What If Jerry Brown in 76?

I was looking at the 76 primaries and I've always wondered how Jerry could have won in 76 and what his time in office would be like. So let's say Jerry enters early winning New Hampshire and carries that momentum through to the nomination. After he wins he'll need a southern centrist so he taps Jimmy Carter for V.P. doubling down on the D.C. outsider brand and the two go on to defeat Gerold Ford and Bob Dole in November, how does Jerry's time in office go? How different is his administration compared to Carter's?
 
. . . how does Jerry's time in office go? . . .
He did this as a beginning governor in California
Jan. 6, 1975
. . . He begins with a 7 percent budget cut for the governor’s office.
This kind of no-nonsense approach tends to get people behind you no matter what you want to do.

Born April 7, 1938, he’s going to be pretty young in 1977. I hope he has some more seasoned men and woman in his administration, with whom he can really hash out issues and strategy.
 
Last edited:
GDP growth rates:

7F9B0B29-76FC-4282-9BDE-CE9B049B2155.png

1st Quarter 1977

————————————————————

60782368-04CC-460A-970B-D1CCD101EF43.jpeg

4th Quarter ‘77


Taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, ‘77, Pres. Brown would have a good economy till the Summer of ‘79 when the situation in Iran caused oil price spikes and shortages. The oil companies also gamed this already occurring situation.

So, if Brown can better handle both Iran and/or the oil companies, well, one just never knows.
 
Last edited:
In 1976 the American people wanted something different and both Carter and Brown were different.
They both had an outsider approach that was basically non-idealogical and if Brown were to start his campaign in time of the New Hampshire primary he could have the won the nomination.
 
GDP growth rates:

View attachment 661281
1st Quarter 1977

————————————————————

View attachment 661282
4th Quarter ‘77


Taking the oath of office on Jan. 20, ‘77, Pres. Brown would have a good economy till the Summer of ‘79 when the situation in Iran caused oil price spikes and shortages. The oil companies also gamed this already occurring situation.

So, if Brown can better handle both Iran and/or the oil companies, well, one just never knows.
How do you think President Brown would handle Iran? Also, who would be in his cabinet?
 
So in 1981, the Dead Kennedys remade California Über Alles with lyrics about Ronald Reagan:

If they form as IOTL while Brown's already in office, they'll probably just use those lyrics (or similar) for what is indisputably California Über Alles ITTL.
 
So in 1981, the Dead Kennedys remade California Über Alles with lyrics about Ronald Reagan:

If they form as IOTL while Brown's already in office, they'll probably just use those lyrics (or similar) for what is indisputably California Über Alles ITTL.
Damn never listened to the Dead Kennedys. What beef did they have with Brown? Also how else does pop culture change with President Brown in the white house during the '70s
 
How do you think President Brown would handle Iran? . . .
It would be awfully tempting to support a military coup for “stability.” And that’s the trap of the whole cold war period.

Instead—

If Pres. Brown had decided, we have to stop doing this shit which gives us a bad rep in the Third World, and with getting oil also from Venezuela and Mexico, we won’t be so scared and on edge about Iran. We’ll be able to take a deep breath and take a chance for rock ‘n roll and just maybe get behind genuine democratic reform.

Almost certainly, Iran will continue selling oil on the world market, although yes, there’s a good chance, in fact probably as part of the OPEC cartel which limits production to keep prices up.

support real
 
Last edited:
Carter strikes me as an overall poor choice for VP, someone like Fritz Hollings or Sam Nunn might be better southern choices. Lloyd Bentsen is another. John Glenn also wouldn't be a horrible choice and would be a fresh enough face in the Senate to avoid having too much "insider" baggage.

But okay, let's say it's President Jerry Brown and Vice President Jimmy Carter. I personally foresee Pres. Brown's "era of limits" attitude clashing with Congressional leadership in ways not entirely dissimilar from Pres. Carter of OTL. Brown supported a Balanced Budget Amendment, opposed universal healthcare, generally slashed government spending in ways big and small as Governor of California. He was quite miserly at this time, and he was unafraid to call out what he considered wasteful spending. He declined to live in the governor's residence and instead rented an apartment in Sacramento, walked to work or drove himself in a modest car as opposed to taking the more traditional limousine. Pulled right from Wikipedia,

"When Gray Davis, who was chief of staff to Governor Brown, suggested that a hole in the rug in the governor's office be fixed, Brown responded: 'That hole will save the state at least $500 million, because legislators cannot come down and pound on my desk demanding lots of money for their pet programs while looking at a hole in my rug!'"

This kind of attitude is going to ruffle feathers in Washington. Where Carter was dismissive of Congress, and as many have suggested in the past, somewhat ignorant of how the President should relate to Congress, I think Brown might be more overtly combative. Maybe not; I don't know how he handled the state legislature during his time as Governor, so maybe he knew a thing or two about finesse. Another interesting area where I see potential for similarities is in Brown's staunch environmentalism. President Carter famously tried to convince the American people to conserve their energy use, even making that public address where he urged them to "put on a sweater" instead of turning up the heat in the winter. It's my understanding that initially it was actually received well, but public opinion turned against it ultimately. I wouldn't be surprised if Brown did the same thing, though the outcome could be more positive for him. After Three Mile Island in 1979, he became an opponent of nuclear energy, but I don't know where he stood on it before this incident; he might support it as President only to do a 180 if the same (or a similar) event occurs here. I think he would certainly support solar energy and probably also have solar panels installed on the White House roof, like Carter did.

Related to the energy issue is of course relations with Iran and the Iranian Revolution. I don't know much about his foreign policy planks, and as Governor he wouldn't have much experience there (all the more reason that choosing Carter for VP might not be wise) but I will say that based on what I know about the man, I think @GeographyDude is onto something. President Brown seems like he might just be bold enough to bend the knee and take a more noble course towards Iran - and I think he would be less than overly sympathetic to the Shah, avoiding the blunders made by Carter which inflamed tensions between Iranian revolutionaries and the US, helping lead us to the hostage crisis. That alone would be very good for the trajectory of his presidency.

President Brown might not see the total collapse of popularity that President Carter did OTL. In a lot of ways I think he would be more effective. But as I have said, I do think there would be some broad similarities, and I do subscribe to the idea that 1976 was actually something of a poisoned chalice. I could see big potential for Brown's tenure to look very similar to Carter's and if he fumbles really badly, tension between himself and Ted Kennedy might just lead to a primary challenge like OTL. This seems like a worst-case scenario though, and I think it's somewhat more likely that Brown does lose reelection in 1980 but not in a massive landslide. Unless he alienates all sides of the spectrum, which does not sound at all unlikely either...
 
Last edited:
Carter strikes me as an overall poor choice for VP, someone like Fritz Hollings or Sam Nunn might be better southern choices. Lloyd Bentsen is another. John Glenn also wouldn't be a horrible choice and would be a fresh enough face in the Senate to avoid having too much "insider" baggage.

But okay, let's say it's President Jerry Brown and Vice President Jimmy Carter. I personally foresee Pres. Brown's "era of limits" attitude clashing with Congressional leadership in ways not entirely dissimilar from Pres. Carter of OTL. Brown supported a Balanced Budget Amendment, opposed universal healthcare, generally slashed government spending in ways big and small as Governor of California. He was quite miserly at this time, and he was unafraid to call out what he considered wasteful spending. He declined to live in the governor's residence and instead rented an apartment in Sacramento, walked to work or drove himself in a modest car as opposed to taking the more traditional limousine. Pulled right from Wikipedia,

"When Gray Davis, who was chief of staff to Governor Brown, suggested that a hole in the rug in the governor's office be fixed, Brown responded: 'That hole will save the state at least $500 million, because legislators cannot come down and pound on my desk demanding lots of money for their pet programs while looking at a hole in my rug!'"

This kind of attitude is going to ruffle feathers in Washington. Where Carter was dismissive of Congress, and as many have suggested in the past, somewhat ignorant of how the President should relate to Congress, I think Brown might be more overtly combative. Maybe not; I don't know how he handled the state legislature during his time as Governor, so maybe he knew a thing or two about finesse. Another interesting area where I see potential for similarities is in Brown's staunch environmentalism. President Carter famously tried to convince the American people to conserve their energy use, even making that public address where he urged them to "put on a sweater" instead of turning up the heat in the winter. It's my understanding that initially it was actually received well, but public opinion turned against it ultimately. I wouldn't be surprised if Brown did the same thing, though the outcome could be more positive for him. After Three Mile Island in 1979, he became an opponent of nuclear energy, but I don't know where he stood on it before this incident; he might support it as President only to do a 180 if the same (or a similar) event occurs here. I think he would certainly support solar energy and probably also have solar panels installed on the White House roof, like Carter did.

Related to the energy issue is of course relations with Iran and the Iranian Revolution. I don't know much about his foreign policy planks, and as Governor he wouldn't have much experience there (all the more reason that choosing Carter for VP might not be wise) but I will say that based on what I know about the man, I think @GeographyDude is onto something. President Brown seems like he might just be bold enough to bend the knee and take a more noble course towards Iran - and I think he would be less than overly sympathetic to the Shah, avoiding the blunders made by Carter which inflamed tensions between Iranian revolutionaries and the US, helping lead us to the hostage crisis. That alone would be very good for the trajectory of his presidency.

President Brown might not see the total collapse of popularity that President Carter did OTL. In a lot of ways I think he would be more effective. But as I have said, I do think there would be some broad similarities, and I do subscribe to the idea that 1976 was actually something of a poisoned chalice. I could see big potential for Brown's tenure to look very similar to Carter's and if he fumbles really badly, tension between himself and Ted Kennedy might just lead to a primary challenge like OTL. This seems like a worst-case scenario though, and I think it's somewhat more likely that Brown does lose reelection in 1980 but not in a massive landslide. Unless he alienates all sides of the spectrum, which does not sound at all unlikely either...
Hu, I'm more familiar with Brown in his later years and I thought he supported Universal Healthcare throughout his whole career. Although that does make me wonder if Brown would cut a deal with Ted to pass Universal Healthcare while cutting spending, Also while Jimmy may not be a good pick Brown would need the south to win and he would have to pick a southern centrist outsider and the only one I could find that would fit is Jimmy.
 
Hu, I'm more familiar with Brown in his later years and I thought he supported Universal Healthcare throughout his whole career. Although that does make me wonder if Brown would cut a deal with Ted to pass Universal Healthcare while cutting spending, Also while Jimmy may not be a good pick Brown would need the south to win and he would have to pick a southern centrist outsider and the only one I could find that would fit is Jimmy.

Also from Wikipedia:

"Brown opposed Kennedy's call for universal national health insurance and opposed Carter's call for an employer mandate to provide catastrophic private health insurance labeling it socialist. As an alternative, he suggested a program of tax credits for those who do not smoke or otherwise damage their health, saying: "Those who abuse their bodies should not abuse the rest of us by taking our tax dollars.'"

Brown reinvented himself several times throughout his career and at this point he was still in his first act, as a deeply committed fiscal conservative. That said he did increase spending both for environmental concerns and for the arts as Governor, and opposed Proposition 13 (which ultimately passed anyways) which intended to cut property taxes and revenue to the cities. He was also always interested in space, and proposed a state space academy and the purchase of a satellite for emergency communication. This would be where he eventually got one of his more infamous nicknames, "Moonbeam."

Instead of Jimmy Carter, if you really want an "outsider" (meaning non-Senator) I might suggest Terry Sanford. Former Governor of North Carolina, been out of office for a while (1961-1965) but IOTL he went on to serve in the Senate from 1986 to 1993. He was a close Kennedy associate and there were rumors that he could've replaced LBJ on the ticket in 1964, although he personally dismissed them. Considered a progressive on civil rights, he also did a lot of good work on education reform which is always popular.
 
Last edited:
Also from Wikipedia:

"Brown opposed Kennedy's call for universal national health insurance and opposed Carter's call for an employer mandate to provide catastrophic private health insurance labeling it socialist. As an alternative, he suggested a program of tax credits for those who do not smoke or otherwise damage their health, saying: "Those who abuse their bodies should not abuse the rest of us by taking our tax dollars.'"

Brown reinvented himself several times throughout his career and at this point he was still in his first act, as a deeply committed fiscal conservative. That said he did increase spending both for environmental concerns and for the arts as Governor, and opposed Proposition 13 (which ultimately passed anyways) which intended to cut property taxes and revenue to the cities. He was also always interested in space, and proposed a state space academy and the purchase of a satellite for emergency communication. This would be where he eventually got one of his more infamous nicknames, "Moonbeam."

Instead of Jimmy Carter, if you really want an "outsider" (meaning non-Senator) I might suggest Terry Sanford. Former Governor of North Carolina, been out of office for a while (1961-1965) but IOTL he went on to serve in the Senate from 1986 to 1993. He was a close Kennedy associate and there were rumors that he could've replaced LBJ on the ticket in 1964, although he personally dismissed them. Considered a progressive on civil rights, he also did a lot of good work on education reform which is always popular.
Damn so in reality Jerry would end up like Jimmy Carter. Although I wonder how Jerry would deal with inflation? Do we see some tax cuts for the middle class? Also once Brown gains some momentum could we see a stop Brown movement? If the primary looks like it's headed toward Jerry vs Jimmy could we see a stop Jerry and Jimmy movement?
 
I said the economy would be good for the first two plus years of Brown’s presidency. Overall growth rate, yes.

But what wasn’t good was the unemployment rate. For example,

Sept. 1977: 6.8% unemployment


The downshift in manufacturing jobs was long and painful. We still manufacture plenty of stuff even now in 2021. We just employ far fewer people.
 
People like Linda Ronstadt. :)

I think people who attack Pres. Brown about this relationship would come across looking like a sour-faced church crowd.

Particularly In 1976, I'm not sure that the only people in America who dislike having a bachelor president with a singer girlfriend are going to be the "sour-faced church crowd." I'm not even entirely sure that the French would have accepted such a thing in 1976.
 
Particularly In 1976, I'm not sure that the only people in America who dislike having a bachelor president with a singer girlfriend are going to be the "sour-faced church crowd." I'm not even entirely sure that the French would have accepted such a thing in 1976.

No but I think the more the most aggressive types harp on this issue, the more they'll be seen as unnecessarily negative. I won't claim to know anything about this woman but unless she's scandal prone I think the American people would move past it eventually.
 
Particularly In 1976, I'm not sure that the only people in America who dislike having a bachelor president with a singer girlfriend are going to be the "sour-faced church crowd." I'm not even entirely sure that the French would have accepted such a thing in 1976.

When my parents got married, my father was two months away from turning 40 while my mother had just turned 38. According to my parents, even as fairly ordinary working class people they endured a not insignificant amount of social stigma for still being single while they were both close to middle age. (This was before they started dating). My father especially would get a lot of dirty looks and nasty comments from people who seriously balked at the idea of an unmarried man in his late 30s.

Of course, this is incredibly shallow and judgemental behavior. Your personal life is nobody else's business. But this was the mid 1990s, when attitudes toward romantic relationships were more relaxed than in the 1970s. If the POTUS was an unmarried man dating a singer, that would cause problems with a lot of people. It shouldn't cause problems, but it would nonetheless.
 
Top