What if... Carter had defeated Reagan in 1980?

[Gustaf]

I enjoyed the 'Bush win 92' scenario, so I thought of my own! Looking at the atlas, only a few percent swings in nearly all southern states (plus a few elsewhere) would have seen Carter re-elected. If Carter had won. How would history have panned out? I can see Mondale running in 1984 as he did in reality, but who would the Republicans choose? How would 1988 go? and so on. Have fun.

I think GHWB may have been the nominee. The country would have rejected the Goldwater-Reagan wing and the GOP would have ended that experiment in favor of the Eisenhower-Rockefeller-Ford wing. GHWB was in that latter wing.  It would be a repeat of 1988 in most ways-- a race between GHWB and Bob Dole. It's possible that Rumsfeld would have run, too, in 1984.

I thought Bush Sr. was a conservative?

[opebo]

I enjoyed the 'Bush win 92' scenario, so I thought of my own! Looking at the atlas, only a few percent swings in nearly all southern states (plus a few elsewhere) would have seen Carter re-elected. If Carter had won. How would history have panned out? I can see Mondale running in 1984 as he did in reality, but who would the Republicans choose? How would 1988 go? and so on. Have fun.

I think GHWB may have been the nominee. The country would have rejected the Goldwater-Reagan wing and the GOP would have ended that experiment in favor of the Eisenhower-Rockefeller-Ford wing. GHWB was in that latter wing.  It would be a repeat of 1988 in most ways-- a race between GHWB and Bob Dole. It's possible that Rumsfeld would have run, too, in 1984.

I thought Bush Sr. was a conservative?

No, he was a moderate.  Conservatives were dissatisfied with him.  

[© tweed]

No, he was a moderate.  Conservatives were dissatisfied with him.  

Yep.  One of the reasons for his defeat was his inability to round up the GOP base, hence he got only 37% of the vote.

[NHPolitico]

I don't think so, really. Reagan would be looked at like Alan Keyes. A good orator who can't be elected president.  He'd run since 1968, though that attempt was half-hearted.

Reagan would have had a much better shot than Alan Keyes.  He may have been rejected for his age and past losses, however.

I didn't say that Reagan would fare as well (poorly) as Keyes would.  Just that people would say he was a good talker, but not electable for reasons of ideology or style.

[NHPolitico]

I enjoyed the 'Bush win 92' scenario, so I thought of my own! Looking at the atlas, only a few percent swings in nearly all southern states (plus a few elsewhere) would have seen Carter re-elected. If Carter had won. How would history have panned out? I can see Mondale running in 1984 as he did in reality, but who would the Republicans choose? How would 1988 go? and so on. Have fun.

I think GHWB may have been the nominee. The country would have rejected the Goldwater-Reagan wing and the GOP would have ended that experiment in favor of the Eisenhower-Rockefeller-Ford wing. GHWB was in that latter wing.  It would be a repeat of 1988 in most ways-- a race between GHWB and Bob Dole. It's possible that Rumsfeld would have run, too, in 1984.

I thought Bush Sr. was a conservative?

GHWB was a Road to Damascus conservative.  He initially ran as a moderate's moderate-- imagine Olympia Snowe for President. He adopted Reagan's views for 1988's race.

[NHPolitico]

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

That would have been cool. A glorious western civ hegemony.  The second half of the 20th century wasn't bad for the Tories. Even Blair is a third-way guy and not a true Labour man.  Maybe we could have shut down the USSR 20 years earlier.

[NHPolitico]

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

This is interesting stuff, though I doubt very much that anything like this was seriously possible.  Other what-ifs might include Phillipine, Cuban or Peurto Rican statehood rather than independence and territorial status.  One thing's for sure - I'm glad the US isn't burdened with a lot more left-wing voters wherever they come from.  Of course this is one reason Republicans alway have and always will resist representation for D.C. and would resist P.R. statehood (not that either is being pushed by anyone).  The whole issue is of course moot if immigration trends towards the left.  

I'm of the school that thinks American exceptionalism and success is entirely based on laissez-faire capitalist ideals (aka freedom), so to me a bigger but more left wing country would actually be weaker.  For example - I would surmise that had the UK become a state or states 35 years ago the US would actually have a smaller GDP now, in spite of being more populous by 60mil.

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

I'm not so sure that the US would be so bad off. Having the UK in the Union would offer us considerable advantages in trade that could have boosted our GDP. We also could have seen our "peace dividend" much sooner.

[Gustaf]

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

This is interesting stuff, though I doubt very much that anything like this was seriously possible.  Other what-ifs might include Phillipine, Cuban or Peurto Rican statehood rather than independence and territorial status.  One thing's for sure - I'm glad the US isn't burdened with a lot more left-wing voters wherever they come from.  Of course this is one reason Republicans alway have and always will resist representation for D.C. and would resist P.R. statehood (not that either is being pushed by anyone).  The whole issue is of course moot if immigration trends towards the left.  

I'm of the school that thinks American exceptionalism and success is entirely based on laissez-faire capitalist ideals (aka freedom), so to me a bigger but more left wing country would actually be weaker.  For example - I would surmise that had the UK become a state or states 35 years ago the US would actually have a smaller GDP now, in spite of being more populous by 60mil.

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

I'm not so sure that the US would be so bad off. Having the UK in the Union would offer us considerable advantages in trade that could have boosted our GDP. We also could have seen our "peace dividend" much sooner.

Small is beatiful. Centralization is generally a bad idea, and the UK and the US are good b/c they are different. They should retain their own countries and cooperate, I think that is more efficient and beneficial to both parties.

[NHPolitico]

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

This is interesting stuff, though I doubt very much that anything like this was seriously possible.  Other what-ifs might include Phillipine, Cuban or Peurto Rican statehood rather than independence and territorial status.  One thing's for sure - I'm glad the US isn't burdened with a lot more left-wing voters wherever they come from.  Of course this is one reason Republicans alway have and always will resist representation for D.C. and would resist P.R. statehood (not that either is being pushed by anyone).  The whole issue is of course moot if immigration trends towards the left.  

I'm of the school that thinks American exceptionalism and success is entirely based on laissez-faire capitalist ideals (aka freedom), so to me a bigger but more left wing country would actually be weaker.  For example - I would surmise that had the UK become a state or states 35 years ago the US would actually have a smaller GDP now, in spite of being more populous by 60mil.

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

I'm not so sure that the US would be so bad off. Having the UK in the Union would offer us considerable advantages in trade that could have boosted our GDP. We also could have seen our "peace dividend" much sooner.

Small is beatiful. Centralization is generally a bad idea, and the UK and the US are good b/c they are different. They should retain their own countries and cooperate, I think that is more efficient and beneficial to both parties.

So, do you oppose the EU?

[Gustaf]

Phew! I can return now the Carter bashing has stopped! Its a shame the UK never became a state, we'd elect more Democrats than you could shake a stick at. Funnily enough only a few years ago in the UK, under the 30 year secrecy rule a government report was leaked showing Prime Minister Wilson had began to pursue Union with the USA! It was the late 1960s, and Europe weren't being too accomodating, and Harold Wilson was worried about Britains future in the international and economic stage. Talks were aborted by the time the EEC application was received, and one negative was the fact that another California sized state would be too large and would have to be split into Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland (depending on its status) and England would be split into around 5 states so it didnt have a cumbersome population but I thought I'd mention it as it just came back to me there.

This is interesting stuff, though I doubt very much that anything like this was seriously possible.  Other what-ifs might include Phillipine, Cuban or Peurto Rican statehood rather than independence and territorial status.  One thing's for sure - I'm glad the US isn't burdened with a lot more left-wing voters wherever they come from.  Of course this is one reason Republicans alway have and always will resist representation for D.C. and would resist P.R. statehood (not that either is being pushed by anyone).  The whole issue is of course moot if immigration trends towards the left.  

I'm of the school that thinks American exceptionalism and success is entirely based on laissez-faire capitalist ideals (aka freedom), so to me a bigger but more left wing country would actually be weaker.  For example - I would surmise that had the UK become a state or states 35 years ago the US would actually have a smaller GDP now, in spite of being more populous by 60mil.

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

I'm not so sure that the US would be so bad off. Having the UK in the Union would offer us considerable advantages in trade that could have boosted our GDP. We also could have seen our "peace dividend" much sooner.

Small is beatiful. Centralization is generally a bad idea, and the UK and the US are good b/c they are different. They should retain their own countries and cooperate, I think that is more efficient and beneficial to both parties.

So, do you oppose the EU?

Yes, of course...there is a growing concern within the Swedish right over the EU, b/c it fuels bureacracy and a strong state, and also, those of us who are pro-American fears ending up under French supremacy in foreign policy. (Heck, I fear ending up under French supremacy in any field...)

[NHPolitico]

Yes, of course...there is a growing concern within the Swedish right over the EU, b/c it fuels bureacracy and a strong state, and also, those of us who are pro-American fears ending up under French supremacy in foreign policy. (Heck, I fear ending up under French supremacy in any field...)

So, are you a supporter of the Swedish right?  What percentage of Europe hates France do you guess?

[Gustaf]

Yes, of course...there is a growing concern within the Swedish right over the EU, b/c it fuels bureacracy and a strong state, and also, those of us who are pro-American fears ending up under French supremacy in foreign policy. (Heck, I fear ending up under French supremacy in any field...)

So, are you a supporter of the Swedish right?  What percentage of Europe hates France do you guess?

I am not party aligned, but I am clearly to the right in Sweden, yes.

Among Swedish liberals and conservatives there is a strong scepticism of France and I share that sentiment. I don't know about the rest of Europe though. The left likes them everywhere, I think. (except possibly the UK, where most ordinary people dislike France...)

[jravnsbo]

ok got to say this is not even possibly , NO WAY would carter win.  

Wonder how long the hostages would have been in Iran if Carter won, how long our military would have been weak, how long the gas lines would have been, how high the inflation would have gone.

I enjoyed the 'Bush win 92' scenario, so I thought of my own! Looking at the atlas, only a few percent swings in nearly all southern states (plus a few elsewhere) would have seen Carter re-elected. If Carter had won. How would history have panned out? I can see Mondale running in 1984 as he did in reality, but who would the Republicans choose? How would 1988 go? and so on. Have fun.

[Gustaf]

It's not that impossible. He only lost by about 10% with a third party drawing votes. And he was way ahead in polls originally. He could have won.

ok got to say this is not even possibly , NO WAY would carter win.  

Wonder how long the hostages would have been in Iran if Carter won, how long our military would have been weak, how long the gas lines would have been, how high the inflation would have gone.

I enjoyed the 'Bush win 92' scenario, so I thought of my own! Looking at the atlas, only a few percent swings in nearly all southern states (plus a few elsewhere) would have seen Carter re-elected. If Carter had won. How would history have panned out? I can see Mondale running in 1984 as he did in reality, but who would the Republicans choose? How would 1988 go? and so on. Have fun.

[Gustaf]

If you add together Carter's and Anderson's votes, Carter gains most of the south and east, bringing the EV totals to 331-207 in Regan's favour.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Stop adding Carter and Anderson, Anderson was a Republican.

[Gustaf]

Stop adding Carter and Anderson, Anderson was a Republican.

OK...

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

John Anderson's Bio:

http://www.fairvote.org/about_us/anderson.htm

He was chair of the House Republican Conference for 10 years.  I think he broke with the party in '80 because he saw it as growing too conservative under Reagan.

[jravnsbo]

Always did amaze me that Regan still trounced Carter when he had a 3rd party candidate in Andersont o siphone off votes.

John Anderson's Bio:

http://www.fairvote.org/about_us/anderson.htm

He was chair of the House Republican Conference for 10 years.  I think he broke with the party in '80 because he saw it as growing too conservative under Reagan.

[afleitch]

A second Carter term would have been pretty rubbish economically I agree. I have been assuming that Mondale would get nominated in 84, as we all know he did, but do you think another Democrat could have challenged him and won? My knowlege of mid-80's Democrats is pretty patchy so I couldn't even guess who.

[jravnsbo]

Assuming carter wona  second term, Mondale would be the fav to take it.  However if things were going bad Gary Hart may hvae gotten it.  He almost got it anyway.

A second Carter term would have been pretty rubbish economically I agree. I have been assuming that Mondale would get nominated in 84, as we all know he did, but do you think another Democrat could have challenged him and won? My knowlege of mid-80's Democrats is pretty patchy so I couldn't even guess who.

[A18]

Final note - one has to bash Carter!  The man is the most shameful ex-president ever, and that's saying something with Clinton still on the loose.

Great post, opebo. I entirely agree!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering that IMO it would have required a successful rescue of the Iranian Hostages in order for Carter to defeat Reagan, I think that a second Carter term would not have been as bad as most people fear, especially when one considers the butterfly effects of a successful hostage rescue.

[jokerman]

Here's what a 46-45 Carter victory would look like, if you gave a 10 net point Carter swing in every state.

[Erc]

Here's what a 46-45 Carter victory would look like, if you gave a 10 net point Carter swing in every state.

Carter win in the EV too?