Many of you will say this is ASB, but what if for some reason (no economic recovery, a major scandal, Lebanon or Grenada go worse, etc...) Walter Mondale beats Ronald Reagan in 1984? How does Mondale govern in the mid to late '80s (and possibly the early '90s? How does he deal with Gorbachev and if and when does the Cold War end? Does a Reagan loss in '84 discredit the conservative movement?
WI: Walter Mondale wins in 1984?
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
- Status
Let's say Reagan fires Volker and appoints Greenspan (or another supply side Ayn Rand believer) to the fed earlier. They respond to the economic problems (inflation, unemployment, etc...) the wrong way and the economy doesn't recover like it did OTL, nor is there a light at the end of the tunnel (signs that things are gonna get better) like there was for Obama in 2012 and Reagan goes into the election vulnerable. On top of that, Grenada goes bad and Reagan's debate performances in both debates are as bad as the first debate of OTL. Mondale/Dukakis beats Reagan/Bush by a close but respectable margin.
Caesar Biden
Banned
You're gonna need to add a little more than that for Mondale to win. Perhaps some foreign policy crisis breaks out that Reagan doesn't respond well to, or there's an earlier change that doesn't hurt the Democrats as much as IOTL (Carter gets a lucky streak, gets hostages out of Iran? This also takes credit from Reagan.)
Okay, how about a combination of Carter getting the hostages out of Iran sometime after election day, but before Reagan's inaugural, and Reagan launches a very botched response to the Barrack bombings in Lebanon in 1983?
WI evidence emerged confirming the allegation that Reagan's people had back chanel contacts with the Iranians during the hostage crisis?
That could work as well. Either way, I'm curious to see how Mondale responds to all of this and governs after being inaugurated in January of 1985.
Uh, is this Greenspan you are talking about the same one who lowered interest rates quite dramatically in 2001-3 in answer to a rather mild recession? http://money.cnn.com/2003/07/15/news/economy/greenspan/
Why on earth wouldn't he do the same thing in 1982 with a much bigger recession and with inflation well under control?
As for Grenada, 1,200 to 1,500 troops of the Peoples' Revolutionary Army--many of them no doubt resentful of the overthrow and murder of Maurice Bishop--are hardly likely to make the situation 'go bad" for the US.
If I remember correctly, he didn't lower interest rates in 1990-91 and that was a worse recession than the recession of 2001. It was Volker's policies that broke the back of inflation, I doubt Greenspan would carry out the same policies.
As for Grenada, with things going bad here for Reagan here at home, maybe he gets backlash for it here at home, unlike OTL.
Reagan's Alzheimer's is accelerated? Hinckley puts him in a coma and Bush somehow flushes the goodwill with obtuse conduct? American-sponsored mines blow up a boat filled with children at a Nicaraguan harbor?
So far I can only think of horrific morbid things to "realistically" derail Reagan's 1984 re-election. I would just as soon accept that the OP's what-if is what's-so for the sake of the OP's intended exercise.
A couple of thoughts on Mondale being president 1984 to ??? 1992 or so:
Soviet Union still intact and still has a presence in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is an eight-hundred pound gorilla, making scary faces at the Persian Gulf monarchies who rely on him to keep the Persians in check.
No NAFTA!
The top tax rate never returns to 70 percent, but maybe to 60 percent. I could be wrong.
The American military is still oriented to NATO obligations as well as maintaining strength in Korea and Japan. The notion of American boots setting down in hot Arabian sand remains in the realm of eccentric imagination.
So far I can only think of horrific morbid things to "realistically" derail Reagan's 1984 re-election. I would just as soon accept that the OP's what-if is what's-so for the sake of the OP's intended exercise.
A couple of thoughts on Mondale being president 1984 to ??? 1992 or so:
Soviet Union still intact and still has a presence in Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein is an eight-hundred pound gorilla, making scary faces at the Persian Gulf monarchies who rely on him to keep the Persians in check.
No NAFTA!
The top tax rate never returns to 70 percent, but maybe to 60 percent. I could be wrong.
The American military is still oriented to NATO obligations as well as maintaining strength in Korea and Japan. The notion of American boots setting down in hot Arabian sand remains in the realm of eccentric imagination.
I think the Soviet Union still would've collapsed (a littler earlier or later than it did OTL, but still collapsed), Reagan didn't single handily win the Cold War, there were a ton of internal problems that existed Pre Reagan that would've caused the demise of the Soviets (not to mention IMHO, it's a slap in the face to all the other Cold War Presidents and Reagan's successor GHW Bush to say Reagan single handily won the war). You're probably right about the top marginal rate, we also have less debts and lower deficits as well.
As for the situation in Iraq (this is based on Mondale getting a second term in '88), Saddam may not have invaded Kuwait in 1990. In OTL, the Bush administration gave Saddam mixed signals about his invading Iraq, if a Mondale administration is clear from the start that the U.S. would not support an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and that their would be consequences if there were an invasion, Saddam might not have invaded at all.
You don't remember correctly:
***
Fed lowers discount rate to 5.5 percent
Move intended to end continuing economic slide
May 01, 1991|By Thomas Easton | Thomas Easton,Sun Staff Correspondent
WASHINGTON -- Responding to continuing evidence of a contracting economy as well as receding fears of inflation, the Federal Reserve Board cut the discount rate, its most visible tool of policy, from 6 percent to 5.5 percent yesterday.
The discount rate -- the rate the Fed charges on direct, short-term loans to banks -- is now at its lowest level since 1977 with the exception of an interval from August 1986 to September 1987. Yesterday's reduction is the third since December, suggesting an unusually aggressive approach by the Fed to use lower interest rates to reinvigorate business...
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-05-01/news/1991121106_1_discount-rate-funds-rate-rate-the-fed
***
Nor did it stop there: "The Fed reacted by steadily reducing the federal funds rate from 6 percent in mid-1991, to 4 percent by the end of 1991, to 3 percent by October 1992, where it stayed until February 1994." https://www.richmondfed.org/~/media...onomic_quarterly/2002/fall/pdf/goodfriend.pdf
Reagan trips and accidentally drops his CPUSA membership card, where a photographer takes a picture, and it is disseminated throughout the nation.
Honestly, though, would a Mondale presidency be similar to Carter's, but a little easier (or not, since everything would have to be really bad for him to even have a shot at it)?
Honestly, though, would a Mondale presidency be similar to Carter's, but a little easier (or not, since everything would have to be really bad for him to even have a shot at it)?
I get the feeling that you'd have to have Mondale choose someone other than Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Part of me wants to suggest Gary Hart, but I'm not entirely sure if he would bring that fire to Mondale that he would desperately need. Would Hart caution Mondale to avoid the tax gaffe? Possibly.
The other thing is that you'd need to make Reagan's age and health the forefront of the debate. Maybe cancerous polyps or something like that? Honestly, with Volker as the Chairman of the Fed at the time, it's difficult to guess how Mondale could win.
The other thing is that you'd need to make Reagan's age and health the forefront of the debate. Maybe cancerous polyps or something like that? Honestly, with Volker as the Chairman of the Fed at the time, it's difficult to guess how Mondale could win.
"Nobody votes for the Veep." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...minute/2000/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html
Incidentally, in 1988, even *before* the vice-presidential debate, the *New York Times* noted:
"It's not as though the two men are running against each other. If they were, the new poll indicates, Mr. Bentsen would be way ahead. He goes into the debate preferred by 19 points..." http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/05/opinion/the-bentsen-quayle-question.html That sure helped Dukakis, didn't it?
As I suggested, Reagan could make the mistake of dumping Volker. Reagan's health being at the forefront could work as well. Part of me wants to make a timeline (which is why I started this thread in the first place) part of me doesn't because of how difficult electing Mondale would be.
Maybe if Carter never appointed Volcker, the recovery would be more like the Obama recovery.
I doubt it. I think inflation would still be high and spiral out of control without Volker, this hurts Reagan, and if the GOP didn't have their heads up their asses, Obama might've lost the 2012 election (although it would be close, Bush's presidency was still fresh in people's minds). The Obama recovery is not only tepid, but it's also uneven and if you give that kind of recovery to Reagan with high inflation, he almost certainly loses.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Mondale wins because of a scandal. I am thinking an earlier less complicated Iran Contra. Gorbachev still comes to power and still starts the process that destroys the Soviet Union. I still see the same timeline. So the USSR still ends in 1991, during Mondale's second term. There is more support for education and I think a health care program. There is serious arms control with the Soviets. Gorbachev is a willing partner.
Without the same stresses Reagan put on the USSR, I can see there being no 1991 coup, thus either averting or delaying the collapse of the USSR. In addition, Gorbachev won't be pressed to reform as much by the US to reform, so we'll see slower reforms.
- Status