WI: Jimmy Carter was Re elected in 1980?

Either could work. Or Senator Hollings of SC or Governor Askew of FL, both of whom ran for president in 1984. Or Dukakis's OTL VP nominee, Lloyd Bentsen.

Ah, I forgot about those. Bentsen would probably be best, as he can make Texas competitive.
 
Mondale/Clinton? Mondale/Gore?


Clinton and Gore are both probably too young. Yes constitutionally they are eligible (in 1984 Clinton was 38 and Gore was 36). But many voters and Democratic Party leaders would have considered them too young.

Mondale could have went west and picked Gary Hart or Jerry Brown to try to pick up California (depending on if Brown still runs for senate in 1982 ITTL). He could pick a southerner like Dale Bumpers or David Pryor (both from Arkansas), Bob Graham (Florida), as mentioned Lloyd Bentsen (Texas), Sam Nunn (Georgia), or Chuck Robb (Virginia). Or he could go the astronaut/patriotism rout and pick John Glenn (Ohio).

But there would've been plenty of ticket balancing southern Democrats for him to pick from ITTL.
 
Don't know why people constantly try to put Clinton in a VP possible ticket. The man wasn't known nationally and was a wide-card even in OTL 1992. No way he is known enough in any ATL to warrant consideration for a run. At least Gore got his name out in 1988 and that's why Clinton chose him 1992, he had SOME name recognition and was known as a feisty hard hitting attack dog. Unfortunately he instead chose not to be an attack dog and instead a robot in 2000 after Barbara Bush scored points for saying "he's being a bully to my son!", which was itself ridiculous to say and more ridiculous that people went along with it, forcing Gore back on his heels.
 
. . What's the point of this random attack on Wikipedia, .
Alright, the quote given for the Brzezinski interview where he talks about arms to the Mujahideen beginning during the Carter administration:

https://web.archive.org/web/2000082...oldwar/interviews/episode-17/brzezinski1.html

(and for the quote, see toward the top of page 2)
It's a long web address, seemingly a double-reference to someone's .edu website, which any member of a university community can put up. Which is fine and more power to them. But, it is not something super academic. Nor something rock solid that we can super depend on.

In general, wikipedia is the telegraph game.

Someone summarizes a reference (or more rarely, puts up an excerpt as in this case). And maybe they do a good job, or perhaps not such a good job. And then some wiki 'editors' come through and rewrite this summary for purposes of formality of language and sounding like an encyclopedia. Well, how dependable is that?

Usually, it's kind of right within a degree of approximation. But it's not great stuff. Notice they are not checking the original source for accuracy of summary. That seems to be surpassingly rare. It's all about the formality of the writing, which is a disappointment that so much emphasis is placed on that.
 
Last edited:
GD, here is the 5 second result of using Google Scholar, a very good source for college students and above, to find peer reviewed articles, books, etc, about pretty much any given topic, in this case Carter's aid the Afghanistan. And Google has how often each article has been cited, so you can see how relevant any given article is in its field. Wikipedia has its flaws, but has improved. More importantly, there are so many sources out there that you can use to find information. My university provides access to other databases like Google Scholar. Wiki is just to get people up to speed on a topic; other tools are for diving in. And Carter also supported the Khmer Rouge, as did Thatcher. You are welcome to find sources for that statement using Google Scholar.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2Y4t0-_9MY

President Carter's speech on Iran and Afghanistan in January of 1980.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEw4Kt0sd0g

A clip from a documentary about the Carter administration's role in aiding the mujaheddin (please ignore the conspiracy theory popups). Carter certainly started giving them aid, but it was the Reagan administration that escalated the aid to the mujaheddin and took American support of the mujaheddin to another level. Carter might not have escalated to the extent that Reagan did, but Carter would also not have rolled over and just let the Soviets take Afghanistan either.
 
Top