Talk Elections

1976 rematch in 2008.

Carter, the "extremist," of course...maybe Ford can trip over driveway curbs and eat nachos and drink beer and watch football w/ Homer Simpson (I hope y'all have seen that episode!).

()

Carter. I have respect for both them to some extent though.

I would have voted for Ford in 76', I sure as hell would vote for him now seeing as to what Jimmy Carter has become.

Also, Tarheel? Why on Earth would the most liberal president we have had since FDR lose Washington and Maine....yet win Kentucky and North Dakota? Some of your maps just leave me scratching my ass.

Eww.

Every single time tarheel maniac posts a map, they're almost always nearly exactly the same with minimal variation.  The Democrat always loses most of the west coast, Michigan, and upper New England, while winning Kansas and the peripheral South.

Yeah that is pretty strange... although in this case it might make a bit more sense...except Carter winning North Dakota and Kansas... I don't know where that is coming from.

Plus if Carter won anything in the south it would likely be Georgia.

Outstanding episode indeed.

But Ford wins simply because Carter was the most inept preisdent we've ever had!

ford (normal)

Considering their ages, I'd need to know the veep nominees to be sure.

LBJ

Hardly. LBJ was a communitarian style, populist Democrat who happened to like spending. Jimmy Carter was far more liberal.

How was Carter liberal?

The correct answer is that he wasn't.  He upset liberals in the party enough that he faced a primary challenge from the left and would have lost had the hostages not been taken in Iran.  LBJ meanwhile expanded the federal government's size more than anyone has since.

Hard to believe this, but ... Ford.  Carter was simply too inept and Ford was quite liberal for a Republican.  He would have been the last Republican I would vote for.

Ford was quite 'inept' as well.

A Ford presidency from 1977-1981 wouldn't have looked very different from Carter's.

Perhaps not in comparison to you, but Jimmy Carter is in fact a liberal. Few people have foreign policy as far to the left as Jimmy Carter, few people push for national health care on the level that he would have liked, few presidents ever made efforts to decriminalise marijuana like Carter did.

To say that Carter isn't a liberal is ludicrious.

In regards to my maps, I think an electoral realignment is inevitable...maybe a bit too optimistic on my part as soon as 2008, but it's going to happen nonetheless. 

According to the Census, Michigan is doing terribly in the population department:  Massive amounts of Michiganders are moving primarily to the Peripheral South.  Who wants to bet that most of those people fleeing aren't African-Americans from Detroit moving away from the state with the highest Klan membership to more hospitable places (like Charlotte, Raleigh, Dallas, and Florida excepting the Klanhandle). 

Though Jeb Bush is like every other Republican, he certainly had to effect himself as a micro-managing populist like Huckabee or "Democrat" Warner in order to win.  Also, I would've said Florida would swing more to Republicans when the Southwestern part of the Peninsula was booming with sky-high real-estate, but that's coming to a close, and most of the growth will stem from the shrinking middle class and retirees who haven't lost their pensions yet (both middle and upper class seniors, I suppose, though many upper class seniors who be more inclined to think like citizens than Ayn Rand). 

Carter would definitely lose Georgia, as it use to reflect a working-class heritage as evidenced by their support of Truman (where every other Deep South state voted for Strom), and although large numbers of Northern blacks are moving to said state, they--for one reason or another, like most Deep South states--don't factor into election results (I think blacks composed roughly 16% of the electorate in 2006, when they compose 29.5% of the state's population--interesting...).  Georgia votes according to the wishes of Long Islanders and Californians moving the snow-white suburbs of Atlanta and the Klansmen elsewhere. 

If Jennings somehow gets that seat in the 110th or 111th Congress, every Peripheral South state will have at least a 40% Dem. delegation.  BTW, wasn't Ford from Michigan?  Pretty soon all that's gonna be left in that state is a snow-white suburbia surrounding a hollow urban core. 

The Great Plains (Oklahoma's going to be difficult, but a strong Constitution party movement may split the Republican vote) may also become more promising.  3/5 of the Great Plains have at least a 50% Dem. Caucus, and Nebraska's three Rep. representatives were held under 60% (I think Kleeb and the Omaha district will go Dem. pretty soon, but the suburb dist. will stay Rep. til eternity). 

The thing about such a realignment, however, is that it won't begin with party switching or from the bottom up.  When Reagan became president, most Southerners still identified themselves as Democrats (and I think a majority in the Deep South).  What you see is popular support for a president, followed by partisan realignment and reversal of party control for lower and state-level offices.  California was consistently, though narrowly, Republican before and during Reagan.  Not so anymore.  These regional realignments may also happen during different elections--perhaps the Peripheral South will realign before the Great Plains or vice versa.  But, as much as both parties like to think they're coalitions will hold and the maps will look similar to 2000 and 2004, it isn't going to hold. 

And I love how the liberal/conservative criterion is abortion...classic!  Let's continue to solve the world's material problems through religion or a psuedo-rebellious lack thereof (like a Christian book that just came out promising riches and better sex) and immaterial (in every sense of the word) problems through politics.  It's worked so well since 1968. 

Maybe California will stay Democratic (with high minority populations), but the whites are going to trend Republican, and I think we can look forward to surprisingly low turnouts for minorities in these western states--for one reason or another.  Washington and Oregon will probably go undergo a Rep. realignment so long as you have Republicans who take the "moderate approach" and flip-flop on their support for wars and abortions depending upon their political feasibility.

But, as everyone else seems to think, 2008 will be like 2000 and 2004--except for Colorado and Arizona which will break 60+% for the Democrat!  LOL

Maybe the map would like this...

()

Looks like a bit similiar to 1988..

You'd have to define 'leftist' foreign policy. (and his foreign policy was pretty identical to that of, say, Ford, prehaps he was even tougher on the Soviets)


Carter never pushed for health care nationalization as president.  Meanwhile LBJ instituted the largest federal health care programs in the nation's history.


Finally you have something, but even this is pretty weak.  Marijuana is a very minor issue, and ti say that Carter pushed for it isn't really correct.  He affirmed his support for decriminalization in front of congress but never had any intentions of fighting for progress.

Since MacBride has since died I'll go with the 1976 VP candidate for this rematch:

David Bergland (L)

Oh and since Dole and Mondale are both still alive, they're the VP candidates in this matchup in 2008.  Ages on inauguration day 2009:

Ford 95
Dole 85

Carter 84
Mondale 80

Ford, without a second thought when looking back at how Carter was as president and how he is today as a crazy man.

Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Tweed and not adam, but Carter wasn't that liberal.  The reason he was ineffective was because congress had a lot of liberal insider Democrats and they saw Carter as a threat.  And comparing to LBJ-well, if the Socialist Party of today were to nominate a candidate what LBJ wanted wouldn't be that different.

 Yeah, Carter was not actually that liberal. He also spent more time in the military than any 20th century President besides Eisenhower. He got stuck with a tough situation - he was the first President ever to have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism and a major energy crisis in a real way. He'd get my vote in an instant.

 I don't think he was an amazing President, but I do think he is underrated.

Carter of course.  It would be strange to have an election where both candidates were good though.

Carter, primarily because Ford is too old (though I actually like Carter and have no real feelings one way or the other for Ford).

Called on account of death :(

I just heard--and i haven't yet recoverd

Ford gets a huge boost on account of his recent death.

()

R.I.P President Ford.

You will be missed.

In 1976 I would have voted for Jimmy Carter

In 2008 (in this hypothetical scenario) I'd vote for Ford in order to prevent Reagan from ever reaching the White House and ruining American Politics for a generation.   Remember: Goldwater=Great. Reagan=Very Bad

Ford wouldn't have been able to run in 1980 as he was appointed president just before the 1974 mid-terms, so Reagan could still have won the Republican nomination in 1980 and became a president. (More likely though is Bob Dole losing heavily to Ted Kennedy in 1980 imo.)

I'd love to see the Republican reaction if that happened ;D Although in 1980 I don't think Ted Kennedy was hated on the right the way he is now.

Ford, although I always felt sorry for Carter.  Mr. Ford, rest in peace.