Re-elect Carter

What's the easiest way for Carter to win in 1980?

I am skeptical of the idea that if you just take away Reagan, that Carter wins. So many issues came down on Carter at once that I am inclined to believe that even one of the moderate Republicans would have beaten him.

IMO, a Carter re-elect would have to involve some combination of his domestic policy agenda actually passing (in particular the tax reform bill and/or health care legislation that he proposed), along with no energy crisis and either no Iranian Revolution or a better American response to it.

I'm thinking a few small successes like these will make the economy work better come the late '70s and make Carter seem like he knows what he's doing.

Or is Carter doomed to lose because of his dour persona and his malaise-tempered presidency, which didn't inspire anyone?

Also, if Carter is re-elected, does that keep some of what we now think of as Reagan Democrats or conservative populists in the Democratic Party?
 
you basically have to change the whole world. No gas crisis, no bad US economy, no Iran hostage crisis, no Russians in Afghanistan, etc. The big reason that Carter lost to Reagan was that it seemed as if the world had gotten hostile to us, and Carter was a weak leader who was doing a poor job at home and overseas..
 
First of all Reagan was not guaranteed a win. Reagan was the only reason the race was close. If someone like Bush was nominated it would be a guaranteed win. Reagan was seen as to extreme and only won after the debate. But anyways. First Carter should not be so friendly with the shah. This friendship led to the hostage crisis and worsened the energy crisis. This alone helps. Second, Reagan needs even more flubs in the debate. Perhaps a half decent job by Carter could help him. Finally Anderson doesn’t enter. Also, ted Kennedy should decide not to primary Carter. This leads to a better performance in the general.
 
The Shah was in Mexico recently diagnosed with cancer when the decision was made to admit him to the United States.

We should have sent doctors and equipment to Mexico under the guise that we were going to do it anyway. And if we don't have regular medical exchanges with Mexico, we should.
 
What about a POD where Carter wins 1976 with 534 EVs? He was leading by 20 points, and some people were predicting a 50-state sweep before the Playboy interview. Have Carter cancel or not have the interview in the first place, which leads to him winning every state but Utah.

With this huge electoral mandate, Carter doesn't burn through Congress's goodwill so fast, or follows his advisers' advice and doesn't veto pork projects like the water bill. This results in Congress passing UHC, Taft-Hartley repeal, Humphrey-Hawkins, or a combination of the three.

As a consequence (particularly with Humphrey-Hawkins), the economy isn't as bad, and Carter's able to have enough popularity that he barely ekes out a win in '80.
 
A successful Operation Eagle Claw is significant for several reasons:

1) The success cuts off Kennedy's primary challenge earlier than OTL. Carter's popularity would likely soar, faith in Carter would be restored among Democratic donors and the electorate, and Kennedy's campaign (already on life support by that time) would not be able to credibly hobble to the convention as he did in OTL.

2) A successful military operation is so important for Carter because it restores faith in his ability to lead and really ends talk that he is "weak." So much of Carter's problem was a perception (perhaps justified) that he was incapable of leading the nation through difficult times. I really think Eagle Claw would be enough to end the idea of Carter as weak and aid greatly in changing perceptions of his leadership abilities. Carter's approval ratings actually went up after Eagle Claw IOTL because voters were just happy he had done something. Imagine if that something had been successful.

3) With Eagle Claw and my point in #2, Carter is able to create a contrast with Reagan. He can be seen as a calm and steady leader, who has relied on diplomacy (Camp David Accords) but is not afraid of using military force to protect American interests when needed. He is not extremist, like Reagan, but level-headed.

Some will say Eagle Claw is not enough, and they may be right. Others will say that Eagle Claw was doomed from the start and there is reason to believe you couldn't make it successful. They may also be right. But I think a successful Eagle Claw at least makes the race a race and perhaps a few minor adjustments to the nature of the campaign, buoyed by a more confident Carter who is not distracted by the hostage crisis, could lead Carter to emerge from 1980 victorious.
 
WI Shah dies and there is no hostage crisis? Maybe also Reagan' Alzheimers hitting 8-10 years earlier and comes out in debate
 
Top