What if Reagan Had Been Assassinated in 1980?

[12th Doctor]

Heres an interesting question:  What if the assassination attempt on Reagan had succeeded?  I want to he some of your ideas before I give any of my own.

[12th Doctor]

I mean in 1981 of course.

[Nym90]

Hmm, interesting scenario. Probably Bush would've been reelected in 1984 over Mondale, though perhaps by not as large of a margin. Who knows what happens in 1988 though when he can't run again, it depends on who he had picked as his VP. Presumably it wouldn't have been Quayle as he had just started in the Senate in 1981.
Also, how would Bush have done as President in the 1980's? Impossible to say of course.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I mean in 1981 of course.

Bush would fulfilled Reagan's term and Won his own election in 1984, then after that, Mondale would have run in 1988 and won, perhaps with the young Arkansas Governor as his running mate.

[Demrepdan]

Bush would fulfilled Reagan's term and Won his own election in 1984, then after that, Mondale would have run in 1988 and won, perhaps with the young Arkansas Governor as his running mate.

How would Reagan's death affect Mondale's decision to pick Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate? If you're suggesting that he would have picked CLINTON in 1988...WHY would he have? Reagan isn't that mighty.

[12th Doctor]

Bush would fulfilled Reagan's term and Won his own election in 1984, then after that, Mondale would have run in 1988 and won, perhaps with the young Arkansas Governor as his running mate.

How would Reagan's death affect Mondale's decision to pick Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate? If you're suggesting that he would have picked CLINTON in 1988...WHY would he have? Reagan isn't that mighty.

Wait a second, Mondale ran in 84.  Your both thinking of Dukakas, right?

[12th Doctor]

Besides, Dukakas was an ultra-liberal reaction to Reagan's conservative philosophy in the same way Goldwater was an ultra-conservative reaction to Kennedy's liberalism.  If Reagan had been killed, they would never have chosen Dukakas.  Just as if Kennedy had survived, Rockefeller would probably have been the republican candidate in 64.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bush would fulfilled Reagan's term and Won his own election in 1984, then after that, Mondale would have run in 1988 and won, perhaps with the young Arkansas Governor as his running mate.

How would Reagan's death affect Mondale's decision to pick Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate? If you're suggesting that he would have picked CLINTON in 1988...WHY would he have? Reagan isn't that mighty.

I was referring to the scenario as a "dream" candidacy against Bush 41'.

[Nym90]

Bentsen was a senator from Texas, not governor of Arkansas. I'm not sure if Mondale would have been likely to run again in 1988 though, if he had lost in 1984. Unless you think that Reagan being assassinated would have caused Mondale to not run in 1984 against Bush.
I'm also not sure if Goldwater wouldn't have been nominated if Kennedy had survived. If Goldwater was a backlash against Kennedy, wouldn't he have been even more likely to be nominated then if Kennedy had survived? Also, I don't think that Dukakis's nomination was necessarily the product of a backlash against Reagan, I think that the race for the Dem nomination in 1988 was mostly independent of who the GOP incumbent was.

[English]

The 80's were a conservative decade full stop, the UK, Canada, Germany and US all had Conservative governments in power. Bush would have replaced Reagan in 1984 & 1988 and won. It was only in the early 90's that right-wing governments started to come unravelled, US in 1992, Canada spectacularly in 1993 and UK just as spectacularly in 1997.

[Nym90]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

[12th Doctor]

Bentsen was a senator from Texas, not governor of Arkansas. I'm not sure if Mondale would have been likely to run again in 1988 though, if he had lost in 1984. Unless you think that Reagan being assassinated would have caused Mondale to not run in 1984 against Bush.
I'm also not sure if Goldwater wouldn't have been nominated if Kennedy had survived. If Goldwater was a backlash against Kennedy, wouldn't he have been even more likely to be nominated then if Kennedy had survived? Also, I don't think that Dukakis's nomination was necessarily the product of a backlash against Reagan, I think that the race for the Dem nomination in 1988 was mostly independent of who the GOP incumbent was.

Goldwater's supporters on the far right saw an opening because Kennedy was obviously not running in 1964.  So they ran Goldwater thinking that Johnson was much less electible than Kennedy and that they could win with a far right candidate.  So therefore, Goldwater was a response to the death of Kennedy.  If he hadn't been assassinated then Goldwater probably wouldn't have had the support.  Rockefeller would have been the candidate.  As for Dukakas... I guess we can aggree to disagree there.

At anyrate, Dukakas was clearly unpresidential.

[WONK]

If Reagan had died in 1981, we'd all be living on collective farms and belonging to the local Soviet.

[Nym90]

Hmm, interesting theory. I guess I just didn't understand why, on the one hand, you were saying that because Reagan survived it caused a backlash candidate to emerge against him, and then on the other hand, because Kennedy was assassinated there was a backlash candidate against him. It seemed to be contradictory logic.
Thanks for clearing it up, it seems plausible.

[jravnsbo]

Reagan dies, the curse goes on and everyone is overprotecting the current President.

Yes Bush wins reelection in 1984 vs anyone.  Who else ran in 1980 for GOP?  Might give us an idea for Possible Bush VP or who where Senate and House leaders?

[M]

Be careful with counterfactuals, I don't want to turn this forum into shwi.

[Gustaf]

Be careful with counterfactuals, I don't want to turn this forum into shwi.

What does shwi means (forgive my ignorance!)?

[© tweed]

This is an interesting scenario.  Bush would have run in 1984 and won.  I think Bill Clinton would have run in 1988.  He contemplated doing this in '88 anyway and decided against it because he though Bush41 was unbeatable.  Clinton would NOT have run re-election in 1992, because 1988-92 was a tough time in this country, and Dole would have run and won in 1992 and won re-election in 1996.  And, guess what: we still would have had Bush v. Gore in 2000, and, Gore would have won, as 8 years of republican incumbency would be a bad thing for W.  So Gore would be president now.  I think.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

I have never heard of that rule. Could you show me where it says that in the Constitution?  Until I read your post, I never heard of that.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

I have never heard of that rule. Could you show me where it says that in the Constitution?  Until I read your post, I never heard of that.

Look at TR.

Teddy Roosevelt? I'll do that. It really is news to me.

[Gustaf]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

I have never heard of that rule. Could you show me where it says that in the Constitution?  Until I read your post, I never heard of that.

Look at TR.

That's wrong. The rule wasn't introduced until the Truman presidency, that's why FDR could stay on that long. Before then it was more a kind of unwritten rule or tradition, based on the fact that Washington had been president for two terms. I don't know whether there was a tradition on VP:s as well. And TR did try to get it again didn't he?

[Gustaf]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

I have never heard of that rule. Could you show me where it says that in the Constitution?  Until I read your post, I never heard of that.

Look at TR.

That's wrong. The rule wasn't introduced until the Truman presidency, that's why FDR could stay on that long. Before then it was more a kind of unwritten rule or tradition, based on the fact that Washington had been president for two terms. I don't know whether there was a tradition on VP:s as well. And TR did try to get it again didn't he?

That's what I was saying, he tried for a second of his own and lost it.  I guess above all the best example is FDR, he actually did get more, 4 terms.  And the Republicans introduced the rule because they didn't want that again...ironic how we're regretting it nowdays.  But you are right, Washington set the tradition and it wasn't broken until FDR.

I'm sorry, if that was what you meant, I guess I'm just stupid. If I'm not mistaken Roosvelt conceded the presidency to Taft in 1908, then changed his mind and came back in 1912 trying to get nominated, failed despite a strong showing in the primaries, and then ran as a third party candidate making Taft, as far as I know, the only incumbent ever to finish THIRD in a general election and, also, handing the elction to Woodrow Wilson. Taft only won one state.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

2 states actually(Utah and Vermont)

[Gustaf]

2 states actually(Utah and Vermont)

Yes, sorry, (vermont is so small!)

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Bush wouldn't have been able to run again in 1988 if he had won in 1984. Since he would have served more than half of the term to which Reagan was elected, he only would have been able to be elected once.

I have never heard of that rule. Could you show me where it says that in the Constitution?  Until I read your post, I never heard of that.

Look at TR.

That's wrong. The rule wasn't introduced until the Truman presidency, that's why FDR could stay on that long. Before then it was more a kind of unwritten rule or tradition, based on the fact that Washington had been president for two terms. I don't know whether there was a tradition on VP:s as well. And TR did try to get it again didn't he?

That's what I was saying, he tried for a second of his own and lost it.  I guess above all the best example is FDR, he actually did get more, 4 terms.  And the Republicans introduced the rule because they didn't want that again...ironic how we're regretting it nowdays.  But you are right, Washington set the tradition and it wasn't broken until FDR.

I'm sorry, if that was what you meant, I guess I'm just stupid. If I'm not mistaken Roosvelt conceded the presidency to Taft in 1908, then changed his mind and came back in 1912 trying to get nominated, failed despite a strong showing in the primaries, and then ran as a third party candidate making Taft, as far as I know, the only incumbent ever to finish THIRD in a general election and, also, handing the elction to Woodrow Wilson. Taft only won one state.

I have to admire Grover Cleveland, how he lost after 1 term, then came back, four years later, and won the Presidency again. Do ANY of you think a feat like that is possible in modern U.S. Politics? Do any of you think that Bush could lose this one, and come back four years later, or another future President?