How much did the grain embargo hurt Carter politically in 1980?

Obviously he would still have lost without it. But people forget how much the grain embargo hurt Carter in the farm states in 1980. In 1976 he got 46 percent in ND and 49 percent in SD. In 1980 he got 26 percent in ND, and less than 32 percent in SD. That's way more than his nine point drop in the US as a whole. In 1976, Carter got 45 percent in Kansas, despite Dole being Ford's running mate; in 1980 that was down to 33 percent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
 
The stats you list might provide the answer to your question, assuming that the extra losses in those states(over and above the national-average) are attributable to the embargo, and not also to rural conservative voters ticked off by national humiliations like the hostages and Afghanistan.

(And yeah, I realize the irony of right-wing farmers being mad about the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also mad about Carter doing something to retaliate.)
 
The stats you list might provide the answer to your question, assuming that the extra losses in those states(over and above the national-average) are attributable to the embargo, and not also to rural conservative voters ticked off by national humiliations like the hostages and Afghanistan.

(And yeah, I realize the irony of right-wing farmers being mad about the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also mad about Carter doing something to retaliate.)

Thing is, the grain embargo hurt the Soviets very little, because they could buy grains from other countries, and hurt the American farmers far more.
It wasn't a good idea.
 
Of course, the irony . . .

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
.
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid . . .
So, we induced the Soviets to invade Afghanistan?

Yes and No. This was the way the whole Cold War was played. We’re going to support and arm one side, and so are the Soviets. This was entire “normal”; doesn’t mean I like it.

And the Soviets over-reacted.

————-

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Pres. Carter’s Nat’l Security Advisor.

* Now, older persons sometimes re-tell stories in a way which highlights their own importance. So, we should take this entire claim with a grain of salt.
 
Of course, the irony . . .


So, we induced the Soviets to invade Afghanistan?

Yes and No. This was the way the whole Cold War was played. We’re going to support and arm one side, and so are the Soviets. This was entire “normal”; doesn’t mean I like it.

And the Soviets over-reacted.

————-

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Pres. Carter’s Nat’l Security Advisor.

* Now, older persons sometimes re-tell stories in a way which highlights their own importance. So, we should take this entire claim with a grain of salt.

I read this book a year or so back. The writer disputes Brzezinski's claim that the whole thing was all according to America's plan.

Not sure what to make of either side of that debate, but I will say that if Carter and Zbig really were the midwives of the USSR's own Vietnam, it kinda sucks that they couldn't say so at the time. Can you imagine the electoral milieage Carter could have gotten by telling the American people "You know that decade of absolute living hell we just finished? Thanks to me, the Soviets are about to get their own!!"
 
Top