1976 Election ("What if"-scenario)

[Nym90]

LBJ was born in Texas, which I would think is considered to be part of the South (it was part of the old Confederacy during the Civil War, which is usually the definition of the South).
Also, although Carter did worse in the South in 1980 than in 1976, the South was still more Democratic than the nation as a whole, and in fact 1980 was the last election in which this was true. Most of the southern states that Reagan won were by narrow margins (in fact it's kind of interesting how the results were so similar in many of them, there were alot where Reagan won by 1-2%). If Carter had run just a little bit better nationally his loss wouldn't have looked so bad in the Electoral College, as he could've picked up North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
The South was still mostly a Democratic region in 1980, it wasn't until 1984 that the dye was cast for the South to become a Republican region.

[Nym90]

I've been to his birthplace, so yes, I'm pretty sure. By the way, if anyone is ever near the Austin, TX, area, it's a great visit for any political junkie to go to the LBJ ranch west of Austin and the LBJ presidential library in Austin. For that matter, I'm sure any presidential library is a great visit for a political junkie...I've been to Johnson's, Truman's, and Ford's so far, and hope to eventually see all of them. Of course Ford's was pretty easy for me since most of my college classes were a block away...:-) (It's on the U of M campus)
I agree with you about Johnson, he was a pro-civil rights Democrat which obviously put him at odds with most of the rest of the South at that time. I feel that he was a great President who will be (and already has to a certain extent) been vindicated by history. He certainly was, however, a victim of circumstances with regards to Vietnam (getting duped by the Gulf of Tonkin incident) and with never being as "good" as Kennedy in a lot of people's eyes. He certainly seemed to have a great vision for our nation and grandiose ideas about how to transform American society for the better, all of which was unfortunately derailed by events 12,000 miles away.
As for the original question, I do feel that Reagan would've lost to Carter in 1976, and thus never would have been elected in 1980 either. If Reagan had won (possible, since he wouldn't have had as much baggage from the Nixon pardon as Ford had) I think that he would've lost in 1980 as the problems that befell Carter would've befallen Reagan as well.
Interesting how the results of 1976 profoundly affect us to this day...for example, if Carter loses to Ford (or if Reagan loses to Carter) there is never any Pres. Reagan, then there is never any Pres. GHW Bush, and thus obviously no Pres. GW Bush.

[Nym90]

Well, personally, I've actually become more liberal as I've become older, at least on social issues. I used to be more of a populist Democrat when I was in my teens, conservative on social issues but liberal on economics, now in my 20s I'm pretty much liberal across-the-board with only a few issues on which I lean more to the right.

[Nym90]

What exactly do you mean by saying that you oppose unions? Do you think they should be made illegal? I find this quite surprising coming from you as this would definitely be to the great benefit of corporations and would be very bad for workers. Just look at working conditions before unions came into existence.
Also, I think that raising taxes on the poor is a bad idea. The poor don't make enough money for a tax increase on them to have a very large effect, and these people are the ones who most need to keep the money in their pockets to spend.

[Nym90]

Most of the problems of the late 1970's would have befallen whomever was President, that's true. But that would seem to contradict that Carter was incredibly incompetent. You can't really have it both ways there. Personally I feel that Carter was a great man but he was somewhat out of his league as President...he didn't have the most intricate understanding of how things worked in Washington, and he tried to micromanage too much. He came on TV every night addressing the nation about the state of the Iran hostage negotiations, which obviously tied him directly to the ultimate outcome of those negotiations. He was perhaps a little too hands on for his own good, and would have been better off delegating more responsibility. Clinton had many of these same problems during his first two years, but unlike Carter, he turned things around starting in his 3rd year. I think that Carter was a great man and humanitarian who did as best as he could, but would have been better off with a little more preparation. He probably would not have been nominated by the Dems in the first place if it hadn't been for Watergate and the backlash that created against Washington politicans.

I'm kind of surprised that Republicans even admit that Reagan would have had trouble during this time, since if the problems of that era were intractable, then it somewhat diminishes the case for Reagan's election in 1980. Carter at the time tried to make this argument, as did Hoover in 1932, that he was doing as well as anyone could have hoped to. That argument never works, of course, even when it is true, and Reagan, as did FDR, laughed it off all the way to victory.

[Nym90]

Indeed, good point RealPolitik, I had forgotten about the Israel-Egypt peace accord which was a major advancement in the Middle East.