DBWI: What happens if Carter doesn't win re-election in 1980?

As you know, Jimmy Carter won re-election in 1980 and was president until 1985. What if Ronald Reagan had won the election?
 
USA could've won the Cold War... Ronald Reagan was really promising.
OCC: Dude, are you ok? Carter literally had no f###### chance to win 1980 Elections
 
How exactly does Reagan win? He was sort of a friendlier Goldwater and considered to be both too old and too extreme. Carter's first term had its problems, but it was good enough for the voters to re-elect him by a comfortable margin, though granted Reagan wasn't blown out like Goldwater had been in 1964.
 
OOC: all you need is no Iranian Revolution, which means no oil shock and a much better economy along with no hostage crisis, it may also even butterfly away the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Carter getting along with his own party leadership helps but is probably neither sufficient or necessary.
 
OCC: Dude, are you ok? Carter literally had no f###### chance to win 1980 Elections

No need to be both snippy and wrong. The easiest way to do it is to reverse the debate outcome, so Carter keeps his pre-debate lead. A Carter wins POD isn't exactly uncommon on here. You could have the Iranian hostage rescue go better, you could have Kennedy never run and liberal Democratic support high for Carter, you could have Carter decline to do the grain embargo and retain support in the midwest. There's lots of paths. Now, 1984 on the other hand...
 
Well, by all accounts Reagan was pro-deregulation of business, especially in the financial sector. Carter, by contrast, maintained existing regulation in the area. Which...people have argued that it led to stagnation, but I've read a lot of studies that reckon it could have led to a bubble, which could have been nasty if it burst.
 
OOC: No Iran hostage crisis, no Reagan stealing Carter’s debate notes, someone else getting the blame for stagflation.

IC: Given how Carter negotiated a peaceful transition from the Shah to a secular republic and used the federal government to ease the misery from stagflation as much as he could, Reagan’s anti-government spiel fell on deaf ears.
 
Well, by all accounts Reagan was pro-deregulation of business, especially in the financial sector. Carter, by contrast, maintained existing regulation in the area. Which...people have argued that it led to stagnation, but I've read a lot of studies that reckon it could have led to a bubble, which could have been nasty if it burst.

What? Jimmy Carter was the great deregulator. He deregulated finance, trucking, beer, oil, railroads, and airlines. He also was pretty conservative on monetary issues, having Volcker tighten the money supply in his second term, and was a deficit-hawk. He talked about all of this in the debates with Reagan.

Plus he upped defense spending and was tough on the Russians.

I don't get this idea of Carter as a tax and spend liberal. He was a moderate conservative and when Ford came back in 1984 its no wonder Carter implicitly supported him after Mondale lost the primary to Kennedy.


Reagan would probably do a lot of what Carter did but spend more on defense, cut taxes more (blowing up the deficit). You wouldn't see the decriminalization of marijuana as occurred under Carter's second term either.

The long-term legacy of Carter is that until Jerry Brown we had nothing but center to center-right governments in the US. Ford, Carter, Ford again, and then Bush. Then we ended up with 12 years of Jerry Brown and Doug Wilder, which was its own kind of radical centrism. It says a lot that Brown both achieved the long-desired conservative priority of a flat tax, was a big supply-sider, put in a VAT, and abolished the Department of Education.
 
Last edited:
I'm still curious about the POD, but what happens when Reagan's first term is up? I don't think he would be that popular, but even so he would have been 74 years old, assuming he even lived through his first term.

My suspicion is that Reagan doesn't run again and we get the same Bush vs. Mondale election that we got IOT. The Reagan administration would go down as a curiosity -a Hollywood actor as President- but his more business friendly policies would make him something of a hero among the sort of people who like that stuff.
 
Carter was the big business deregulator, but I remember, when asked about banks and financial institutions, with a wry smile he said, no, I don’t think that would be a good idea.

Reagan’s big thing was a much lower top bracket on personal income tax, down to 40%, maybe lower if momentum had gathered or increased, that kind of thing.

As I’m sure most here people remember (although perhaps not some of our younger people) in 1982 the Carter administration supported lowering the top bracket to 50%. And this was defended almost with a sense of poetic justice, that when you’re this rich, you certainly are benefiting from the greater societal infrastructure, so 50-50.
 
Last edited:
Carter was the big business deregulator, but I remember, when asked about banks and financial institutions, with a wry smile he said, no, I don’t think that would be a good idea.

Reagan’s big thing was a much lower top bracket on personal income tax, down to 40%, maybe lower if momentum had gathered or increased, that kind of thing.

As I’m sure most here people remember (although perhaps not some of our younger people) in 1982 the Carter administration supported lowering the top bracket to 50%. And this was defended almost with a sense of poetic justice, that when you’re this rich, you certainly are benefiting from the greater societal infrastructure, so 50-50.

Except with all the deductions they didn't pay the 50% rate anyway.

That's why there was so much support for Brown's pushing the flat tax - most people figured rich people paid less than them in taxes.
 
. . didn't pay the 50% rate anyway. .
Yes, even though Carter was more successful than average in closing loopholes and in seeing that the so-called “investment tax credit” (ITC) actually creating jobs (a forgotten detail is that a couple of economists on the Reagan advising team had publicly talked about getting rid of the ITC as just too complex and too easy to game)

enough ragged edges and gray area still remained,

that there was plenty of popular support for the flat tax. And it took a liberal like Pres. Brown to get it through! A mirror image of “only Nixon could go to China”
 
No need to be both snippy and wrong. The easiest way to do it is to reverse the debate outcome, so Carter keeps his pre-debate lead. A Carter wins POD isn't exactly uncommon on here. You could have the Iranian hostage rescue go better, you could have Kennedy never run and liberal Democratic support high for Carter, you could have Carter decline to do the grain embargo and retain support in the midwest. There's lots of paths. Now, 1984 on the other hand...

OOC: 1984 is tougher than 1980, but do-able. The key is delaying the economic recovery.
 
With the brilliant and heroic (and successful) desert recuse of the American hostages in Iran it looks unlikely that Ronald Reagan can defeat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election.

The nation is expecting a Democratic sweep, but the stars and the Electoral College are not in on the plan. Ronald Reagan, B actor and party product surprises even himself by pulling out a squeaker. Losing the popular vote, he wins the White House by wining close in several key States. The nation is shocked. (And as is usual with these type of elections there is much post election banter about the Electoral College this, and the Electoral College that, but in the end, as usual, the talk goes nowhere.)

The marginalized Reagan enters office as the first 20th Century President unable to carry with him at least one house of Congress, making him the first President to enter office facing two hostile chambers. (Bush the elder actually holds that ominous distinction today.) Reagan quickly realizes if he is to get any of his conservative policies through, he will have to become a consensus president, trading social spending increases for tax cuts and defense. The Democrats are quickly seduced by the free spending Reagan and abandoned all of Carter's fiscally conservative polices. The deficit soars (as does the national debt) while Jimmy Carter fumes from Plains, kicking in his stall, he can do nothing but wait.

The deficit spending bumps the economy enough that the Republicans go into the off-year election of '82 hoping for a congressional take-over. The Democrats in the end hold the House but lose control of the Senate by a slim majority.

Filled with a new sense of empowerment (and hubris) Reagan in late November (soon to be supported by a friendly Senate) places new emphasis on his foreign policies. But when Reagan tries to implement the Kirkpatrick Doctrine in Latin America, it brings him into direct conflict with Carter's popular Human Rights policies. The Democrats now weary of Reagan's sudden growth in popularity finally plant their feet and refuse to allow Reagan to roll back Carter's successful foreign policy achievements. The House refuses to fund Reagan's endeavors and like Andrew Jackson in Texas, Reagan is forced to seek alternative financing for his filibustering into Central America.

After almost six years of being held at bay by Carter’s human rights agenda, and a scrutinizing Senate, the intelligence community, excited by Reagan's bravado quickly over-extends itself, with too many irons in the fire logistics goes to hell, while Mugwump spooks run amok. It's only a matter of time . . .

The whole magilla comes to light when the illegal financing is exposed. An arms courier is shot down over Honduras, and under the threat of execution spills out the much of the subterfuge. The Democrats, (embittered by loss of the Senate) once sheep smell blood and become wolfs. Constant leaks from within the intelligence community cause the Reagan administration to turn on itself and begin to unravel, while the Republican controlled Senate, unaccustomed to being in the majority, proves an ineffective bulwark against the Democratic/media onslaught. Ronald Reagan 40th President of the United States is impeached.

Reagan is acquitted but comes out of the ordeal damaged goods. Jimmy Carter starts talking comeback.

The Election of 1984

The stress of the impeachment trial accelerates Reagan's Alzheimer's and the American people become concerned that their President is becoming addle minded. After much soul searching the GOP decides to dump their incumbent and goes looking for an alternative. The 1984 presidential election becomes an open election.

Gerald Ford makes himself available but the Republicans don't want to run a retread and go with the New England aristocratic turned Texas bureaucrat (and current VP) George H.W. Bush.

The Democrats find themselves in disarray, not certain they want to bring back the austere (tight-fisted) Carter they refuse to offer Carter the nomination by acclamation. Carter embittered begins to mount a primary campaign. Walter Mondale refuses to run against his old boss and bows out, and while Ted Kennedy's presidential ambitions remain at the bottom of a pond, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill sees his opportunity. The Speaker tosses his hat into the ring but ignites a firestorm as copious stories of extreme Irish behavior surface and for the first time the American public understand the hue of the Speaker's nasus. Tip O'Neill self-destructs.

The Democratic primary season proves a short one, with Carter easily defeating two unknowns, a too ethnic looking 'technocrat' from Massachusetts and a gifted man-child from Arkansas. The Democrats, without enthusiasm once again nominate Jimmy Carter of Georgia for a third run at the White House.

The more dynamic and exciting H.W. Bush (Yea, I actually did said that.) proves too popular for the aging and now even more dower Carter, winning both the popular vote and the College, George H.W. Bush becomes the 41st President of the United States. The Democrats hold control of the House (while Speaker O'Neill is 'gold-watch' out); the Democrats regain control of the Senate by a slim margin, but only because the contested seats line up to their advantage.

The rest is history, it just comes four years sooner. In the end nothing really changed but the date.
 
Last edited:
. . . Given how Carter negotiated a peaceful transition from the Shah . . .
And some conservatives criticized Carter for this, but they didn't get much traction. Conservatives made a little more headway in criticizing Carter for "losing" Nicaragua, but given how crappy a dictator Somoza was, not much headway.

Here's my idea for an ATL — if Iran had gone poorly or chaotically, some voters may have overperceived a pattern with merely two examples. Kind of like at work where you might get unfairly criticized if two messy situations happen, even if you handle both about as well as anyone could. Really, only poker players and baseball players truly understand how streaky life can be. The rest of us mere humans tend to overperceive patterns.

So, Iran goes badly, Reagan does better in the debate, close election, and then one just never knows.
 
Last edited:
And Reagan really wanted to make the moral case against capitalism communism, I mean! And in several speeches, he mentioned "supporting allies." What the hell does that mean? El Salvador and Guatemala during the bad days of the late '70s?

So, if Reagan wins, things may go rather poorly for a number of third world countries for four years, maybe more to fully recover. And if you're one of the persons who the regime is targeting, yeah, then it's pretty much a full-fledged dystopia.
 
Last edited:
Top