign Policy Centrism, the failed attempt at the Equal Rights Amendment, and deficit hawkery.
Reagan probably makes deficits and tax cuts the defining political tendency instead of tight money and small deficits, the hallmark of the Carter-Mondale years. Reagan would be more hawkish, boosting defense budgets (and hurting deficits) and pushing for a nuclear buildup - in contrast to Mondale's nuclear freeze (which was good for the budget, although the Soviets got a bit pushier about things...). Mondale failed to get the ERA through, suffered a political loss, and proceeded to face the Conservative Revolution of 86' and be ousted by Conservative Icon Donald Rumsfeld in 1988.


If Carter loses, expect more hawkishness, bigger deficits, bigger tax cuts, and maybe a looser monetary policy.

OOC: The 1980's have already been referred to here as being a Democrat Decade, so Republicans seizing power starting in '86 doesn't gel well with that. If it started in '88 - '90, that would be more plausible.


IC: Thinking about it, when the Republican Return (which IIRC is how the 1990's are known as), began as the economy started going South again. The more Deficit-Spending-Willing Republican Policies able to be enacted in just as the recession began.

Small wonder they got accredited with reviving US Economic Fortunes at that critical moment, allowing them to Control all Three Houses starting in 1992. The USSR falling apart at about the same time is also a contributory factor here IMHO. *

Speaking of, I suppose in Reagan won in 1980, a major increase in military expenditure (as others have stated) could well have seen the USSR collapse sooner than it did IOTL. Say, about '88-'89?


* - OOC: I'm assuming here that with a less aggressive military spend in the US, the USSR wouldn't plow as much into theirs to maintain parity, so could limp on for just a very little bit longer.
 
Top