President Ted Kennedy

Saw the title and it started making me sick.

I don't think Teddy can get past the Incedent, I mean it seems like to big of a stain to get past pluse his staunchly liberal additude won't get him many if any of the border states. So even if he gets the nomination he looses to Reagan.
 
Germaniac: Reagan had the magic with union voters. Ted Kennedy didn't have that for ideological reasons: Robert Kennedy and Bill Clinton did, but they were DLC Dems, not flaming liberals like Teddy.

No, I think RB that Germaniac hit the hammer on the head in his post about the Union vote during the 1980 Election. I am always of the belief, that American Voters(Their's number that backs up this thesis) are not nearly as Ideological as voters in other Westernized democracies. I think it's alot easy for us today to say that 30 year's ago someone was too liberal or too conservative. For me, American Party Politics have always been about the Politics of Personality, that in this race you would have the titans of Kennedy v. Reagan. And alot of those Ethnic, White Working Class Voters despite Chappaquididck had been waiting for "their" royalty to return to the White House. In truth Reagan had never been a fan, or staunch supporter of the Unions and I really think they would fall in support to Teddy, who had always supported their issues.

Another important thing is that White Evangelical Vote, which ahas never been strong for the Kennedy's wasn't completley developed yet as a Political Force. Yes although we do have Falwell's Moral Majority, but they really didn't pick up steam to atleast the mid 80's and wern't strong in the states that Teddy needs to win.

Also I really don't believe all this nonsense about Teddy not being able to win Michigan when Reagan only one there with about 6% margin of diffence between Kennedy. Simply give Jimmy the 7% that Anderson had, and Carter would have won 49.54% to Reagan's 48.99%. An nailbitter of course, but very well possible...and I think Teddy would perform simmilary in the state withought Anderson in the Race.
 
Moral Majoritarians won't vote for Ted, who is a cultural bleeding-heart. I cannot see how he will be a two-termer, because his economic prescriptions are the wrong ones. IOTL he advocated wage-and-price controls. Like Reagan did in '80, all the GOP has to do in '84 is ask: "How much have your grocery bills gone up since the President took office?" Not to mention being a sitting duck for the Atwater/Rove attack machine, and not just on moral issues. Too soft. Re unions: possible. They could say what Clinton advised Gore to do in '00: "Kennedy won't take your gun away, but Reagan will take your union away." No NAFTA or CAFTA- Ted is a protectionist. That will have major effects on the US and Canadian economies unless a Republican wins in 1984.
 
Last edited:
It's amusing to me to see so many getting physically ill at the thought of Pres Ted Kennedy. Outside of some Obama Derangement Syndrome, I don't think we've seen anything comparable about a recent politician at this forum. With the exception of Chapaquiddick, there's nothing one can point to as an explanation for this reaction, except sheer ideological anger.

Whatever you think of the man, Ted is actually the most accomplished of the three brothers, having a greater effect on the country and doing far more in his time in Congress than, in fact, almost all presidents ever did. Only FDR , Lincoln, and Washington come even close to having the same impact.

The interesting question is how much he could do while president, given his undeniable skills in congressional coalition building. You're talking a congressional leader who staved off much of what Reagan, Gingrinch, and Bush I and II tried to do, at times even when his party was in the minority, and even when the Dems had largely turned their back on their own liberalism for most of the past 40 years. The Dems haven't been a largely liberal party since McGovern ran. TK fought a rearguard action against the GOP often when he had perhaps no more than 1/3 of his party to back him.

So if Ted Kennedy was pres in 1980, think of the following as quite likely:

No Iran Contra. No Contras period. The Sandinista Revolution gets to try out their experiment without having to fight off the world's most powerful nation. (This deserves its own thread.)

Death squads in Ctrl America have to pay their own way. That means likely an earlier return to democracy in El Salvador, and a Guatemalan junta that has no outside support except Israel and other Latin American dictatorships.

A US pres who sees Gorbachev as a reformer from day one. (Assuming TK's reelection.) In fact TK would likely try to negotiate with Andropov and even Brezhnev. Potentially this means the USSR may survive since reforms come earlier.

No Savings and Loans scandal, unless TK is defeated for reelection. The decade of greed dies stillborn, or at least its worst practitioners have to face the music sooner.

Ironically, TK will be far more fiscally conservative than Reagan was. Far less of a largely useless military buildup that includes ridiculous items like bringing back battleships. American debt is at least 1/4 less today.
 
AmInd: thanks for the input, I largely agree with your view of Ted's ATL presidency. Most of this "physically ill" business comes from either irrational EMK-haters or generic Kennedy haters, both of which have been present ever since the Kennedys appeared on the US national stage in the 1950s. I still am not certain the economy will right itself in time for 1984, so his re-election prospects are iffy at best.
 
Well, I don't think the economy will be as good as it was IOTL 1984, but it'll be a lot better than in 1980. That said, I'd say Ted would probably get reelection. Conditions have to be absolutely and universially disgusting for a President not to get a second term, and most of President have a persona of weakness or incompetence around them too. Ted, the liberal lion, surely won't fit into that persona. He'll fight with fire in his belly like Truman in 1948.
 
Yes, but no more than 300 EV for Teddy best-case scenario. Too liberal to grab more Southern states, Indiana, or Ohio.
 
AmInd: thanks for the input, I largely agree with your view of Ted's ATL presidency. Most of this "physically ill" business comes from either irrational EMK-haters or generic Kennedy haters, both of which have been present ever since the Kennedys appeared on the US national stage in the 1950s.

You mean like Calbear and me?
 
Douglas: I said "most" not "all". Of course you and CalBear don't fit that description. ;) I was referring to the RL population-at-large.
 
What I wonder is, wouldn't President Ted Kennedy be a big target for assassination. If he were elected in 1980, that would be just 20 years after his brother was assassinated, and since Reagan was almost done in by an assassin, their is a chancde the Teddy might not make it out of office alive.
 
Of course, there'd be Tippacanoe's Curse at work there, and there were openly expressed fears about it within the family to Ted's face, which was different from '68. But security has been greatly improved over the past two decades for the most part. Now it's something which is out of the candidates' control, which is only a good thing IMO.
 
Room 101: not in electoral terms, but it hurts a President's standing with the public if the results are a nail-biter. A minor quibble in any case. ;)
 
I could see that, but I don't see that as a large issue. If the economy continues to improve post-1984, etc. any negative effect that a nailbiter causes will be nullified.
 
It seems that CAFTA would go through, because Ted voted for it IOTL. Mulroney will be in power by 1984 in Canada, so the political muscle is there on our side of the border. I doubt NAFTA due to concerns over Mexico's labour and environmental standards. On another note: another rendition of "When Irish Eyes are Smiling"- Mulroney was a friend of Ted Kennedy IOTL, and they're both Irish Catholic.
 
Top