DBWI: US Presidential election, 1976

Voting Intentions, 1976


  • Total voters
    45

Penelope

Banned
I'm definately voting for Reagan, though I hope The President's brother makes a full recovery. JFK has lived through a lot, I think he can make it.
 
Kennedy has kept a strong stance against Soviet aggression. But unlike Reagan, he understands that we must maintain a peace and cool tensions and continue the detente. The United States doesn't need the fear of Armageddon from acts of Cowboy diplomacy.
 

Penelope

Banned
Kennedy has kept a strong stance against Soviet aggression. But unlike Reagan, he understands that we must maintain a peace and cool tensions and continue the detente. The United States doesn't need the fear of Armageddon from Cowboy diplomacy.

Reagan has shown that he will stand up against the Soviets, and not back down. But Reagan isn't a lunatic, he isn't going to start a nuclear war with them, for Christ's sake.
 
Nobody will back down to the Soviets, so Reagan isn't anything new there even if he tries to promote himself as so. But his is an aggressive stance. He wants an end to the detente, massive military build up, nuclear build up, he treats the Soviets as a purely evil empire, etc. That's not reasonable nor the best diplomatic coarse if we are to avoid conflict with the Soviets. Similarly, that military build up and nuclear build up will do little more than drain money from other programs, and programs to aid the American citizenry, and cause economic burden.
 
Nobody will back down to the Soviets, so Reagan isn't anything new there even if he tries to promote himself as so. But his is an aggressive stance. He wants an end to the detente, massive military build up, nuclear build up, he treats the Soviets as a purely evil empire, etc. That's not reasonable nor the best diplomatic coarse if we are to avoid conflict with the Soviets. Similarly, that military build up and nuclear build up will do little more than drain money from other programs, and programs to aid the American citizenry, and cause economic burden.
BUt maybe the Soviets won't be able to match us. Maybe we can spend them to death. Preserving the status quo forever is no way to win a war, and Reagan promises to be a game-changer.
 

Penelope

Banned
BUt maybe the Soviets won't be able to match us. Maybe we can spend them to death. Preserving the status quo forever is no way to win a war, and Reagan promises to be a game-changer.

This. We can spend the Soviets to death, and if the Soviets can match us, I doubt that there will be an all-out war. More likely, an arms race, similar to the 50's and 60's.
 
BUt maybe the Soviets won't be able to match us. Maybe we can spend them to death. Preserving the status quo forever is no way to win a war, and Reagan promises to be a game-changer.
The Soviets have shown they can match us tit-for-tat in the past and you can't spend the USSR to death. And we are not at war (as much as Reagan may wanna treat it like one); we are in political, social, and economical rivalry which must be kept cool, cooled further and eventually ended entirely at some point in the future. This is how things have always been and isn't some finite game; you have major powers that compete against one another or exist alongside one another in the world. There will never be a point where someone wins nor is this Cold war necessarily indefinite. It will end one day when the United States and Soviet Union mange to resolve differences enough to avoid the threat of conflict.

Reagan isn't a game changer; he's just trying to change the game back to 1955.

OOC:
Reagan's goal was never in a million years to outspend the Soviets, and that's a myth of modern times that he was somehow trying to cause the USSR to collapse. In his first term, he wanted to compete with the Soviets because he believed they were evil and in his second, he sought to aid in democratizing them. And nobody in a million years foresaw collapse, which had more to do with instability from lack of reform and massive military spending began before Reagan under Brezhnev's leadership. Similarly, we didn't know how many missiles the USSR actually had and thought they were neck and neck with us.

This. We can spend the Soviets to death, and if the Soviets can match us, I doubt that there will be an all-out war. More likely, an arms race, similar to the 50's and 60's.
You can't bankrupt another superpower as capable as we. And the danger is not build up, it is the aggression inherent in build up and in Reagan which will lead to greater tensions, and it is that tension which threatens peace.
 

Penelope

Banned
The Soviets have shown they can match us tit-for-tat in the past and you can't spend the USSR to death. And we are not at war (as much as Reagan may wanna treat it like one); we are in political, social, and economical rivalry which must be kept cool, cooled further and eventually ended entirely. This is how things have always been and isn't some finite game; you have major powers that compete against one another or exist alongside one another in the world. There will never be a point where someone wins.

Reagan isn't a game changer; he's just trying to change the game back to 1955.

OOC:
Reagan's goal was never in a million years to outspend the Soviets, and that's a myth of modern times that he was somehow trying to cause the USSR to collapse. In his first term, he wanted to compete with the Soviets because he believed they were evil and in his second, he sought to aid in democratizing them. And nobody in a million years foresaw collapse, which had more to do with instability from lack of reform and massive military spending began before Reagan under Brezhnev's leadership.

OOC: True. I'm just trying to say what I would think back then.

IC: Reagan wants no part in war. He sees communism for what it truly is, evil.
 
The Soviets have shown they can match us tit-for-tat in the past and you can't spend the USSR to death. And we are not at war (as much as Reagan may wanna treat it like one); we are in political, social, and economical rivalry which must be kept cool, cooled further and eventually ended entirely. This is how things have always been and isn't some finite game; you have major powers that compete against one another or exist alongside one another in the world. There will never be a point where someone wins.

Reagan isn't a game changer; he's just trying to change the game back to 1955.

OOC:
Reagan's goal was never in a million years to outspend the Soviets, and that's a myth of modern times that he was somehow trying to cause the USSR to collapse. In his first term, he wanted to compete with the Soviets because he believed they were evil and in his second, he sought to aid in democratizing them. And nobody in a million years foresaw collapse, which had more to do with instability from lack of reform and massive military spending began before Reagan under Brezhnev's leadership.
OOC: Fine, fine, I'll do something else then.
IC: It isn't the Cold Disagreement or the Cold Debate, it's the Cold War. Prove to me that, if they could, the Soviets wouldn't march into Washington and I'll conceed that point.
Playing tit-for-tat is pointless. We add a bomber, they add a bomber. We add a missile, they add a missile. We have considerable might, and it's about time we used it for something other than "maintaining parity with the Soviets.
 
IC: Reagan wants no part in war. He sees communism for what it truly is, evil.
Reagan wants no part in war as nobody does, but has shown he will gleefully do all things that serve to cause wars that no reasonable person will.


IC: It isn't the Cold Disagreement or the Cold Debate, it's the Cold War. Prove to me that, if they could, the Soviets wouldn't march into Washington and I'll conceed that point.
It's not a war, it is a Cold war; which is a metaphor for a conflict of ideologies and systems which has not resolved itself to the use of open combat, destruction and devastation between the superpowers. As the United States and Britain were not at war in the late 19th century though conflict of interest abounded, so are we not at war with the USSR. And just as the United States and Britain found friendship for their conflicts of interests and squabbles, so must we with the USSR.

Playing tit-for-tat is pointless. We add a bomber, they add a bomber. We add a missile, they add a missile. We have considerable might, and it's about time we used it for something other than "maintaining parity with the Soviets.
The only way to win the game is not to play. We cannot increase tensions with the Soviets because there's no winning in the end result, which is atomic war. If the USSR is willing to play ball, don't beam them when they aren't looking.
 
Voted for Kennedy, because of his stance on the sagging economy right now.

Even though Reagan may have a better position on the Soviets, I totally dislike his proposed economic policies.
 
Voted for Kennedy, because of his stance on the sagging economy right now.

Even though Reagan may have a better position on the Soviets, I totally dislike his proposed economic policies.
OOC: You voted for the incumbent during a crappy economy because of his economic policies? How is that possible?
 
Oops. I thought this was a new election, I didn't know Kennedy was the incumbent. :eek:

Well, I am still voting for him because he is actually trying to do something about the economy. Reagan wants to continue the failed Nixon policies that got us here.

OOC: And I am sigging your post just because of the irony. :D
 
OOC: You voted for the incumbent during a crappy economy because of his economic policies? How is that possible?
OOC:
The crappy economy was predestined by the time you got to Nixon, who existed in this TL, and it would likely suck under Agnew. With good management (pin this to RFK in this TL because I brought it up earlier), you could begin recovery in the same way Nixon did which would guarantee a mediocre economy similar to the OTL, but improved from earlier gaining brownie points, and improving.
 
Reagan wants no part in war as nobody does, but has shown he will gleefully do all things that serve to cause wars that no reasonable person will.



It's not a war, it is a Cold war; which is a metaphor for a conflict of ideologies and systems which has not resolved itself to the use of open combat, destruction and devastation between the superpowers. As the United States and Britain were not at war in the late 19th century though conflict of interest abounded, so are we not at war with the USSR. And just as the United States and Britain found friendship for their conflicts of interests and squabbles, so must we with the USSR.


The only way to win the game is not to play. We cannot increase tensions with the Soviets because there's no winning in the end result, which is atomic war. If the USSR is willing to play ball, don't beam them when they aren't looking.
OOC: You didn't just quote a movie that hasn't even happen yet, did you?:rolleyes:
IC: But neither can we afford to reduce the very weapons that produce said tension. If we did, we could go back to talking about winnable nuclear wars, and the Soviets are a hell of a lot crazier than Reagan would be, even on acid.
Oops. I thought this was a new election, I didn't know Kennedy was the incumbent. :eek:

Well, I am still voting for him because he is actually trying to do something about the economy. Reagan wants to continue the failed Nixon policies that got us here.

OOC: And I am sigging your post just because of the irony. :D
OOC: I am aware of no irony, but I appreciate the sig. Please elaborate.
OOC:
The crappy economy was predestined by the time you got to Nixon, who existed in this TL, and it would likely suck under Agnew. With good management (pin this to RFK in this TL because I brought it up earlier), you could begin recovery in the same way Nixon did which would guarantee a mediocre economy similar to the OTL, but improved from earlier gaining brownie points, and improving.
OOC: Why predestined? The JFK presidency obviously didn't end in Dallas, why couldn't he have screwed things up instead?
 
OOC: You didn't just quote a movie that hasn't even happen yet, did you?:rolleyes:
IC: But neither can we afford to reduce the very weapons that produce said tension. If we did, we could go back to talking about winnable nuclear wars, and the Soviets are a hell of a lot crazier than Reagan would be, even on acid.
We can afford to reduce arms because we have, and it has allowed the detente that we currently deal with to come to fruition to begin with.

Humanity is not a beast predestined to go to war over everything, nor are the Russians itching to conquer us and go to war with us anymore than we are with them. If we turn back the nuclear clock, it will allow a lasting peace between we and the USSR.

OOC: Why predestined? The JFK presidency obviously didn't end in Dallas, why couldn't he have screwed things up instead?
OOC: Firstly, I think the JFK thing earlier may have been a typo for RFK. If not, this TL has totally ignored major altercations from a John Kennedy lives timeline. Secondly, JFK was not going to screw things up economically. The bumps in the 70's were exacerbated by a lot, but most of them can be traced to the problems of trying to fund both Vietnam and the Great Society when only one or the other could be afforded. Therefore, if the POD is RFK lives and Nixon dies, but LBJ did his thing regardless the economy is predestined to suck and go into recession mode. However, effective measures taken can create a better situation for earlier/better recovery, but you won't get to the really major stuff until post 1976 in the OTL standards anyway.
 
We can afford to reduce arms because we have, and it has allowed the detente that we currently deal with to come to fruition to begin with.

Humanity is not a beast predestined to go to war over everything, nor are the Russians itching to conquer us and go to war with us anymore than we are with them. If we turn back the nuclear clock, it will allow a lasting peace between we and the USSR.

OOC: Firstly, I think the JFK thing earlier may have been a typo for RFK. If not, this TL has totally ignored major altercations from a John Kennedy lives timeline. Secondly, JFK was not going to screw things up economically. The bumps in the 70's were exacerbated by a lot, but most of them can be traced to the problems of trying to fund both Vietnam and the Great Society when only one or the other could be afforded. Therefore, if the POD is RFK lives and Nixon dies, but LBJ did his thing regardless the economy is predestined to suck and go into recession mode. However, effective measures taken can create a better situation for earlier/better recovery, but you won't get to the really major stuff until post 1976 in the OTL standards anyway.
OOC: That still lays the main fault at the feet of the Democrats for getting into Vietnam and instituting the Great Society. Somebody said something about Nixon "stabilizing" Vietnam, so we can assume some variety of win there, or at least a non-loss, and that probably isn't expensive any more.
IC: If we scale back, the Soviets will see it as an opportunity. The only thing that stood between Western Europe and the Soviets in 1945 is the US Army, and the same is true today.
 
Top