AHC: Defeat Ronald Reagan in 1980
- Thread starter JVM
- Start date
Not that hard. Have a successful Operation Eagle Claw rescue the Iranian-embassy hostages. Reagan is already also running against a centrist Republican (John B Anderson) third-party candidate who thinks supply-side economics is bunk -- if Carter agrees to feature Anderson in the debates rather than try to force him out, it makes Reagan look more extremist by comparison. If Reagan doesn't get away with stealing Carter's debate-preparation briefing book (and so doesn't have time to plan any witty zinger comebacks), so much the better. If Carter thus just scrapes a win, the electoral map looks something like this:
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Economy improves during Carter's first term, Khomeini peacefully dies in 1978.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Two things.
The Iranians agree to let the Iranian hostages go no more than one month prior to the Nov. 4th election.
and
in the debate one week before the election, Carter does a lot better (doesn't mention his daughter Amy being worried about nuclear proliferation) and Reagan does a lot worse (comes off as "war monger Reagan" instead of "kindly old grandfather Reagan").
The 1980 debate between Carter and Reagan was one of the only truly decisive debates in modern American political history. It effectively blew open a tight race.
The Iranians agree to let the Iranian hostages go no more than one month prior to the Nov. 4th election.
and
in the debate one week before the election, Carter does a lot better (doesn't mention his daughter Amy being worried about nuclear proliferation) and Reagan does a lot worse (comes off as "war monger Reagan" instead of "kindly old grandfather Reagan").
The 1980 debate between Carter and Reagan was one of the only truly decisive debates in modern American political history. It effectively blew open a tight race.
I think that's correlation more than causation; weak Presidents get primaried and strong ones don't. (And Bush '92 is a stretch; does Pat Buchanan really count as a serious primary challenger??)
Ultimately, Carter would be a weak incumbent in 1980 even with no Iranian hostage crisis, but weak incumbents frequently get re-elected (Clinton '96; Bush '04; Obama '12) and Reagan wasn't Reagan the invincible in 1980.
If the world unfolds as ColeMercury sets out (no hostage crisis), my guess is that even if Kennedy runs, it would be viewed as "the last liberal lion challenging the new Democratic Party" as opposed to OTL's "even Democrats have given up on Carter."
Without the hostage crisis, you also butterfly away The New Republic's endorsement of John B. Anderson and that magazine's long, slow, rightward drift toward irrelevance. This probably only matters to Michael Kinsley fans, though.
Without the hostage crisis Kennedy's challenge could have been more damaging to Carter since there will be no rally round the flag effect. What Carter needs is an Iran Hostage crisis that lasts just long enough for that effect to take place but not so long that he ends up looking even more like a dangerously impotent figure.
Based upon all the squabbling involved there is at least a slight chance that Reagan and Carter might have never agreed to a debate in 1980.
So no debate and a short lived hostage crisis may be the recipe for a two term Carter Presidency. But it may not be enough.
Based upon all the squabbling involved there is at least a slight chance that Reagan and Carter might have never agreed to a debate in 1980.
So no debate and a short lived hostage crisis may be the recipe for a two term Carter Presidency. But it may not be enough.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
Carter supporters used to say that
"If it were not for the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would've won".
They forget that
"If not for the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would not have been renominated in 1980."
Because in late 1979 popular sentiment in the Democratic Party was for dumping Carter and giving Ted Kennedy a try. It was only with the surge in incumbent support due to the hostage crisis that Carter was able to fend off Kennedy.
"If it were not for the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would've won".
They forget that
"If not for the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter would not have been renominated in 1980."
Because in late 1979 popular sentiment in the Democratic Party was for dumping Carter and giving Ted Kennedy a try. It was only with the surge in incumbent support due to the hostage crisis that Carter was able to fend off Kennedy.
I agree with many of the ideas espoused here. A successful Operation Eagle Claw (which occurred in April, after Kennedy's momentum was already sapped) strengthens Carter against attacks on foreign policy, while Anderson appearing in the debates makes Reagan appear to be far more conservative. It's also worth noting the polls showed Carter in the lead as late as September, and a tied race going into the debates. A better debate for Carter, or a worse debate for Reagan, could flip the race to Democrats. If so, here's the most likely map:
Reagan beats Ford in '76 and then Carter.
ATL follows OTL however and Reagan is blamed for it.
Mondale wins in '80.
ATL follows OTL however and Reagan is blamed for it.
Mondale wins in '80.
I also heard that the guy who took a shot at Reagan had planned to do so to Carter but saw secret service
I suspect thatif Carter were matyred in the summer of 1980 Mondale would have won.
Dems would have beneifited from the swing of the economy and he would have held office in 84 too
I suspect thatif Carter were matyred in the summer of 1980 Mondale would have won.
Dems would have beneifited from the swing of the economy and he would have held office in 84 too
Space enthusiasts everywhere officially hate you. You just folded up NASA.
It has to be more than just ending the Iran hostage crisis. Maybe it is enough to give him a prolonged boost through the rest of '80 - but before the hostages were taken, Carter's approval was in the low 30s before receiving a 'rally behind the flag' type boost in November, '79. So, even before things went south in Iran, Carter was struggling a great deal politically.
So, I agree with the person who points to the hostage crisis actually helping Carter. Overnight, basically, his approval went from 32% to 58% and without it, there is the real potential of Kennedy derailing the president in a primary (and Carter's campaign often used a nasty tactic where they would tease the release in order to gain support when Kennedy was coming on strong ... only to have nothing happen).
There are just some elections that are impossible for the candidate to win ... at least without some massive scandal that shakes the entire race up. 1980 was a lot like 2008 in the sense that the incumbent party needed a miracle for victory and it was just never going to come.
So, I agree with the person who points to the hostage crisis actually helping Carter. Overnight, basically, his approval went from 32% to 58% and without it, there is the real potential of Kennedy derailing the president in a primary (and Carter's campaign often used a nasty tactic where they would tease the release in order to gain support when Kennedy was coming on strong ... only to have nothing happen).
There are just some elections that are impossible for the candidate to win ... at least without some massive scandal that shakes the entire race up. 1980 was a lot like 2008 in the sense that the incumbent party needed a miracle for victory and it was just never going to come.
I think you guys are vastly underrating Reagan so far. Carter and Kennedy are extremely weak Democratic candidates, and even with a successful Iran hostage crisis, Carter has more baggage than Bush did in '08 by a landslide because of the economy. George H. W. Bush had a very successful foreign policy, but he still lost re-election based on the poor economy at the end of his first term.
I started that thread. Ignore it. It doesn't work that way.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Have Reagan promise to ransom the hostages by selling arms to Iran.
More realistically no 1953 coup in Iran. Iran remains a constitutional monarchy. tThere is no hostage crisis. tThere is also no spike in oil prices so the economy does better.
More realistically no 1953 coup in Iran. Iran remains a constitutional monarchy. tThere is no hostage crisis. tThere is also no spike in oil prices so the economy does better.
I think people tend to make too big a deal of the Reagan campaign finding Carter's debate preparation book. I think the poor economy, astronomically high gas prices, and Iranian hostage crisis were what cost Carter the election.
One way I see Reagan losing is if Ted Kennedy secures the 1980 nomination and effectively portrays himself as running against both the Carter administration's ineffectiveness and Reagan's purported extremism. I agree with JVM, Reagan is being hugely underrated: he was an excellent campaigner and political candidate, in the same vein as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
One way I see Reagan losing is if Ted Kennedy secures the 1980 nomination and effectively portrays himself as running against both the Carter administration's ineffectiveness and Reagan's purported extremism. I agree with JVM, Reagan is being hugely underrated: he was an excellent campaigner and political candidate, in the same vein as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.
This is probably implausible given how hard independent/third-party candidates have it in the US election system, but...
Anderson was polling quite well (mid-20s, with Reagan and Carter in the 30-40% range) early in the election system, but much of his support melted away to the major candidates after the conventions. This makes sense, given that voters are aware of the spoiler effect and tend to vote strategically, switching stated preference from their first choice to their strategic choice as the election approaching.
What if we change things to go even more wrong for Carter, during the time period that Anderson is out-polling Reagan? Is there a plausible way to drive enough of Carter's support to Anderson that the fall race becomes effectively Reagan vs Anderson rather than Reagan vs Carter?
Anderson was polling quite well (mid-20s, with Reagan and Carter in the 30-40% range) early in the election system, but much of his support melted away to the major candidates after the conventions. This makes sense, given that voters are aware of the spoiler effect and tend to vote strategically, switching stated preference from their first choice to their strategic choice as the election approaching.
What if we change things to go even more wrong for Carter, during the time period that Anderson is out-polling Reagan? Is there a plausible way to drive enough of Carter's support to Anderson that the fall race becomes effectively Reagan vs Anderson rather than Reagan vs Carter?