Had FDR failed, everybody would say, "the guy did his best, but 1932 was a poisoned chalice and no one could've succeeded." Ditto for Lincoln in 1860. In my opinion Carter wasn't cut out for political leadership and he simply failed. He had numerous advisors and Congressmen pressing him to make better decisions that could've made the situation better, but he stubbornly refused their council and ultimately he paid the political price in 1980.

I think it is a bit unfair to compare 1933-1936 with 1977-1980. In general, the world economy was recovering from 1933 to 1936, so it was not unreasonable to expect someone elected near the low point of the Depression to be re-elected in 1936. By contrast, the world economy was doing rather poorly in 1977-80. Admittedly that doesn't mean anyone elected anywhere in 1976 had to lose. West Germany for example did better than most countries, and Schmidt was re-elected in 1980 largely on that basis. But it's not clear to me that the West German example could have been transferred to the US: "There is, of course, a debate as to whether the reasons for West Germany's economic success lie in government policy or in the unique position of many of its more competitive industrial sectors." https://books.google.com/books?id=EKhfLMPBYJcC&pg=PA65

And in any event there are specific reasons to think that Reagan would not have been nearly successful in the late 1970's as he was in the 1980's in OTL. As mentioned, he would face a somewhat hostile Democratic Congress, which would make it hard for him to get his economic program enacted.
 
Top