in 1980, Bush follows up Iowa win with New Hamshire victory?

Good POD would be Nixon not dumping Dole as RNC chairman in favor of Bush. Dole held a longstanding grudge as a result.

Dole got revenge by recruiting some of the other GOP candidates to crash the live Reagan-Bush debate in New HampshireHampshire and demand to be included. Both candidates reacted exactly as Dole expected - Reagan was willing to let them in, Bush cited the rules. The crowd was mad at Bush and it contributed to the margin of victory.

No feud, no plot to (as Dole put it) make Bush look like a wet poodle. Reagan wins NH by single digits and HW carries momentum into the rest of the primaries.
 
Yeah, I just breezed past it (because that's usually what you do with any reasonable what-if: you accept it at face value for the purposes of entertainment) but it's worth pointing out that we do need to do *something* to have Reagan lose in New Hampshire. A gaff, a health scare, something.
Lee Atwater moves to Texas early enough to become affiliated with Bush by 1980. Atwater attacks Reagan for being a divorcee, an absent father, makes Bush seem tougher on crime than Reagan, makes Bush seem like more of a war hero than Reagan, etc.
 
. . . or just maybe Senator Pressler in South Dakota as the only dude who turned down Abscam flat. . .
I did not know that. Good for Senator Larry Pressler! :cool:

out of maybe half a dozen elected officials approached?

I guess the others wanted to feel out the situation and see if there was a way to accept the money without compromising themselves too much? And that’s being as charitable as we possibly can be.
 
Last edited:
I like moderate.

Reagan + Republicans and Dixiecrats in House + Republican majority in Senate enacted big tax cut in Aug. ‘81. And a big tax hike in ‘82 (this second part often forgotten). Maybe the combo was too herky-jerky and contributing factor to 1982 recession.

But then,

modern economies are almost biologically complex; all conclusions tentative.
The recession really had more to do with the policies of the Federal Reserve. Some would argue, much like Britain's recession around the same time, it was a necessary one to conquer inflation, which had been a massive problem in the 1970s, and that a period of tight monetary policy was akin to swallowing some bad tasting medicine.

I somewhat agree, but I also think that the economic recovery wasn't solely monetary policy related. The initial tax cut, coupled with innovations in financial services, probably combined to bring about the return of wind to the economy's sails.
 
Someone could play dirty and leak rumors of Nancy's consulting with psychics or Reagan's rumored application for membership in the communist party. Or his gubernatorial record on abortion, that would raise hell with the religious right.
Not really. Abortion in 1980 was still seen mostly as a Catholic issue, and did far more harm to Democrats as a result in their primary cycles, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest. Silent Scream had only come out a few years afterwards, after all, and positions were still forming on the topic. If you are looking for culture war type issues, the ones that were a far bigger deal at the time were about school prayer and pornography.
 
Lee Atwater moves to Texas early enough to become affiliated with Bush by 1980. Atwater attacks Reagan for being a divorcee, an absent father, makes Bush seem tougher on crime than Reagan, makes Bush seem like more of a war hero than Reagan, etc.
Reagan wasn’t called the Teflon president for nothing!

These kind of criticisms didn’t seem to hurt him that much. And/or after evangelicals fell too much in love with Carter, they then recoursed to the Republicans.
 
The recession really had more to do with the policies of the Federal Reserve. Some would argue, much like Britain's recession around the same time, it was a necessary one to conquer inflation, which had been a massive problem in the 1970s, and that a period of tight monetary policy was akin to swallowing some bad tasting medicine.

I somewhat agree, but I also think that the economic recovery wasn't solely monetary policy related. The initial tax cut, coupled with innovations in financial services, probably combined to bring about the return of wind to the economy's sails.
I personally think we trade too much on the side of reducing inflation, and not enough on the side of countering unemployment.

And then there’s a mystery to explain . . .

upload_2018-12-27_15-30-51-png.428631

U.S. Economy over time

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA

Gray lines are periods of recession.

Why was the relatively brief 1980 recession followed by the much more serious and longer-lasting 1982 recession?
 
I personally think we trade too much on the side of reducing inflation, and not enough on the side of countering unemployment.

And then there’s a mystery to explain . . .

upload_2018-12-27_15-30-51-png.428631

U.S. Economy over time

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RO1Q156NBEA

Gray lines are periods of recession.

Why was the relatively brief 1980 recession followed by the much more serious and longer-lasting 1982 recession?
Because the Federal Reserve initiated a massive rate hike in 1981 to counter inflation, which slowed down economic activity, particularly in areas of the economy where private investment is needed to stimulate demand, like with construction and industrial sectors. The recession in 1980 was arguably ringing in the till for the half decade of stagflation that preceded it. Of course, there is little to indicate that the economy in the 1979 was doing all that much better, but it was not a formal recession yet.

Your point about the weight put upon each mandate of the Fed isn't a new one; I would agree, if we are talking about the last decade in particular, when inflation in general has been hard to generate. This is a facet of having an aging population in a developed economy; Japan is the prototype for this, with Germany and Scandinavia not far behind. They have to resort to negative interest rates (as in, your money has more value in a mattress), to generate investment that could get any kind of normal and necessary inflationary behavior off of the ground. I would say, however, that in the 1970s-1980s, inflation really was the bigger problem and that a sustained attack on it was worth a recession, because serious currency inflation had been chopping at people's living standards for over a decade without the accompanying economic growth needed to offset it.

However, I'd say that recently, we kind of see the limits that monetary policy can have. After all, U3 Unemployment in the US has been sharply diving for a few years now and is reaching some very encouraging levels, even though the Fed has initiated some modest rate hikes. Even U6 Unemployment, arguably a better statistic, has been diving sharply as well (this takes into account those unattached to the labor force). The US misery index is about as low as it has ever been. I'd argue that by the mandates of the Fed, to promote employment and the currency's purchasing power, it has been quite successful. But this doesn't take into account very minute and very selected sectors of the US economy where people are very sensitive to prices, and which monetary policy really has little impact on (like prescription drug prices or private higher education).
 
. . . I would say, however, that in the 1970s-1980s, inflation really was the bigger problem and that a sustained attack on it was worth a recession, . . .
Oh, I wish I could sell the idea of medium step, feedback, and then rinse and repeat!

People think it's obvious, or more commonly, that it's something we're already doing. And generally, we're not.
 
. . . The US misery index is about as low as it has ever been. . .
misery index = inflation + unemployment (as an informal political measure)

But it doesn't take into account all the income inequality. That a lot of the jobs are crappy jobs. That the middle class has been nibbled on at both ends . . . in a slow motion crisis, like putting a frog in water and slowing bringing it to a boil, although I understand that one may not really be true. But our slow motion crisis really may be.

So, you get all the political anger, all the thrashing around and reaching for extremes. In which Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can appeal to some of the same people for the same reasons.

There is still a lot of the American middle class left. But we have been moving in the wrong direction, need to start moving in the right direction.
 
. . . U3 Unemployment . . . Even U6 Unemployment . . .
Maybe we could each try to find a link or two, and help bring our fellow members up to speed?

————-

And bringing it back to our topic here, in the 1980 general election, Reagan connected with the “Reagan Democrats,” who’ve I’ve heard described as northeastern ethnic males (Italian, Irish, Polish, etc). I’ve also heard them described as blue collar workers.
 
Last edited:
Jobs Report: U.S. economy adds disappointing 75,000 jobs in May, unemployment rate holds at 3.6%
Yahoo Finance, Emily McCormick, June 7, 2019

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/jobs-report-bls-may-2019-212001939.html

This is what’s happening right now.

So, if there’s school or any other reason in which you’re deciding whether to look for a job right now or later, this might tip your decision to right now.

Ups and downs, hopefully things won’t get too much worse, not any time soon.

But maybe reason to play it safe.
 
Top