WI: Democrats keep the Senate in 1980

Everyone likes to talk about the massiveness of the Reagen Revolution, and how it brought the Senate under GOP control, but people need to remember that a lot of victories were very narrow. What if, say, the following races were flipped:

Arizona (R+1.1%)
Georgia (R+1.8%)
Idaho (R+0.9%)
New York (R+1.4%)
North Carolina (R+0.6%)
Wisconsin (R+0.9%)

So that the balance of the senate is 52-47-1 in favour of the Democrats.

How does a less friendly congress change Reagen's first few years?
 
There would be enough Democratic votes for Reagan's tax and budget bills to pass. Reagan would have to make more compromises.
 
Unless Reagan did much worse than in OTL (and that would have effects on House and other races as well), it is very unlikely that *all* of those races would be flipped--a number of incumbent Democrats had problems of their own, even apart from Reagan beating Carter in their states--but even if they were, there would not be much difference in terms of immediate legislative effects. There are enough conservative Democrats to put Reagan's budget and tax proposals through--after all, they carried the House, which had a Democratic majority. (By contrast, moderate and even liberal Republicans tended to go along with Reagan on his tax and budget proposals, even if they disagreed with him on social issues.)

BTW, Bill Schulz, who almost defeated Goldwater in Arizona (largely on the feeling that Goldwater had been around too long "did not campaign as an old-fashioned liberal; he stressed his West Point background and his advocacy of a strong defense." *Almanac of American Politics 1984,* p. 36. Schulz was "a moderate candidate with pro-business inclinations." http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1022/102245.html In any event, given the politics of Arizona in that era, Schulz would have had to have a fairly conservative record if he wanted to defeat McCain in 1986. Herman Talmadge, narrowly defeated in Georgia, wasn't exactly a flaming liberal, either...
 
Top