Dropping out that early seems out of character for Jimmy Carter. Carter was known for being stubborn. And he has the firewall. Much more in character for him to fight until the convention or at least until the delegate math is insurmountable.

What's happening in foreign policy here? The Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, along with Afghanistan, was a crucial factor in Carter winnining renomination. I think you at least need to avoid the hostage crisis for Kennedy to win. Even then I'd expect him to lose Iowa since he campaigned horribly there because he thought Carter was as good as beaten. He campaigned as if he were the incumbent-with vague platitudes designed to not offend a general election audience which didn't work. Even without the crises that propelled Carter I'm not sure how Kennedy would have won Iowa.

The Roger Mudd question problem had to do in part with Kennedy's understandable reluctance to officially announce on the program-to maintain the polite fiction that he hadn't yet decided. As such his answer was always going to sound vague because he didn't want to say definitively, that he was running. The best answer to that question might be to sidestep the question in a different way-use the question as an opportunity to attack Carter while not formally admitting he's in. Not sure how to walk the tightrope of having a decent answer that also doesn't undercut the desire to launch the campaign after the interview in a formal sense.

Without the crises I think Kennedy might be more able to respond to a loss in Iowa that allows him to win Maine and New Hampshire. But given the overconfidence of the Kennedy campaign Iowa seems unsalvageable.

So just how did Kennedy win Iowa? And what is happening in Iran and Afghanistan.
 
Dropping out that early seems out of character for Jimmy Carter. Carter was known for being stubborn. And he has the firewall. Much more in character for him to fight until the convention or at least until the delegate math is insurmountable.

What's happening in foreign policy here? The Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis, along with Afghanistan, was a crucial factor in Carter winnining renomination. I think you at least need to avoid the hostage crisis for Kennedy to win. Even then I'd expect him to lose Iowa since he campaigned horribly there because he thought Carter was as good as beaten. He campaigned as if he were the incumbent-with vague platitudes designed to not offend a general election audience which didn't work. Even without the crises that propelled Carter I'm not sure how Kennedy would have won Iowa.

The Roger Mudd question problem had to do in part with Kennedy's understandable reluctance to officially announce on the program-to maintain the polite fiction that he hadn't yet decided. As such his answer was always going to sound vague because he didn't want to say definitively, that he was running. The best answer to that question might be to sidestep the question in a different way-use the question as an opportunity to attack Carter while not formally admitting he's in. Not sure how to walk the tightrope of having a decent answer that also doesn't undercut the desire to launch the campaign after the interview in a formal sense.

Without the crises I think Kennedy might be more able to respond to a loss in Iowa that allows him to win Maine and New Hampshire. But given the overconfidence of the Kennedy campaign Iowa seems unsalvageable.

So just how did Kennedy win Iowa? And what is happening in Iran and Afghanistan.

In real life, thanks to the hostage crisis, Carter's approvals surge over the winter. In the timeline, a POD before then allows this not to happen, and for Kennedy to have more support and win Iowa. He also has a better campaign and performs well in debates.
 
LEAKED TAPES FIND REAGAN SABOTAGED CARTER FOREIGN POLICY SUMMIT

An unnamed Ronald Reagan campaign official sent tapes to the press documenting Reagan's plans to sabotage a meeting Carter had with the leaders of Iraq, Egypt, and France recently. Reagan officials apparently ripped up Carter's speech, broke his typewriter, and served Anwar Sadat a bad drink. Reagan has not yet commented.

Mondale: "Personally, I'm very offended by the fact that a major politicians would resort to such childish tactics for personal gain. He very well could've destroyed our relationship with Iraq and Egypt, and all for an election? This is disgusting."

Carter: "Mr. Reagan, this is, frankly, very, very unpresidential and un-American."
 
some mid-level staffers acting on their own?

in the nature of a college prank, much like Nixon campaign people making late night and early morning phone calls in New Hampshire in '72 ostensibly in support of Muskie. And the people saying they were just in from Harlem to "help with" the campaign.
https://books.google.com/books?id=W...on "phone calls" "New Hampshire" late&f=false

Of course, this also had a serious side as Nixon maneuvered to get a weaker opponent.
 
some mid-level staffers acting on their own?

in the nature of a college prank, much like Nixon campaign people making late night and early morning phone calls in New Hampshire in '72 ostensibly in support of Muskie. And the people saying they were just in from Harlem to "help with" the campaign.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WrtPm3HCff8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=Nixon+"phone+calls"+"New+Hampshire"+late&source=bl&ots=pJs5WuMG3R&sig=WBLe6b1EeOvI_6XDOJX2HazcYGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi78YmB6KvPAhVMbT4KHXisBQAQ6AEICzAA#v=onepage&q=Nixon "phone calls" "New Hampshire" late&f=false

Of course, this also had a serious side as Nixon maneuvered to get a weaker opponent.


We don't know that they're working on their own - I never said that. We'll have to find out ;)
 
Top