DBWI: Jimmy Carter loses in 1980

So President Carter had a tough first term in office, only barely beating former California Governor and Actor Ronald Reagan due to Carter securing the release of the Hostages after the "October Surprise" came out where it was revealed the Reagan campaign was colluding with the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. The economy remained weak until well into 1983, the Republicans were able to retake the Senate in 1982, and the GOP also held a narrow majority of Governorships and state legislatures by January 1983. The House only narrowly stayed in Democratic control. The 1984 election, despite a growing economy and eased tensions with the Soviet Union, saw Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and running mate Nevada Senator Paul Laxalt defeat Vice President Mondale and his running mate San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein. The Republicans would hold a all three branches of Government for the first time in thirty years.

How would different would history have played out if Governor Reagan won in 1980? Would the Cold War have ended by the late '80's? How would the economy have fared from 1981-1985 with a Reagan/Bush administration? Would Reagan be re elected? How would Carter be remembered if his Administration only lasted one term?
 
Well, for one thing, Reagan wouldn't have been stabbed to death in federal prison by that angry drug smuggler they had locked him up with. So we'd be spared decades of right-wing conspiracy theories about how it was all a plot by "the Communists" to kill "a true American patriot".

On a somewhat more serious note, we wouldn't have seen the vile demonization of the hostages by the conservative gutter press, portraying them as champagne socialist State Department dilettantes who exaggerated theie suffering in order to magnify Reagan's crimes.
 
Well, for one thing, Reagan wouldn't have been stabbed to death in federal prison by that angry drug smuggler they had locked him up with. So we'd be spared decades of right-wing conspiracy theories about how it was all a plot by "the Communists" to kill "a true American patriot".

On a somewhat more serious note, we wouldn't have seen the vile demonization of the hostages by the conservative gutter press, portraying them as champagne socialist State Department dilettantes who exaggerated theie suffering in order to magnify Reagan's crimes.

All true, though Reagan means the "Conservative Gutter Press" would be stronger. According to sources that were close to Reagan, he was planning on axing the Fairness Doctrine.
 
Well, I do know this: If Reagan wins in 1980, for one, that probably butterflies Gerry Ferraro's Presidency, as she only finally made a concrete decision to run after Jesse Jackson's loss in '88(that "Hymietown" thing screwed him over pretty badly with moderate voters; and really badly with Jewish voters in general, understandably). And what a shame that could have been(mainly, it's possible that the Equal Rights Amendment doesn't even get signed into law, as it did in 1999 IOTL).

On the other hand, no Gerry Ferraro also means we might not have been saddled with Dan Quayle in 2000(good God, what a disaster his Presidency was!).
 
Well, I do know this: If Reagan wins in 1980, for one, that probably butterflies Gerry Ferraro's Presidency, as she only finally made a concrete decision to run after Jesse Jackson's loss in '88(that "Hymietown" thing screwed him over pretty badly with moderate voters; and really badly with Jewish voters in general, understandably). And what a shame that could have been(mainly, it's possible that the Equal Rights Amendment doesn't even get signed into law, as it did in 1999 IOTL).

On the other hand, no Gerry Ferraro also means we might not have been saddled with Dan Quayle in 2000(good God, what a disaster his Presidency was!).
To be fair, not even the strongest person would have been prepared to deal with the effects of limited nuclear war in India and Pakistan. Though I suppose a stronger figure might have been able to handle the aftermath a lot better.

But in regards to the OP's question, I doubt Reagan would have lasted long in office anyways. The Iran collusion was always bound to come out, so we could very well have seen Reagan impeached along with Bush. Tip O'Neill would probably end up serving the Presidency as a caretaker until 1984 rolls around, which would likely be a Democratic landslide.
 
To be fair, not even the strongest person would have been prepared to deal with the effects of limited nuclear war in India and Pakistan. Though I suppose a stronger figure might have been able to handle the aftermath a lot better.

November 7, 2006 will no doubt go down as one of the saddest days in world history. Over 2 million lives were lost during the initial exchange in both countries, and even now, both nations are still suffering the after effects.

But in regards to the OP's question, I doubt Reagan would have lasted long in office anyways. The Iran collusion was always bound to come out, so we could very well have seen Reagan impeached along with Bush. Tip O'Neill would probably end up serving the Presidency as a caretaker until 1984 rolls around, which would likely be a Democratic landslide.

Perhaps so.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one thing, Reagan wouldn't have been stabbed to death in federal prison by that angry drug smuggler they had locked him up with. So we'd be spared decades of right-wing conspiracy theories about how it was all a plot by "the Communists" to kill "a true American patriot".

On a somewhat more serious note, we wouldn't have seen the vile demonization of the hostages by the conservative gutter press, portraying them as champagne socialist State Department dilettantes who exaggerated theie suffering in order to magnify Reagan's crimes.
OOC:
tenor.gif
 
November 27, 1988 will no doubt go down in history as one of the saddest days in world history. Perhaps if Deng Xiaoping hadn't been couped in 1987 Pakistan wouldn't have gotten those weapons in the first place, and thus, the Third Indo-Pakistani War wouldn't have gone nuclear.

OOC: Okay, I'm honestly really confused as to when this bit was supposed to happen.
OOC: I meant that it was supposed to happen during Quayle's Presidency.
 
OOC: I meant that it was supposed to happen during Quayle's Presidency.

OOC: Okay. I'll go ahead and edit my post accordingly. Edit: Done!

IC: Also, I gotta wonder: in a universe where Reagan became the President in 1980, would Larry Flynt ever run, like he did in 2000, and 2016 IOTL? Just couldn't help but think of that, given that both were in the entertainment industry(main difference being Flynt's libertarian social attitudes, and his well known philanthropy and his more recent dives into hard-hitting investigative journalism).
 
Last edited:
Carter is still pretty fondly remembered here in Georgia, even if his approach wasn't the best.

Though the 80s was a mixed time. If Reagan was in charge, he'd probably define it with his easy-talking and maybe a revive in strict religious followings with the conservatives. Though the GOP would gain control of all three branches, there was enough in-fighting to keep them from doing too much harm. Then the GOP got their kneecaps blown off after the Quayle administration f*cked up foreign affairs with India and Pakistan while also pissing off alot of people for their attempts to align with larger businesses. It's why some pretty leftish Democrats would end up controlling all three branches of government after Quayle's run in 2008. They did a fair bit of good, but the Dems own in-fighting led to the rise of the first real third party, the Neo-Progressive Party, who managed to win the presidency iin 2016 and control the House under President Bernie Sanders.

Internationally, the US did very well under Carter before the GOP caused a lot of problems, though their support of the conservative parties in Europe did lead to a large backlash when said conseravtive leaders backed Quayle in his decisions that led to the Indian-Pakistani exchange (thouh Pakistan is now half of what it used to be since the Punjab became their own state after getting sick of both and has become a regional power in Central Asia.)
 

OOC:

Well, Reagan getting stabbed to death in prison might be a bit of an escalation, I'll admit. Reagan going to jail after getting caught paying the Iranians to hold Americans hostage, on the other hand, not much of an escalation at all. That's basically just like a cup falling to the floor after being pushed off a table.
 
Carter is still pretty fondly remembered here in Georgia, even if his approach wasn't the best.

Though the 80s was a mixed time. If Reagan was in charge, he'd probably define it with his easy-talking and maybe a revive in strict religious followings with the conservatives. Though the GOP would gain control of all three branches, there was enough in-fighting to keep them from doing too much harm. Then the GOP got their kneecaps blown off after the Quayle administration f*cked up foreign affairs with India and Pakistan while also pissing off alot of people for their attempts to align with larger businesses. It's why some pretty leftish Democrats would end up controlling all three branches of government after Quayle's run in 2008.

Yep. People were hella angry back in '08, and for understandably; and, of course, it wasn't just the India-Pakistan crisis itself, but also the near-collapse of the global economy in 2007-08. And former Congresswoman Kirsten Mitchell proved to be highly capable in handling that after her ascension to the Presidency.

OOC: BTW, just FYI, Kirsten Mitchell is Kirsten Gillibrand-she just married someone else ITTL, that's all.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would have happened to Rodger Ailes, the Republican media advisor? The guy was brilliant at manipulation of the media.
It came out during the Reagan investigation that he had sexuality assalted several women. He went to prison, no media organization would touch him when he was released.
It was rumored he had an active social life in prison.
 
Top