I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that whoever won in 1976 was predestined to lose in 1980. IOTL, Carter led in the polls until June 1980, and he came on top again in October before Reagan shot up at the last minute (Gallup historical polls). Assuming that any other president's term from 1977-1980 would have gone similarly to Carter's, it would have some ups, but mostly a lot of downs. But that doesn't mean that election day couldn't have happened during one of the up periods.'76 was a poisoned chalice.
Yeah. If my post came across as claiming such, then I apologize.I don't disagree with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that whoever won in 1976 was predestined to lose in 1980. IOTL, Carter led in the polls until June 1980, and he came on top again in October before Reagan shot up at the last minute (Gallup historical polls). Assuming that any other president's term from 1977-1980 would have gone similarly to Carter's, it would have some ups, but mostly a lot of downs. But that doesn't mean that election day couldn't have happened during one of the up periods.
The question here is what Reagan might do in Iran.The nation was apparently ready for Reagan's "let's kill the bastards!" message in 1980 as opposed to Carter's "let's talk better gas mileage". I don't think we were ready psychologically for that message in 1976, nor another Republican president.
The question here is what Reagan might do in Iran.
The question here is what Reagan might do in Iran.
I'd say it hinges on what happens with Iran, as others have pointed out. If things go as badly as they did under Carter or worse than he is going to be a one-termer. On the other hand, if his approach sees the crisis successfully resolved sooner, than he might be able to pull off a win and get a second term.
The question here is what Reagan might do in Iran.
Kill the bastards, I guess. Unless the Legion of Obliteration crashed in the desert, first.
Do what Carter did: let the Shah into the US, triggering the Hostage Crisis. Use back channels to arrange an arms for hostages deal. If that doesn't work, then order a hair brained rescue mission. The difference here is whether or not the behind the scenes deals result in an end to the crisis before 1981.
I'd say it hinges on what happens with Iran, as others have pointed out. If things go as badly as they did under Carter or worse than he is going to be a one-termer. On the other hand, if his approach sees the crisis successfully resolved sooner, than he might be able to pull off a win and get a second term.
It would certainly be seen as a success, but the economy would still be in the tank and the GOP has been in the White House for 12 straight years. I don't think that even a release of the hostages during the fall campaign could save Reagan.
Jimmy Carter really drop the ball on Iran and the Middle East as a whole. Reagan, or even Ford would have done a better job. A successful Operation Eagle Claw alone would go a long to ensure Reagan's second term. Same for a stronger military presence that keeps the Soviets from invading Afghanistan.
(Yes, the GOP would be in the White House for 12 years, but given the fact Ford barely lost to Carter in 76 gives Reagan some hope.)
And what could Carter or Reagan have done to make Eagle Claw a success?
Also, what are they going to do, station troops in Pakistan near the border? What signs were shown that the USSR was gonna invade Afgahnistan?
Reagan go to get hit with the same economic recession that hurt Carter.And what could Carter or Reagan have done to make Eagle Claw a success?