What if Reagan Had Been Assassinated in 1980?

[jravnsbo]

i think it would have to be a scenario like 2000, where the incumbant president lost in an extremely close and maybe controversial election and then came back 4 years later if things turned south on the challenger that got in closely.

Otherwise very unlikely unless president was young and came back after some time.  Media coverage is so intense nowadays.

Plus guy coming back could only have 1 term and might be limiting to him and his party to just have one term and then face an open election again.  Hard to build continuity.

Cleveland didn't have that limitation in his day.

[Nym90]

Yes, it would be hard to make a comeback to win after losing as an incumbent, but it could happen if the defeat was narrow. Cleveland did win the popular vote though in 1888 but lost in the electoral vote, which probably was part of the reason why the Dems gave him another shot in 1892.
As for the rule stating that a person can only serve one elected term if they serve more than half of a term to which someone else was elected, it's in the constitutional amendment that imposed the two-term limit on the President.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Yes, it would be hard to make a comeback to win after losing as an incumbent, but it could happen if the defeat was narrow. Cleveland did win the popular vote though in 1888 but lost in the electoral vote, which probably was part of the reason why the Dems gave him another shot in 1892.
As for the rule stating that a person can only serve one elected term if they serve more than half of a term to which someone else was elected, it's in the constitutional amendment that imposed the two-term limit on the President.

Thank You Eric for at least responding to my post... Nice to hear from you.

[Michael Z]

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.

Not so sure about that. As far as I know Clinton was too small-time back then to secure the nomination (he was even a bit of a surprise package during the '92 primaries; I could be wrong, but wasn't Tom Harkin the initial favourite?). I think '88 may have seen Mario Cuomo as the Democratic candidate.

Of course, if it hadn't been for that scandal then Gary Hart would have been the Democratic nominee either way. And he possibly would have won the election quite effortlessly. But that's a "What if"-scenario for another day... M is right, we're running the risk of turning into soc.history.what-if...

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

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.

Not so sure about that. As far as I know Clinton was too small-time back then to secure the nomination (he was even a bit of a surprise package during the '92 primaries; I could be wrong, but wasn't Tom Harkin the initial favourite?). I think '88 may have seen Mario Cuomo as the Democratic candidate.

Of course, if it hadn't been for that scandal then Gary Hart would have been the Democratic nominee either way. And he possibly would have won the election quite effortlessly. But that's a "What if"-scenario for another day... M is right, we're running the risk of turning into soc.history.what-if...

Why hasn't Gary Hart attempted a comeback? He'd surely be able to push back all nine of those DEMS.

[© 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.

Not so sure about that. As far as I know Clinton was too small-time back then to secure the nomination (he was even a bit of a surprise package during the '92 primaries; I could be wrong, but wasn't Tom Harkin the initial favourite?). I think '88 may have seen Mario Cuomo as the Democratic candidate.

Of course, if it hadn't been for that scandal then Gary Hart would have been the Democratic nominee either way. And he possibly would have won the election quite effortlessly. But that's a "What if"-scenario for another day... M is right, we're running the risk of turning into soc.history.what-if...

If I remember correctly, Harkin was the original favorite, then Tsongas, then Clinton.  But I could be wrong.

I think Clinton would have run in 1988.  He took a while to announce he wasn't running even when he was runing against VP Bush, a stong candidate because a Reagan.  He would have run if he was running against a weaker candidate.

[Nym90]

I think that Clinton would've beaten Bush in 1988 if he had run against him. It would have been closer than in 1992, though.

[© tweed]

I think that Clinton would've beaten Bush in 1988 if he had run against him. It would have been closer than in 1992, though.

No, he wouldn't have.  Nobody could have beaten Bush, he was too popular for being under Reagan for 8 years.  Plus, Clinton didn't have the help of Perot and the 50-30-20 ratio to snag the election.  He would have done better than Dukakis, though.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I think that Clinton would've beaten Bush in 1988 if he had run against him. It would have been closer than in 1992, though.

Bush would have won in 88' regardless of who opposed him. Clinton would have come close, but no cigar!

[© tweed]

Clinton would have done better than Dukakis (who wouldn't have,) but would not have won.  Dukakis was a bad candidate, and Dukakis might even have lost in 1992 if he ran.  Most Northeast candidates are bad candidates.

[Nym90]

Personally I disagree. Bush was not a very strong candidate either, and I think that a strong Democrat could have beaten him. If not Clinton, than someone else. As bad as Dukakis was, he only lost by 7 points. Also, Reagan was not extremely popular, his approval ratings were lower than Clinton's were in 2000. They were over 50%, which made Bush the favorite, but definitely not unbeatable.

[Michael Z]

You can't really say that Bush was a shoe-in for '88 simply because Reagan was popular. Eisenhower was an extremely popular President and Nixon still lost to JFK in 1960 (albeit very narrowly). No doubt a strong Democrat could have beaten Bush.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

You can't really say that Bush was a shoe-in for '88 simply because Reagan was popular. Eisenhower was an extremely popular President and Nixon still lost to JFK in 1960 (albeit very narrowly). No doubt a strong Democrat could have beaten Bush.

yes, Nixon lost to Kennedy. But recall the infamous debate where Nixon had the flu, high temp and all, and a five o' clock shadow. Would the election have turned out differently if he hadn't appeared so ill and unrehearsed?

[dazzleman]

I agree that Bush was a pretty weak candidate in 1988, and that was shown after he assumed office, and really had very little that he wanted to do, other than be president.

He won for a combination of reasons: a good economy, Reagan's coattails, and a weak opponent.

I think there's a very good chance he would have lost to a stronger Democrat, which of course he did in 1992.  And I think he would have lost in 1992 even without Ross Perot in the race.

[© tweed]

Nobody could have beaten Bush in 1988.  He was boosted by Reagan.  And, yes, Dukakis was a weak candidate.

Bush still would have lost in 1992 with Perot gone, it just would have been a closer election.  over 100 EV's would have to be taken off of Clinton's total to bridge the gap, and that wouldn't have happened.

[jravnsbo]

Bush wins in 1988 no matter what.  At the time it was seen as the 3rd reagan term.  People loved Reagan and Bush was a shoo-in.

[© tweed]

Bush wins in 1988 no matter what.  At the time it was seen as the 3rd reagan term.  People loved Reagan and Bush was a shoo-in.

True.

[12th Doctor]

Why are you all talking about Bush in 1988.  In my senerio he couldn't run in 1988.

Anyway, I already typed all of this out before, but I time ran out because I wasn't paying attention (sigh).  this is my prediction for what might have happened (only about 30% sure, there are a lot of veriables when you are considering the possibilties of the butterfly effect).

Bush would probably take Bob Dole as his vice president, this may defy the rule of Geographic diversity, but Clinton/Gore were from two nieghboring states, so it wouldn't be a huge problem.  

As the country moves on into the 80's we have all of the same economic problems that the country inherited from Ford and Carter.  The ressession of 1982 hits.  Bush doesn't prosuit the same economic policey as Reagan, because Bush is not a supply sider.  Bush would cut taxes, but no where approuching the rates that Reagan had proposed.  The country would expierence the same bounce back in 1983 and 1984 that it expierenced in reallife, but it would be slower and not as accute.  As I have always maintained, Reagan's largest contribution to the economy was the roll-back of government regulation.  Bush wouldn't have been as enthusiastic about this and the Democrats in the House surely wouldn't have worked with Bush the same way they worked with Reagan.

The election of '84 rolls around.  It is Bush/Dole, vs Mondale and probably still Ferraro.  Bush wins in a hard fought election that looks more like the election of '88 than the reallife election of '84.  Unlike Reagan, Bush goes negative on Mondale.  He attacks the Carter years and asks the american people if they want a return to that.  Mondale counters by attacking the lack of direction of Bush's policies.  Dole labels Ferraro as a feminist extremist, while Ferraro denounces Dole as a Republican attack dog.  The most possitve note of the campaign is one of the Bush campaign slogans, "Win One For the Gipper".  One thing is for sure, it is certainly not "Always morining in America" for this campaign.

So the next 4 years of the Bush presidency go by with out major incident.  The annual unemployment rate hovers around 8%.  Not as inpressive as Reagan's numbers but still far better than Carter's 16% annual unemloyment.  Bush grants tax cuts, but uses most of the revenue to pay down the debt rather than spend it on huge defence projects.  Bush finds ways to deal with the Soviets diplomatically.  Not the weak stance that Carter took, but there will be no "Tear down this wall speech".  And no Radio Free Europe addresses that did so much to lift the spirits of oppressed people.  The Eastern Bloc would collapse, but probably not until 1992-94.  The wall would come down in this time period.  The Soviet Union would also collapse, but in 1994-96.  The people of the eastern nations would not feel the same debt of gratitude for use that they felt because of Reagan and the global boost to the economy that came as a result of the collapse would come much later, probably not until 1997.

In the end, Bush would be remember as a good caretaker president.  He lacked vision, yes, but he got our nation through a difficult period.  The people would be ready for a change, however.

In the election of 1988, the Republicans would nominate Bob Dole for the presidency.  The Democrats would be hungry for a win.  They would look for someone young and dynamic.  Someone who could take on Dole in issues like family values and some one who was more moderate (because Bush was more moderate) than Dukakas.  And someone with a war record.  The answer would not be Bill Clinton, but Al Gore.

Due to the nature bent for change and the disire of the people to see young, dynamic leadership, in contrast to Bush's caretaker style, Gore would probably win over Dole.  It would be a close election, ending in California, which after spending a decade sliding to the left, would go to Gore by a small percenatge giving him the election with about 20 EV's to spare.  Gore would also capture a few key southern state that would be vital, such as Tennessee, Georgia, Luisiana and Florida.  Dole would take only Ohio as compensation.  (Remember, at this time Gore's record was much more moderate than it was in 2000).

Gore's presidency would look a lot like Carter's, but with different circumstances.  The recessions would hit harder, because Bush wouldn't have taken the economy to the level Reagan had.  Gore would still have to deal with the Soviets as a serious power.  This would be a huge problem, when in 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait.  Gore would have hesitated for months before deploying to the region, due both to liberal pressure at home and considerations of what the Soviets would do.  This would give time for Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia.  Gore would finally deploy to the region, but without the Reagan defence build up of the 80's and without time to set up in a safe zone (because Saudi Arbia was being invaded).  It would have been a much more difficult and much more costly war.  Costing 10,000's of US lives and billions of dollars.  The US would be victorious, but at a much larger price and the end of the fighting would probably be far less conclusive, probably with a return to pre-war conditions as part of the peace.  Saudi Arabia would come out of it a devasted as Kuwait had be in real life and the global economy would have suffered.  The war would have lasted well into 1992.

Gore doesn't have a prayer in the election of 1992 and may choose to sit out.  The Republican candidate wins in a landslide.  That candidate may be Bob Dole, back again in a "See I told you so" campaign, or it may be someone else.  How about Ross Perot as a Republican savior?

Beyond that, there isn't much I can say.  To many varibles.

[jravnsbo]

Well I think 84 would still have been a bush landslide.

Mondale's positions were way out of line.  He told us he was goign to raise everyone's taxes, now where have ai heard that--Dean and gephardt--

Plus Bush would have gottena huge sympathy vote for Reagan's death, just like LBJ did- to continue on the legacy type ad.

Dole does seem logical as he was prominant in the Senate, much like the Ford pick with Nixon.


Wasn't Gore only 38 in 88?  and I remember he did have problems with the age question, but he was in it untilt he end with Jesse Jacksona dn Dukakis, so this may be a good pick by you.

California did not swing left untilt eh 90s under prop 49.  It voted for GHWB in 1988 remember and was yet a GOP state.

[© tweed]

Gore was only 38 in 1988, bcause I remeber clinton is 2 years older than him.

[jravnsbo]

Thought so.  I remember that being an issue in 1988.

So lets see Gore is only 53, oh shott he will be hanging around politics for a long time yet then, SIGH ( as Gore did during debates!  )

Gore was only 38 in 1988, bcause I remeber clinton is 2 years older than him.

[12th Doctor]

I agree that Bush would have won in a landslide, but it would have been more like the landslide against Dukakas in 1988, not the landslide Reagan enjoyed against Mondale in realife.  I'm aware of Gore's age at the time, that's why I was hesitant to pick him, but if you take Dukakas out of the equation and follow the sistuation, I think that it may have been very probable.

[12th Doctor]

California barely went to Bush in '88.  And I think that that was only because of Bush's place as Reagan's successor, a line that won Bush a lot of votes in the state.  However, Reagan-Bush-Dole, would be much more diluted and would have equaled less support.  So I think the Gore would have pulled it off narrowly.

[© tweed]

California barely went to Bush in '88.  And I think that that was only because of Bush's place as Reagan's successor, a line that won Bush a lot of votes in the state.  However, Reagan-Bush-Dole, would be much more diluted and would have equaled less support.  So I think the Gore would have pulled it off narrowly.

1988 was the transition year for California.  It chaged from blue to red and hasn't looked back since.

[jravnsbo]

ummh no.

It was the last presidential election to vote GOP, but it went on to elect GOP governors for 2 terms afterwards and Prop 49 approved by a majority of voters but overturned byt he courts swung the state left.

California barely went to Bush in '88.  And I think that that was only because of Bush's place as Reagan's successor, a line that won Bush a lot of votes in the state.  However, Reagan-Bush-Dole, would be much more diluted and would have equaled less support.  So I think the Gore would have pulled it off narrowly.

1988 was the transition year for California.  It chaged from blue to red and hasn't looked back since.