WI: Jimmy Carter drops out of the race after Desert One?

What if President Carter had decided a week after the failure of Operation Eagle Claw to drop out of the race in 1980? Vice-President Mondale would more than likely enter the race soon after. Who would win the nomination at the Democratic National Convention? Would Kennedy or Mondale have a better chance of beating Reagan? Would Carter have a better chance of securing the hostages' release if he was able to devote all his energies to it or would the hostage takers still wait until January 20th no matter what? Who would Kennedy or Mondale choose as their running mates?
 
Handwaving and assuming Carter drops out, then Mondale probably beats Kennedy. Some parallels to '68. If it's explicitly because of Desert One then Iran gets a massive propaganda victory: they've forced a POTUS out of office simply by taking over their embassy. Dunno who Mondale would pick- he's the liberal half of the ticket, but moderates are pissed enough at Carter as is... hard to say.
 
Handwaving and assuming Carter drops out, then Mondale probably beats Kennedy. Some parallels to '68. If it's explicitly because of Desert One then Iran gets a massive propaganda victory: they've forced a POTUS out of office simply by taking over their embassy. Dunno who Mondale would pick- he's the liberal half of the ticket, but moderates are pissed enough at Carter as is... hard to say.

I concur. Kennedy didn't want to be President.
 

JRScott

Banned
At such a late time, it is not likely that Mondale would run for President, remember he had declined to enter the Democratic Primaries. To enter after April 1980 would be a distinct disadvantage in seeking the nomination.

The following would have already occurred before he drops out:

January 21: Iowa caucuses (both parties)
January 22: Hawaii Republican caucuses

February 1: Maine Republican caucuses (through March 15)
February 2: Arkansas Republican caucuses
February 4: Wyoming Republican caucuses (through March 5)
February 10: Maine Democratic caucuses
February 26: Minnesota caucuses (both parties), New Hampshire primary

March: Virginia Republican caucuses (through April)
March 4: Massachusetts primary, Vermont primary (beauty contest--no delegates at stake)
March 8: South Carolina Republican primary (party-run)
March 11: Alabama primary, Alaska Democratic caucuses, Florida primary, Georgia primary, Hawaii Democratic caucuses, Oklahoma Democratic caucuses, Washington caucuses (both parties)
March 12: Delaware Democratic caucuses
March 15: Mississippi Democratic caucuses, South Carolina Democratic caucuses, Wyoming Democratic caucuses
March 18: Illinois primary
March 21: North Dakota Republican caucuses
March 22: Virginia Democratic caucuses
March 25: Connecticut primary, New York primary

April 1: Kansas primary, Wisconsin primary
April 5: Louisiana primary, Missouri Republican caucuses (through April 12)
April 7: Oklahoma Republican caucuses
April 12: Arizona Democratic caucuses
April 13: Arizona Republican committee meeting (& caucuses)
April 17: Idaho Democratic caucuses
April 19: Alaska Republican convention (through April 20), North Dakota Democratic caucuses
April 22: Missouri Democratic caucuses, Pennsylvania primary, Vermont caucuses (both parties)
April 26: Michigan Democratic caucuses
April 30: Delaware Republican committee meeting (& caucuses)


Cliff Finch had dropped out in early April 1980 after the Kansas and Wisconsin primaries.

Jerry Brown had also dropped out after the Wisconsin Primary.

This means the only person still running in the Democrat Primaries is Ted Kennedy if Carter Drops out at the end of April.

OTL Ted sweeps the June Primaries, so without Carter in he'll sweep the May ones too. This will I believe give him just enough to win the nominations, even if Carter's now released delegates choose someone else.

Barring another prominent Southern Democrat, I believe Ted would choose Jerry Brown for an east-west coalition. While in theory a good pairing, it will not adversely affect CA it will still go to Reagan in the election.

The following states would flip though almost 100% chance:

Massachusetts, 0.15% goes Democrat (+14 D)
Tennessee, 0.29% goes Democrat (+10 D)
Arkansas, 0.61% goes Democrat (+6 D)
Alabama, 1.30% goes Democrat (+9 D)
Mississippi, 1.32% goes Democrat (+7 D)
Kentucky, 1.46% goes Democrat (+9 D)
South Carolina, 1.53% goes Democrat (+8 D)
North Carolina, 2.12% goes Democrat (+13 D)
Delaware, 2.33% goes Democrat (+3 D)
New York, 2.67% goes Democrat (+41 D)
Maine, 3.36% goes Democrat (+4 D)

The above along with what Carter won which Kennedy will also carry would give Kennedy/Brown 173 Electoral Votes which isn't enough to win.

The following states have approximately a 50/50 chance of flipping. Kennedy/Brown would have to win most of these to actually win in addition to the above.

Louisiana, 5.45% (+10 D)
Vermont, 5.96% (+3 D)
Michigan, 6.49% (+21 D)
Missouri, 6.81% (+12 D)
Pennsylvania, 7.11% (+27 D)
Illinois, 7.93% (+26 D)
Connecticut, 9.64% (+8 D)
Oregon, 9.66% (+6 D)

If they win all of these 50/50 states then they get 286 Electoral Votes and win the election. (They can lose up to 16 Electoral votes worth of the above states and still win the election)

The Chappaquiddick incident can certainly hurt the Kennedy/Brown ticket, however Reagan was not one much for personal attacks in his campaigns. As such it might never become a major campaign issue. Indeed Reagan might even make it a point that we should not hold the incident against Kennedy, perhaps due to youthful error.

So if Kennedy/Brown wins all the above they have 286 Electoral Votes, and Reagan/Bush has 252 Electoral Votes. It would be a very close election. That's a best case scenario for the Democrats in 1980. If they lose PA, MI or IL though then Reagan/Bush has a win, and I'm not entirely sure Kennedy/Brown could flip all three states. (Edit Oops should of been IL not CT :))

Either way its going to be a very close race, much closer than Reagan/Bush vs. Carter/Mondale.


The effect on Congress will be noticeable too. The Democrats will lose less seats in the House. In fact I think overall you'd see maybe only 5 Democrats lose seats, as opposed to the OTL where 34 lost their seats. I believe i the Senate only 6 seats will change hands which leaves the Democrats in control of the Senate barely (52 seats, even after Ted losses his because a D will be appointed to it).



PS the % listed next to the state is the margin by which they were won in the OTL.
 
Last edited:
There's a potentially big problem with this scenario. It would probably be too late for Mondale's name to appear on many (if any) primary ballots. Mondale would have to run under Carter's ballot line (meaning Carter couldn't formally withdraw from the campaign) and would, in many cases be reliant on delegates pledged to or slated by Carter. None of this is to say this is impossible, only that it would be somewhat awkward and make more difficult whatever Mondale attempts to do to distance himself from Carter.

Politically, as Rogue Beaver notes, there would be some similarity to the '68 campaign, but that similarity does not exist when it comes to the delegate selection rules that were adopted following the '68 campaign by the McGovern Commission.
 
The following states would flip though almost 100% chance:

Massachusetts, 0.15% goes Democrat (+14 D)
Tennessee, 0.29% goes Democrat (+10 D)
Arkansas, 0.61% goes Democrat (+6 D)
Alabama, 1.30% goes Democrat (+9 D)
Mississippi, 1.32% goes Democrat (+7 D)
Kentucky, 1.46% goes Democrat (+9 D)
South Carolina, 1.53% goes Democrat (+8 D)
North Carolina, 2.12% goes Democrat (+13 D)
Delaware, 2.33% goes Democrat (+3 D)
New York, 2.67% goes Democrat (+41 D)
Maine, 3.36% goes Democrat (+4 D)

.

Okay, Massachusetts, New York, Maine and Delaware are definitly going to Kennedy. But the South? As far as I know Carter just did so good in the South, because many white voters there voted for an southern candidate. And Kennedy is definitly no southern candidate. So I assume the South (including Georgia) goes solid to Reagan.

I assume the election map would look like that: (red = democrat, blue = republican)

genusmap.php
 
Last edited:

JRScott

Banned
The South is heavily democratic and has been for generations, I was using existing election results to project what would happen. The South would go Democratic I'm pretty sure in the absence of Carter in 1980. Reagan did not win them by much and ultimately with Carter out of the Picture any state that was won by less than 5% historically has a chance to flip.

(Note today the South votes more Republican, but that's due to Reagan, not due to Carter, those Reagan Democrats stay democrats under Kennedy/Brown).

I believe ultimately as I pointed out above the race would come down to IL, PA and MI. If Reagan/Bush wins at least one of them, they win the race. If Kennedy/Brown carry all three they win the race. Odds are that Reagan/Bush pull out a victory in this scenario, but there is the improbable result that you have a Kennedy/Brown win. It is possible for Kennedy/Brown, even if it is improbable. (Odds are 1 in 256 that Kennedy/Brown pulls off all the victories they need :) )

Edit: PS where'd your map go it was good :), even if I disagreed with it :)
 
Last edited:
I've always thought if Kennedy got the nomination he would have chosen somebody with a great deal of integrity to try to offset his "Chappaquiddick" problem. I agree Reagan would not bring it up but I wouldn't put it past his campaign's surrogates to indirectly keep it in the voters minds by doing things like push polling for example.

I've always thought that he would have chosen somebody like John Glenn a former astronaut from the Midwest (Ohio) or a "new south" politician like Reubin Askew (Florida). I don't know if picking Jerry Brown would've helped him with his biggest liability.
 

JRScott

Banned
I've always thought if Kennedy got the nomination he would have chosen somebody with a great deal of integrity to try to offset his "Chappaquiddick" problem. I agree Reagan would not bring it up but I wouldn't put it past his campaign's surrogates to indirectly keep it in the voters minds by doing things like push polling for example.

I've always thought that he would have chosen somebody like John Glenn a former astronaut from the Midwest (Ohio) or a "new south" politician like Reubin Askew (Florida). I don't know if picking Jerry Brown would've helped him with his biggest liability.

John Glenn is a possibility. Historically he was in the running, however his rather flat speech at the DNC killed his chances and Mondale of all folks was chosen in 1976. Glenn didn't officially run in 80 (he was running for his OH Senate seat reelection), but he did in 84, 88 and 92. However if Ted asked him I'm sure he would do so.

I'm not sure Ted would want Askew.

Having Glenn could keep OH in the Democrat column. He was widely popular in OH and won his Senate seat by 40 points in 1980. I'm not sure if OH law at the time let you run for both, some states allow it and some don't that would be the only hiccup.

If OH though moves into the D column then it would make it easier for Kennedy to win.

Given this it might actually be better to do Kennedy/Glenn.
 
The South is heavily democratic and has been for generations, I was using existing election results to project what would happen. The South would go Democratic I'm pretty sure in the absence of Carter in 1980. Reagan did not win them by much and ultimately with Carter out of the Picture any state that was won by less than 5% historically has a chance to flip.

I would say the solid democratic South was at this time already on the way out. 1964 the Deep South voted Republican, 1968 only Texas voted Democrats and 1972 the South was part of the Nixon landslide. I serious doubt that a New England Democrat like Kennedy can just win just one southern state.
 

JRScott

Banned
I would say the solid democratic South was at this time already on the way out. 1964 the Deep South voted Republican, 1968 only Texas voted Democrats and 1972 the South was part of the Nixon landslide. I serious doubt that a New England Democrat like Kennedy can just win just one southern state.

The thing is you have to look at 2 factors that are not easily figured, because well it didn't happen. How many Republicans chose to go vote in 1980 only because they opposed Carter? Without Carter on the ticket you will suppress Republican voters because well he's no longer visible. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of Carter his entire administration. The second point would be how many Democrats chose to stay home and not vote. I believe you'd have enough movement on both counts to flip the south in 1980.

So no Carter means more Democrats come to the polls and vote, more Republicans choose to stay home and not vote, fewer democrats become Reagan Democrats. As a result I'm pretty sure Ted picks up all states that were won by 5% or less OTL. I believe he has a 50/50 chance to pick up the states that were won by between 5% and 10%.

If Glenn is on the ticket rather than Brown, I believe their chances are even better, but that means Glenn probably can't run for his Senate seat reelection.
 
for a Democrat to win in 1980, he's going to have to project an image of toughness just as Reagan did. America back then was rather stunned by all the reverses we had suffered abroad, and was desperate for someone who would 'stand tall'. I doubt that Mondale, no matter who his VP choice was, would win... he's tainted too much with Carter's failure. I would give odds on Reagan to win no matter who the Democrat candidate is...
 
The thing is you have to look at 2 factors that are not easily figured, because well it didn't happen. How many Republicans chose to go vote in 1980 only because they opposed Carter? Without Carter on the ticket you will suppress Republican voters because well he's no longer visible. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of Carter his entire administration. The second point would be how many Democrats chose to stay home and not vote. I believe you'd have enough movement on both counts to flip the south in 1980.

So no Carter means more Democrats come to the polls and vote, more Republicans choose to stay home and not vote, fewer democrats become Reagan Democrats. As a result I'm pretty sure Ted picks up all states that were won by 5% or less OTL. I believe he has a 50/50 chance to pick up the states that were won by between 5% and 10%.

If Glenn is on the ticket rather than Brown, I believe their chances are even better, but that means Glenn probably can't run for his Senate seat reelection.

I have to disagree with this analysis. Voters in 1980 didn't vote against Carter, they voted for Reagan and his populist low-tax anti-big government message. Reagan was also a charismatic media performer.

The message resonated with voters, especially in the South. Polls in 1980 showed the American public viewing the federal government as having too much power, the view they hadnt expressed en masse in the 60's, early 70's.

Like Johnson said Kennedy, civil rights ensured that the Democrats were out of the South for a generation. In actually it turned out to be much more than that - the South is the most conservative part of the US and will naturally incline more to the conservative party. With the partys becoming idealogically defined, the Republicans were always going to sweep the South. Just like they do now.

Look at 1964 too.

The idea of a liberal Big Deal Northern Democrat like Walter Mondale standing any chance against Reagan is, to me, pretty ridiculous.
 
I have to disagree with this analysis. Voters in 1980 didn't vote against Carter, they voted for Reagan and his populist low-tax anti-big government message. Reagan was also a charismatic media performer.

SNIPPED
.

I voted against Carter. Reagan made me nervous but Carter scared me.:(
 
The thing is you have to look at 2 factors that are not easily figured, because well it didn't happen. How many Republicans chose to go vote in 1980 only because they opposed Carter? Without Carter on the ticket you will suppress Republican voters because well he's no longer visible. Kennedy has been an outspoken critic of Carter his entire administration. The second point would be how many Democrats chose to stay home and not vote. I believe you'd have enough movement on both counts to flip the south in 1980.

So no Carter means more Democrats come to the polls and vote, more Republicans choose to stay home and not vote, fewer democrats become Reagan Democrats. As a result I'm pretty sure Ted picks up all states that were won by 5% or less OTL. I believe he has a 50/50 chance to pick up the states that were won by between 5% and 10%.

If Glenn is on the ticket rather than Brown, I believe their chances are even better, but that means Glenn probably can't run for his Senate seat reelection.

I see your assumptions work out in the northern States, but just not in the South.
First there was no significant drop of the voter-turnout from 1976 to 1980, it just went down from 53.5 to 52,6. So Carters voters mostly didn´t stayed at home, they directly switched to Reagan and Anderson. I see that Kennedy could win back several voter groups like catholics, union workers and Anderson-voters. But all this groups play no significant role in the South. And you still assume that Kennedy would win much more white southern voters then Carter and that I just don´t see. Carter won the South 1976 and still did 1980 relativ good in the South, because he was a white southern Protestant, so he won ´76 45% and `80 still 35% of the white southern vote. And I don´t see a catholic Yankee doing the same. Make that a liberal, catholic Yankee, because. like you said Kennedy opposed Carter but as far as I know he opposed him from the left,which would sit not well with the conservatives in the South.
 
The thing is Kennedy would have done a better job of holding on to the to the northeastern and New England states and holding on to Catholic voters in the states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois. Kennedy had a much better relationship with the unions than Carter did, so that gives him a better chance of winning states like Michigan, Ohio again, and Wisconsin. But even with all the Midwest (minus Indiana, Iowa, Missouri) that still doesn't get Kennedy to 270 electoral votes. He'd need to win some of the southern states or somehow win Texas (Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate maybe) or California. Back then Oregon and Washington state were not "blue states" the way they are today. In 1980 Oregon hadn't gone to a Democrat since LBJ in 64 and Washington hadn't gone to the Democrat since Humphrey in 68. Could Kennedy have had a better shot at turning them blue? It would've been tough. Also voter turnout that year in OTL was 52.6% (the lowest since sometime before 1960). Could Kennedy have turned out more voters than Carter? Would Kennedy have had a better chance of getting black voters in the south to the polls considering his and RFK's work on civil rights? Could he have used "Camelot nostalgia" to help him at the polls? Kennedy was just as charismatic a speaker (just look at his 1980 convention speech) as Reagan was, maybe more so. Could he have ran a more optimistic campaign about America's future than Carter did in OTL?

It looks like to me Reagan still might have won but it might have been a very close election considering Kennedy's strength the northeast and with Catholic and black voters. I still wonder how Reagan's surrogates would have handled Chappiquiddick though.

I have a question for anybody who lived in California in 1980 and was of voting age. Who was seen as more popular in the state back then, Reagan or Jerry Brown (in your unbiased opinion)? They both were re-elected governors by 1980 but Brown more recently. And even though he won re-election in 1978, Brown lost his campaign for senate in 1982 (a Democratic year). CA voters must've had Brown fatigue by then. I'm asking this because if Kennedy had chosen Brown could he have really delivered the state to the Democrats considering Reagan was on the Republican ticket?
 

JRScott

Banned
Lots of good comments.

Let's look at the first states I commented as Ted now winning:

Massachusetts, 0.15% goes Democrat (+14 D)
Tennessee, 0.29% goes Democrat (+10 D)
Arkansas, 0.61% goes Democrat (+6 D)
Alabama, 1.30% goes Democrat (+9 D)
Mississippi, 1.32% goes Democrat (+7 D)
Kentucky, 1.46% goes Democrat (+9 D)
South Carolina, 1.53% goes Democrat (+8 D)
North Carolina, 2.12% goes Democrat (+13 D)
Delaware, 2.33% goes Democrat (+3 D)
New York, 2.67% goes Democrat (+41 D)
Maine, 3.36% goes Democrat (+4 D)

Look at the OTL margins.

If just 1% of the Reagan Democrats stay Kennedy Democrats
If just 1% more Democrats Vote
If just 1% fewer Republicans Vote

Then that's a 3 point swing meaning that's a Kennedy win for MA, TN, AR, AL, MS, KY, SC, NC, DE and NY. ME is a bit outside that margin but Kennedy is widely popular in the NE, as is his family. I believe those final percentage points would be enough.

Many of your southern voters will be black voters, who will show up in greater numbers to support Kennedy ticket than Carter.

Now building on CCK's that the VP is John Glenn. Glenn won his senate seat in OH by 40 points in 1980. Let's say half that converts to the Presidential race in which he's now the VP candidate. That means OH flips to the D column. An OH pickup is +25 D.

Regionally Glenn was very popular to so this will help in the neighboring states that border OH.

Let's look at what I said was 50/50

Louisiana, 5.45% (+10 D)
Vermont, 5.96% (+3 D)
Michigan, 6.49% (+21 D)
Missouri, 6.81% (+12 D)
Pennsylvania, 7.11% (+27 D)
Illinois, 7.93% (+26 D)
Connecticut, 9.64% (+8 D)
Oregon, 9.66% (+6 D)

We have the same 3 points wing in these states the others had.

LA LA is funny, in the last 4 elections, Democrats won 1, Independents won 1, and Republicans won 2. What will help in LA is the black vote, I believe it will go enough for Kennedy that he could narrowly win the state, within 5 points.

VT VT has gone only once in the last 4 elections to a D and that was LBJ. VT has a long tradition of bucking the trend in the NE, my guess is Reagan wins VT, perhaps within 5 points.

MI MI was evenly split over the last 4 elections, twice went to the R and twice went to the D. With Glenn on the ticket and Kennedy I believe this would be a D pickup. Margin will be close probably within 5 points

MO MO was evenly split over the last 4 elections, twice went to R and twice went to D. Again with Kennedy and Glenn I think MO would go D. Margin will be close within 5 points

PA 3 out of the last 4 Presidential Elections PA went to the Democrats. Given voting history, easy pickup for the D, will win by between 5 and 10 points.

IL Again only 1 D victory in the last 4 elections, it was LBJ. Glenn's popularity will help out here. Rekindling the Kennedy legacy will help. Flips to D with a margin of victory less than 5 points.

CT CT was evenly split in last 4 elections, 2 went for the Democrats and 2 went for Republicans. Ted is very popular in MA I see CT easily going to D, probably close within 5-10 points.

OR Out of the last 4, three went Republican, last D to win was LBJ. Most likely would remain a Reagan state due to his popularity in CA.

So in this scenario with the Pickup of OH and the loss of VT and OR, that's a net +16 to D and loss to the R over my original post.

Kennedy/Glenn 302
Reagan/Bush 233

If however

(Without Glenn they can't flip OH, and without him his popularity won't help in IL, Reagan wins IL and MO as well as OH and probably MI)


Reagan/Bush 320
Kennedy/Brown 215

Thus really it comes down to the VP pick for Kennedy, if you do as I originally suggested and Brown is picked, Reagan will win. If you do as CCK suggests and Glenn is picked, Kennedy will win.

It will be a very close race. Perhaps as close in some states as 2000 was. It was not yet the hyperpartisan age though and Reagan as well as Kennedy would accept the votes without lawsuits.

If Reagan fails in 1980, I do not look to him to run in 1984, due to health.

If Kennedy comes that close in 1980 but fails, he'll run again in 84 for sure (Probably with Glenn since Brown cost him the election :) )
 
Last edited:
Top