If Jimmy Carter was re-elected

[© tweed]

.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes. He would have surrendered to the reds. The man was as bad as Henry Walalce or George Mcgovern.

[J. J.]

Vladimir Putin would be President of the United States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  After all, the  Reagan defense build up that the Reaganistas love to claim as a major contributing factor in the decline of the Soviets was largely planned for by the Carter administration.  About the only major changes were the recommissioning of the battleships and the building of the B-1B after Carter canceled the B-1A, which despite having the same number was a very much different airplane.  Not only that but considering that the Soviets didn't increase military spending much if at all during the Reagan years also shows that vis a vis the Soviet Union, there would not have been much difference between Reagan and Carter in effects.  The main difference between a second Carter term and the first Reagan term would have been economic.  Carter's probable fiscal policies would not have been as complimentary as Reagan's were to the monetary policies that Volcker put in place once he was appointed to the Fed in 1979 that got us out of the worst of our economic malaise.

[MODU]

It is doubtful that the USSR would still exist, but it would have existed longer under Carter than Reagan.  Reagan forced the USSR to spend what little capital they had left to compete against the US in the arms race.  Carter would not have spent so much in modernizing the US military as Reagan.  So, whether or not the USSR would exist today is unknown, but it would have lasted longer under Carter.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Given that CIA reports in mid 70s predicted the fall of the USSR by exactly the time it happpened in real life, then Reagan's impact on the Cold war wasn't as large as imagined.

But hey, maybe in this reality people would believe that President Walter Mondale was responible for ending the cold war.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nope. I think around this time both Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a British MP predicted that the Soviet Union would not survive until the end of the century.

[Reignman]

Maybe it'd've lasted a year longer? Military spending or no, communism sucks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Given that CIA reports in mid 70s predicted the fall of the USSR by exactly the time it happened in real life, then Reagan's impact on the Cold war wasn't as large as imagined.

But hey, maybe in this reality people would believe that President Walter Mondale was responsible for ending the cold war.

More likely, President George H.W. Bush (or whoever the Republican nominee in 1984 was) would have gotten the credit when the Berlin Wall fell in the middle of his second term.  If Carter had won a second term, I can't see Mondale winning in 1984.  Carter's second term would not have been as prosperous as Reagan's first was, and Mondale would be facing a challenge from Kennedy and other liberal critics of Carter's conservative policies such as his firing of the air traffic controllers instead of allowing them to break the law by striking without consequences.

[Wakie]

Given that CIA reports in mid 70s predicted the fall of the USSR by exactly the time it happened in real life, then Reagan's impact on the Cold war wasn't as large as imagined.

But hey, maybe in this reality people would believe that President Walter Mondale was responsible for ending the cold war.

More likely, President George H.W. Bush (or whoever the Republican nominee in 1984 was) would have gotten the credit when the Berlin Wall fell in the middle of his second term.  If Carter had won a second term, I can't see Mondale winning in 1984.  Carter's second term would not have been as prosperous as Reagan's first was, and Mondale would be facing a challenge from Kennedy and other liberal critics of Carter's conservative policies such as his firing of the air traffic controllers instead of allowing them to break the law by striking without consequences.

Had Carter won a second term it is highly unlikely HW Bush would have been the nom in '84.  I suspect he would have faded into the background.  And to be quite honest, if you look at the numbers you will see that Reagan's first term really (especially the first 2 years) wasn't that spectacular.

I think '84 would have seen Mondale ultimately winning the Dem nom.  As for the GOP, traditionally a party out of power for 8 years runs a moderate.  It is probably my being from PA but I remember there being a lot of buzz about John Heinz as a Presidential contender.  With Reagan and Bush out of the picture it could have opened the door for him to run and probably win in '84.  Heinz would probably be painted as Republican JFK.

[bullmoose88]

Given that CIA reports in mid 70s predicted the fall of the USSR by exactly the time it happened in real life, then Reagan's impact on the Cold war wasn't as large as imagined.

But hey, maybe in this reality people would believe that President Walter Mondale was responsible for ending the cold war.

More likely, President George H.W. Bush (or whoever the Republican nominee in 1984 was) would have gotten the credit when the Berlin Wall fell in the middle of his second term.  If Carter had won a second term, I can't see Mondale winning in 1984.  Carter's second term would not have been as prosperous as Reagan's first was, and Mondale would be facing a challenge from Kennedy and other liberal critics of Carter's conservative policies such as his firing of the air traffic controllers instead of allowing them to break the law by striking without consequences.

Carter would have been killed, like Reagan almost was by contractionary monetary policy (circa 81-82). Like you said, I doubt Carter would have done things, fiscal policywise (tax cuts etc) to ease money tightening

[Nym90]

Definitely not. Its downfall would've come at about the same time as it did in real life, possibly plus or minus a year or two.

[Nym90]

Another interesting what-if about Carter getting reelected is would he still have been shot the way Reagan was? Probably, since Hinckley shot the President to impress Jodie Foster. He had nothing personally against Reagan in particular, so presumably he would've shot Carter as well if he had still been in office. That might have boosted Carter's approval ratings the same way it did Reagan's.

[cp]

I am continually amazed with the persistence of this complete fiction that U.S. military spending had anything to do with the collapse of the USSR.

The USSR's economy was in slow decline since the 1960s. The black market thrived under a system where heavy industry dominated the state economic planning. Soviet military spending was increased proportionally more during the 1970s than the 1980s, and even then, most of the increases were to fund the war in Afghanistan - not to combat Star Wars.

It is interesting, too, that all the commentators who say that defense spending crushed the USSR were either tied to defense contracters, or neo-conservatives who only seemed to come up with the idea around 1989, or so. This idea that defense spending was planned to put pressure on the USSR is as ridiculous as the idea that it had any impact at all.

[Stranger in a strange land]

It would have lasted longer, but I doubt it would still exist.

[agcatter]

Carter reelected?  Man, that is hard to fathom.

[Nym90]

Carter reelected?  Man, that is hard to fathom.

The final preelection Gallup poll only had Reagan up by 3 points, and Carter was ahead in Gallup polling earlier in October.

Now if you are saying it's hard to fathom because of your personal opinion of Carter, that's another thing entirely. Just pointing out that while the actual result was a bit of a landslide, the election was quite close right up until the very end when there was a massive late surge for Reagan.

[agcatter]

An incumbent President got drilled by 10 points.  Outside of Hoover during the Great Depression, I can't think of an ass whipping of a sitting President that complete.  I also remember that 10 Democratic Senators went down with him.  It was a complete repudiation.  I readilyadmit that my disgust with the man also was also a factor in my remark.

[© tweed]

Carter reelected?  Man, that is hard to fathom.

In January 1980 Carter led Reagan by 31 points.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Carter reelected?  Man, that is hard to fathom.

it gets worse...when I read the title of this thread, I thought it was referring to a comeback and victory in 2008!  Noooooooooooooo!

Jimmy Carter and Bush43 have something in common, though: 

Carter's naiveté that human rights were the solution to the world’s problems gave rise to the Shiite Revolution in Iran.

Bush43’s naiveté that democracy was the solution to the world’s problems gave rise to a civil war in Iraq that will usher in a new wave of Shiite power, building upon the wave Carter unleashed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What would you have in place of democracy and human rights?

[Gabu]

What would you have in place of democracy and human rights?

Christian theocracy and complete adherence to the Bible.

Duh.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What would you have in place of democracy and human rights?

Christian theocracy and complete adherence to the Bible.

Duh.

Oh. Right. Of course.

Silly question to ask really.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What would you have in place of democracy and human rights?

Christian theocracy and complete adherence to the Bible.

Duh.

Oh. Right. Of course.

Silly question to ask really.

Actually, contrary to you two, I'm pretty much a status-quo policy person, hence my more moderate econ and social/lib scores.

In answer to your query:  Democracy and Human Rights are great, but offering them to people with pent-up hatred motives can sometimes get you killed.

[Wakie]

What would you have in place of democracy and human rights?

Christian theocracy and complete adherence to the Bible.

Duh.

Oh. Right. Of course.

Silly question to ask really.

Actually, contrary to you two, I'm pretty much a status-quo policy person, hence my more moderate econ and social/lib scores.

In answer to your query:  Democracy and Human Rights are great, but offering them to people with pent-up hatred motives can sometimes get you killed.

And yet we give them to the Christian Right.