With a PoD no early than Ford's inauguration, who is the best candidate to be a Democrat President who wins the 1976 and 1980 elections? I'm still open to the possibility of it being Carter, but it you suggest Carter, what should Carter do differently to put him in the best position to beat Reagan in 1980?
Who is the ideal Candidate to defeat Reagan in 1980?
- Thread starter durante
- Start date
Chapman
Donor
If he can avoid his OTL fumbles and gaffes I honestly think Ted Kennedy might be the strongest choice. Name recognition, experience, a standard bearer for the Democratic party of the time, public sympathy for both of his slain brothers, and to top it off, if he ran in 1976 he’d be more-or-less running on a platform to restore national integrity after Nixon; the same man his older brother defeated years prior. He would not have the same issues that Carter did in terms of dealing with Congress, as he would already have an excellent relationship with House Speaker Tip O’Neil and an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Senate. He would get much more done I think, and probably alienate far fewer people in his own party. Come 1980, I think the nation would still be struggling with economic issues and foreign policy concerns, but not as badly as under Carter. President Ted Kennedy would have a very decent shot of holding on IMO.
Without a doubt, Chappaquiddick would be an issue. That cannot be escaped. But I don’t think it alone could sink him. With that said, any other scandals that might come to light during his presidency…it could also end poorly. But overall I think he is the best shot at beating Reagan. A Kennedy/Church ticket would be strong IMO.
Without a doubt, Chappaquiddick would be an issue. That cannot be escaped. But I don’t think it alone could sink him. With that said, any other scandals that might come to light during his presidency…it could also end poorly. But overall I think he is the best shot at beating Reagan. A Kennedy/Church ticket would be strong IMO.
Last edited:
Deleted member 145219
Had Carter avoided the Play Boy interview, he likely would have won by a much greater margin than OTL, breaking 440 Electoral votes, winning Illinois, California, and maybe even Michigan. Carter enters office with a much stronger political position and base. This might have been enough for the Congressional Democrats to play ball with him more, recognizing that Carter's election was a call from the public that politics needed to change. So maybe this could have resulted in Carter having a better relationship with Congress. Had Carter had someone such as Joe Watson as Chief of Staff, or maybe even Charlie Kirbo, that would help immensely. Working out a compromise on Health Care Reform with Ted Kennedy would prevent his primary challenge and prevent Carters alienation with the Democratic base.
Have Carter avoid the mass cabinet firings than came after the Crisis of Confidence speech. Don't let the Shah into the United States. Don't appoint Volcker to the Fed.
And do a better job in the debate against Reagan.
Have Carter avoid the mass cabinet firings than came after the Crisis of Confidence speech. Don't let the Shah into the United States. Don't appoint Volcker to the Fed.
And do a better job in the debate against Reagan.
Perhaps if Carter hadn't responded to the contemporary energy (mainly oil) concerns by cutting research into alternative technologies, he might have consolidated enough support from the left-centrist proto-environmentalists and right-centrist scientific and technological communities to take the College.
Chapman
Donor
A deeply unfortunate choice of wording on my part. Not intentional but hard to see how it went over my head as I typed it out…
For Carter,
Don't bungle the hostage situation in Iran. Operation Eagle Claw is a success flawlessly on the first attempt. Not really Carter's fault but this succeeds perception changes.
Handle the energy crisis way differently. Control prices, energy assistance, and talk to the US people about what was happening. He may not have been able to hold off the 1980 recession but he put it in the minds of the people he was trying to do something.
Worked better with the Federal Reserve and Congress on controlling inflation and the Fed's tight monetary policy in 1979.
Don't bungle the hostage situation in Iran. Operation Eagle Claw is a success flawlessly on the first attempt. Not really Carter's fault but this succeeds perception changes.
Handle the energy crisis way differently. Control prices, energy assistance, and talk to the US people about what was happening. He may not have been able to hold off the 1980 recession but he put it in the minds of the people he was trying to do something.
Worked better with the Federal Reserve and Congress on controlling inflation and the Fed's tight monetary policy in 1979.
Honestly (and wth admitted bias), I'd say Mo Udall in 1976. He has the experience and can work well with Congress. While yes, 1976-1980 loaded with various pitfalls, I grew more to realize that it wasn't a complete loss. It just would've required someone who would not have used austerity economic measures. And I think Mo Udall would be the type to go and instead try to pump some money in the economy. This along with some good usage of charisma could help him win reelection in 1980.
Frank Church and Birch Bayh are also admittingly pretty good choices, though am wondering how long Church may last given how his pancreatic tumor could be worsen by the stress of the presidency.
I don't know if Ted Kennedy is the ideal candidate but it was the debate that America deserved. Ted Kennedy is just about the only figure in politics at the time that I think could've stood across the debate stage from Ronald Reagan and not disappeared. I mention Allan Lichtman frequently on this board and in 1980 and 1984 he gave Ronald Reagan the "Historical Charisma" factor going into the race, which is one advantage "key." This "Historical Charisma" factor can be largely credited to first his strong television debate performance against Jimmy Carter where he significantly moved the needle but also to his landslide victory which allowed him to move on his agenda so successfully. IRL, he barely cleared a majority of the popular vote and with someone more galvanizing than Carter (and without John Anderson in the race) it's possible down ballot goes a little better for Democrats. Maybe not a -12 Senate landslide. That might mean a different Reagan administration. Or who knows? Maybe it goes worse for Democrats.
Even way, it was the debate America deserved.
Chapman
Donor
He’s certainly not my ideal candidate for a whole slew of reasons. But in terms of candidates who I think could realistically go toe to toe with Reagan and win in 1980, I can’t think of anyone better. Mo Udall is another one I considered but, while he lacks the Kennedy scandals, he also lacks the Kennedy name recognition. I think Udall has the kind of necessary charisma to make such a debate, but a Kennedy v. Reagan would’ve been one for the books.
Himself. Get him into the White House in 1976 and have him end up with Iran and stagflation. Jesus of Nazareth couldn’t get re-elected after all that.
I'm not sure. Congress didn't have trouble with Carter because of his politics so much as because he was an asshole. Yes, he was a good person and a saint etc etc but contemporary reports have him being incredibly disrespectful to congresspeople (allegedly to the point of insulting some to their faces) and refusing most attempts at compromise. Even those in his own party.
I doubt even a Reagan-esque landslide would make people take that from him.
Definitely, though again - Carter had a general refusal to compromise, and he had a fairly deep personal dislike for Kennedy on top of it. He was also, by that time, afraid that Kennedy was going to contest him in the primary, which added to the dislike.
And frankly, he had grounds not to compromise on this one. Kennedy's plan involved either massively hiking taxes, vastly increasing the public deficit, or both. Since Carter was already getting destroyed on economic grounds, he figured that passing anything even vaguely resembling the Kennedy plan would allow the Republicans to crucify him.
This is causing me to think that one possible path would be to have Carter throw himself on a grenade so that Kennedy could try to take the presidency in 1980...though I consider this to be very out of character for Carter.
Yep. Have Ford or Reagan (or any other Republican) win in 1976 and the GOP likely isn't winning in 1980 without the Democratic nominee being found with the proverbial dead girl or live boy.
Deleted member 145219
The Democrats were indeed hollowed out by the 1960's. And none of the OTL 1976 candidates were exactly five stars either.
Asides Carter, Mo Udall, and Scoop Jackson stand out as potential strong nominees and Presidents. Jackson might be too hawkish for the party, though. With Udall, you have his Parkinson's. Birch Bayh doesn't really seem to have a base, he only narrowly won all of his Senate Elections, and probably would have lost in 1974, if not for Watergate.
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair to Bayh, Indiana was a pretty Republican state even in that era. He would likely have been a capable President, but I imagine that being a Washington "insider" hurt the campaigns of every Democratic candidate who was a Member of Congress in 1976. (In contrast to Carter, who could sell himself as an "outsider" who would never lie like an "establishment" Washington politician).
Perhaps the best thing for the Democrats is that Carter loses to Ford. The best POD would be Ford never making his "Soviet domination gaffe." Even if Ford had immediately clarified his remarks by saying, "I am sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that 'the United States will not tolerate Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and it never will under a Gerald Ford administration,'" and gone on to make a strong statement against the Soviet Union nobody would have remembered his earlier gaffe and he would likely have won. Ford is saddled with the same challenges which undercut Carter, although he may do somewhat better in handling the situation in Iran. But with the economy in recession and the misery index increasing day by day, 1980 will be a Democratic year even if the GOP nominates Reagan. That would put someone like Bayh in a better position to first win the nomination, and then win the election.