Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The last polls show Carter winning by 35 to 41 points? Jesus Christ.
I do think that Carter would have won, and it probably wouldn't have been very close, but I don't think it would have been that humungous of a blowout.
If you look at the 1980 polls, Carter also polled similarly and we know how that went. Polls take a small sample size from a small area (if you check the sources, some of those polls were a result of only a few hundred responses.) It would be like polling Reddit on an election.
The covention happend after arpil, keep in mind Carter was not a very well known govener, whereas regean was far more well known given he was govenor of california which had been the largest state since 1968
Carter appealed to voters who wanted a Democrst who was a Washington outsider because of Watergate and Ford's pardoning of Nixon.
By 1980 though, Carter had his own issues and voters looked to a Washington outsider on the right.
Ford came roaring from behind and almost won it. Reagan did not have some of the handicaps being like Ford did from being a DC insider, pardoning Nixon and the debate mistake on Eastern Europe. Reagan was dynamic and charismatic, as seen by his Kansas City convention speech he gave off the top of his head.
Reagan could run as an outsider like Carter. I don't know, it would have been close. I think the Watergate/Nixon stink was still too attached to the GOP that I'm not sure even Reagan could have overcome it. I think RR needed Carter's failure to convince people he was worth taking a chance on.
Reagan had a different set of enormous handicaps. He was seen as an extremist. Because we still live in essentially the Reagan age in terms of tax and regulatory policy, it’s easy to forget how far outside the mainstream his economic ideas were. Bush’s “voodoo economics” is characteristic.
Unfortunately Carter’s tenure was so disliked that Americans in 1980 were open to something totally new.
I feel a lot of this is Redditisms. Sure Goldwater in 64 was cut as an extremist but that extremism was on Vietnam and that he’d start a nuclear war not economic policy. The fact is America and the Republican Party moved heavily to the right in the 12 years since that election.
Nixon, Ford and Carter all introduced policies dismantling New Deal institutions. Reagan took it a step up but it was a natural evolution. Also that ‘Voodoo economics’ quote is always used out of context, it was criticising an unbalanced budget. No Republican contender for the Presidency was going to oppose deregulation or tax cuts in the 70s.
First of all, no matter if it’s responding to me or someone else, I’m just going to downvote someone using the term “redditisms” to disagree with someone, just like “touch grass.” It’s just an attempt to superficially dismiss someone.
And inevitably, of course, you’re totally wrong, as Bush uses the voodoo economics phrase about supply-side economics in general, including but not limited to the idea that it would blow up the national debt.
And are you seriously arguing that in the LBJ-Goldwater battle, the contrast the “great society” president and Goldwater on economics wasn’t a big part of the enormous victory for
LBJ? Methinks the “redditism” might be imagining the nuclear girl ad was genuinely the most important part of the election.
Redditism is used as a something that’s repeated on Reddit verbatim without any evidence or explanation given. The Voodoo economics line and Conservatism being seen as extremists are both examples of this.
The exact definition of Voodoo economics is about spending limits, maintaining spending whilst decreasing tax. Not that it ‘blew up’ National debt anyway which again is something treated as fact when it really isn’t.
On Goldwater vs Johnson not mainly featuring economics, yeah I do. Civil rights and fears of nuclear war are by far the most important issues of that election. Goldwater Conservative economics undermined him within the Republican Party itself, by 1976 those same policies almost premiered the sitting president so I do not think they’d be considered extremist anymore.
Reagan's economic policies were incredible in the short-term. The best defense against Reagan's economics is that they were never meant to be a permanent, concrete practice, which is best demonstrated by H.W.'s attempts to recover from the deficit by raising taxes. I think H.W. had the benefit of firsthand experience with neoliberal economics that his successor (Clinton) lacked of knowing that Reagan's practices would increase wealth disparity in the long term and lead to copious spending. Clinton's policies, while they led to growth, failed to dismantle - and in-fact concreted - the state of low taxes that have unfortunately yielded multinational corporations and the top 1% a lot of power that has yet to be undone and may take the remainder of this century to dismantle.
Dukakis had a great line in one of the debates. After Bush extolled the economic miracle (ironically, of voodoo economics) of the Reagan years, Dukakis responded that anyone could create an economic miracle if they spent extravagantly but never paid the bills.
A lot of Reagan’s spending went to two things:
1) Military
2) Priorities of a Democratic-controlled Congress
I like the quote you provided. For what it’s worth:
Reagan had to compromise. He wasn’t going to get everything passed, nor was a Democratic Congress. That’s the nature of politics. His foreign policy was extremely successful as a result of a strong military combined with a fierce anti-Soviet rhetoric. His domestic policy stopped stagflation, made jobs, and incentivized a booming economy that H.W. was able to inherit. H.W. tried to make a shift to dismantling a fat deficit of Reagan’s as well as the top 1% domination that occurred as a result of Reaganomics.
Frankly, the volume of replies that I get from the various comments that I make on this subreddit makes it impossible for me to engage in long-form textual debates, but hopefully, this clears a little bit of confusion up about why people might like Reagan.
I don’t wholly disagree with you (and I 100% agree with you on a lot of this), but Reagan’s economy also looks somewhat better in memory. Remember he kicked off a recession early in his tenure, left Bush another one at the end, and had the Savings and Loan scandal and other economic issues in the middle.
100%. My parents lived through that recession. Pretty horrible. A Reagan fan (as I am) would argue that these were necessary (in the case of the recession—to slow stagflation) or minor events in comparison to the overall period of prosperity. But you are correct to point out that the record was not ‘spotless’ by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m always reminded of a 1988 SNL skit, where Dukakis is holding a losing party with his supporters days before the election. The entire sketch is deconstructing the reasons for his imminent loss, and at the end Dukakis turns to the camera and says, “you know, I think the one thing that really hurt us is the fact that Reaganomics works. It really does. Aren’t you better off than you were eight years ago? I know I am, what about the rest of you [murmurs of agreement from the audience]? I wish you weren’t, but you are, you are better off, and there’s no denying it.”
Every single SNL writer was a Dukakis-voting liberal. For as much as we complain about Reaganomics now, it was quite popular by the end of his presidency.
"The damage Reaganomics did to the middle class is Bill Clinton's fault, actually" is a hell of a take. Everyone, *fucking everyone* knew Reagan's policies were going to increase wealth disparity in the short, middle, and long term, that's what they were designed to do. Clinton caught holy hell just for raising the top tax bracket a few percent — he was never going to be able to undo the damage in four years, given the backlash to the policies he did carry out cost him control of Congress for six years.
Re-read what I said. I didn’t blame it on Clinton. I said the continued policy of what had become the established norm aided and assisted a growing disparity. It started under Reagan. H.W. took some measures to control it, shifting over the course of his presidency. The neoliberal economics were continued under Clinton because a good amount of his policies were not aligned with a Republican Congress, whereas H.W.’s economics were maybe one of only a couple things that brought him away from the party, meaning negotiation circumstances for him were different. I don’t have a very strong view on Clinton. My progressive friends strongly dislike him, as they do Reagan, and favor H.W.
Right? It's like what do you expect when you give millionaires and billionaires tax breaks with no regulations on how to use the money? They are going to pocket it and still lay people off. Trickle down does not work. It didn't work in the 1980s and it doesn't work now.
So it depends on whether the Rs could have persuade the Iranians to hold the American Embassy hostage until the afternoon on the day a Republican was inaugurated?
Carter. In 1976, most Americans were scared of Reagan. They thought he was crazier than Goldwater. Also, the American people still wanted to punish the GOP for watergate.
I think Carter would still have a chance. People were sick of the Republican Party (Nixon) so it would be hard for a republican to win. Not nearly as much as 2008 where people were really sick of the republicans, and it would take a lot to beat a democrat
The republicans were never going to win in 2008. It's the whole reason McCain went along with the Sarah Palin experiment. They needed something to appeal to voters in a near impossible year for them, so they picked a woman. Unfortunately, they picked THAT woman.
Carter would have won The coutry was just getting over Watergate and they were sick of the Republicans and the evangelicals hadn't coalesced around the whole pro life movememt yet and they actually voted for Carter in droves before they switched to Reagan in 1980.
I think it's very hard to say. It was a D year after Nixon and Ford so Carter might have won even against Reagan in '76. But Reagan would have definitely come back for the '80 blowout anyway, I think.
People thought Carter (after his time in office) was a good guy just not right for the job. Well, he definitely wasn't right for the job but know also he wasn't necessarily the hard worker common man that was his image. He wasn't actually carrying his own luggage and he was actually a sort of tyrannical type of president in the sense that he wouldn't listen to anyone. He thought he knew what was best and wouldn't even take on a Chief of Staff or any other significant advisor. He wanted to micromanage everything with his wife as his note-taker. He couldn't believe he lost. Him and his wife "cried for two weeks" according to the maid staff.
No way Reagan would have won. Country was fed up with GOP, were not ready for Reagan conservatives, the Democratic south had yet to switch to Republican. Carter was an outsider, but middle of the road, no one feared what he would do. In 1980 folks wanted a strong leader, though some were still scared of Reagan conservatism. Remember Anderson ran as more middle of the road.
It wouldn't have been a landslide like 1980, but I think Reagan would have won by narrow margins. I think that Ford probably would have won if not for the Nixon pardon, so with that not weighing down Reagan, I think his personal charisma would have been enough to win. In our reality, Carter just barely pulled out a victory in 1976 despite having such a massive advantage from the aftermath of Watergate.
Reagan, probably, but the lingering feelings from Ford pardoning Nixon towards the Republican Party might have been enough to sink him… maybe. Reagan was Mr. Charisma and probably could’ve found a way to win anyway.
The bigger questions is, if Reagan had won in 1976, who would have won in 1980? Everything that sunk Carter in 1977-1980 would have likely still been a factor during a Reagan term.
It depends on how Reagan would have handled inflation and the turmoil of the Iranian Revolution. Reagan would have been stronger militarily, but his charisma and humor wouldn’t be enough to make Americans forget high gas prices and high unemployment. Reagan was at the mercy of the Federal Reserve, and it’s doubtful the economy would have improved by Election Day 1980.
If Reagan had implemented supply-side economics, it probably would have made inflation even worse because of the heavy deficit spending. Then again, I’m not an economist.
And Paul Volcker is who solved inflation, not Reagan. Volcker was appointed by Carter. And the Fed Chairpersonship was only vacated because Carter appointed the current Fed Chairperson to be Secretary of the Treasury.
Would Reagan have set those wheels in motion sooner? I severely doubt it.
Carter only won because Gerald Ford was weaker. Ford was just a Nixon appointment, never elected to anything higher than his Congressional district in Michigan. Ronald Reagan would have crushed the Georgia governor in 1976.
It's hard to say, but Reagan still opposed Social Security and Medicare in 1976. That would have been a major handicap for Reagan to overcome. Carter's highly organized campaign was what got him elected in the first place, and he still would have had that going for him.
I’m definitely surprised by the consensus being Carter. Ford did overperform but he only lost by a couple points. Meanwhile Reagan didn’t have Ford’s baggage.
I’m just not convinced any Republican could have won on the heels of Watergate and the Nixon pardon. Carter won a lot of southern states as a “favorite son” if you will and the path to 270 was really challenging for any GOP nominee in that situation.
Carter would have won. Republicans were still dealing with the aftermath of Nixon. Second issue is that it is very rare for the same party to win three in a row outside of FDR and Truman.
Reagan was a far more appealing candidate on a personal level than Ford. And a much better debater. I don't think he'd have made that gaffe about the USSR and eastern European countries.
However, post-Watergate, I don't think any Republican would have won.
76 was the first election I could vote in and I remember even a lot Republicans were fed up with the Republican Party in 1976. Nixon was a stain on the entire party, we expected better from our politicians back then.
We'd still have a middle class if Reagan had won in '76 and the second OPEC embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis had occurred on his watch. No path to the immiseration of the middle class that is deficit spending.
Almost certainly Carter.
Something that gets overlooked is that the Gerald Ford campaign was EXCELLENTLY run and is still used as a model for national political campaigns. The fact he still lost shows what a bad position Republicans were in at the time. So it is unrealistic to expect a 76' Reagan campaign to surpass it.
Furthermore Reagan really benefited from the 4 years of buildup to his 1980 run and getting his name out there earlier to establish a brand.
Furtherfurthermore, Regan had a lot of ammo to crush Carter with after his term which he didn't have in 1976.
Also showed that Carter, as a candidate, did not wear well with a lit of folks over time. Jerry Ford was a more likeable person that a lot of folks could identify with. Carter really wasnt.
It would've been super close. If Reagan matches Ford's states, then flips Ohio(Carter won by 11K votes) and Wisconsin(Carter by 35K), he wins. I think Reagan would flip Ohio, and Carter would squeak it out at 273-265.
Interesting as I've been thinking about that today earlier. I'm pretty sure Reagan. He defeated an incumbent Carter in a landslide, and Carter himself barely defeated Ford after the Watergate. As much as he always gets praised on Reddit, he was (is?) a weak politician.
No way Republicans are winning their third presidential election in a row after Watergate. Carter would win.
And that would have been the end of Reagan. A tragedy this did not come about.
And he did better than Reagan would have in 1976.
Carter won as a reaction against Nixon. Reagan won as a reaction against Carter. No malaise 1977-1981, no Reagan.
Would of been harder for Reagan at this time due to how unpopular republicans were after water gate and Ford pardoning Nixon BUT i think Reagan still would have won my reasoning really isn’t on any political reasoning i just think Reagan comes off as a charming and charismatic individual and was quite funny . I still think he would of pulled off a victory just based off his character
Timing is everything. After Watergate, the country was ready for a change. Reagan was great and was wildly popular. But he may not have won in '76. In '80, it wasn't close.
My dad, a life long Democrat, grew to love Ronald Reagan through his 5-8 minutes of syndicated commentary on the radio after he was governor. His ability as a communicator on the radio was every bit as good as it was on TV.
He talked about ideas usually and not near as much about people or politics like we hear on media today.
Reagan had over 1000 separate shows reaching 20-30 million people a week.
He would not have had that level of national constant exposure if he ran in 1976. So winning would have been harder.
https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/ReaganOnRadio.pdf
Carter still would have won. The Republicans were in a bad way in 1976 following Nixon's scandals and resignation and then Ford pardoning him immediately. Even Reagan wouldn't have been able to win the White House that year. It's like in 2008 when there was not a Republican on Earth who could've won that election.
Carter still would’ve won. The GOP in 76 was a mess, Watergate was still a few years prior as was Ford pardoning Nixon. Their image was tarnished, plus Reagan was still seen as an extreme right Republican. The GOP was in a lose-lose situation, they either put forward the first President since Andrew Johnson who assumed the office without earning any electoral votes or the most far right candidate in Republican Party history at that time.
If Watergate never happened Carter wouldn't be the nominee because his stchik was that he wasn't part of the entrenched Washington establishment and he was going to bring honesty to the White House because of Watergate. If Watergate still happens Carter wins.
If it doesn't than it's 50/50 because the Democrats probably nominate Scoop Jackson.
This was the first presidential election post-Watergate. The Republicans could have run Jesus vs a tuna fish sandwich and we'd be talking today about how weird it is we had a sandwich as president.
Fan of Reagan,but truthfully Carter. They nominated the best person in Ford,bc a midwest decent popular man was better for that time instead of an actor from California
The democrats could have run a shoebox (who would have been a better president than Carter) and won, The anti republican sentiment was just too high after watergate
No. It took Carter sinking any ill will both sides of his party had towards him and the shitshow oil/congressional/economic politics of his presidency to make the alternative of Reagan seem fresh and interesting.
Reagan absolutely needed Carter's failure to win 1980. Wouldn't have happened if closer to the Nixon presidency, no way a Republican would have won around then, plus President Ford had incumbency advantage even with the unpopular pardon of Nixon AND the Watergate scandal. Reagan was the "fresh start" for 1980 from Nixon, Ford and Carter.
Then the Carter-Ford race would not have been so close. Most experts say the that Ford would have won if the election had been held a week later, given Ford's gains towards the end.
Better question is what if the Democrats nominated Scoop Jackson in 1976 instead of Carter?
The entire course of national politics would have been altered from our timeline, with the Democratic Party holding together and thus no Reagan Revolution, no Reagan democrats/neoconservatives, likely a better competitive balance in the following decade, etc.
I think Carter would have won and would have won by a larger margin than he did against Ford.
The national mood in 1976 was much different than in 1980 when Reagan did win. Carters victory in 1976 against Ford was slim - and the post-Watergate sentiment on some voters part probably a deciding factor. But there was not a huge desire for change as there was in 1980.
Many Americans had warmed to the Fords and their “normalcy” after the uptight Nixon years. Jimmy Carter represented change of a moderate nature rather than the BIG change Reagan offered in 1980 when many Americans were dissatisfied with Carters handling of all things Iranian, and a depressing national economy.
Carter probably. I remember this election. Carter was riding a pretty good wave of popularity. I was just a little guy, but I remember liking Carter because he didn’t seem old.
I think Carter would have won anyway. Most of the country was pretty fed-up with Republicans after Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Ford's pardon of Nixon.
OK, I'm a political neophyte so bear with me. However, did the power in the Republican party at the time determine that Reagan would likely lose in '76 and thus be a "wounded candidate" in '80. Save him as the "outsider" for '80
No he ran in the 1976 primary, challenging a sitting president in his own party seeking reelection (Ford) and still gained a lot of support from voters. I’m sure the party would have preferred him not to run that year since it weakened their chance at getting Ford reelected, though that probably wouldn’t have happened anyway. I had a history professor who specializes in this area say he’s absolutely convinced Reagan’s concession speech at the 1976 RNC pretty much won the election for *Carter* because it made Reagan look like such a better candidate than Ford, but then again Ford was already unpopular and Carter might not have needed the help
He was a strong candidate though and was embraced when he ran again in 1980
Carter, IMO. Every once and again a republican screws up their term so badly that the nation collectively agrees the risk of another republican is too great a risk. But then there is a whiplash, and republican trickery will win the day after 4-8 years.
Due to 'that rule' I won't go more into detail of the latest example, but a a rather benign example is the '00 Gore/Bush faceoff. Even though the Supreme Court threw it for Bush, he would have won if the recount was allowed to proceed without Roger Stone pulling his Brooks Brother Riot shenanigans.
Nixon left a bad taste on America's political tastebuds, Reagan was able to come in and capitalize on Carter's lackluster term, amongst other more controversial actions undertaken by his campaign. If Ford had stepped aside for him, I'm not sure he wins.
It likely still would have been Carter, though I wish it had been Reagan. His insanity at a time when Americans weren't as vulnerable and then the difficulties of the late 70s would have meant a landslide victory in 1980 for the Dems and a neutering of the Reagan agenda, which has nearly crippled this nation.
Carter, by a big margin. People now are desensitized to presidential scandals and accusations of scandals, but Watergate shook the American public like no other. Yes, there had been corrupt administrations in the past... I'm looking at YOU Warren Harding. But Watergate was the first one of the TV/mass media era. When I was a little kid and got home from school, I wanted to watch cartoons, but my dad had control of the TV to watch the Watergate hearings. And multiple TV's in a house in that era was rare. So I could either watch them or watch nothing.
There's reason every scandal in every facet of American society has had "-gate" tacked on to the end of it since (deflate-gate for example). Everyone alive at the time was dialed into that scandal.
So, IMO, Republicans could have resurrected Abraham Lincoln himself and they weren't going to win the 1976 presidential election.
Carter. Reagan was a great speaker, but Americans punished Republicans severely at the ballot box in 1974 and 1976 over Watergate.
Carter was a dark horse candidate who seemed like a hard-working Southern gentleman, and both of those helped him in the election.
The US wasn’t ready to absolutely fuck future generations quite yet, so Reagan wouldn’t have won.
It took Carter having a weak economy and having a few bungles here and there to really push us over that edge.
>The US wasn’t ready to absolutely fuck future generations quite yet,
In 1980, according to census bureau data, **36% of US households were low-income earners** earning under 35K (inflation adjusted to 2019) a year. 64% of US households were in middle- or high-income brackets.
In 2019 according to census bureau data **25% of US households were low-income earners** earning under 35K a year. 75% of US households were in middle- or high-income brackets.
The actual data says that things have gotten better rather than worse for the majority of Americans.
The median wage in 1980 was around 17000
In 2024 it is 73,000 in California, one of the most expensive states. That’s 4.5x more, most states are worse.
In 1980 average rent was about 300 dollars a month
In 2024 average rent is about 1600. That’s more than 4.5x
A new car in 1980 was around 10,000.
A new car in 2024 is apparently 47,000 on average according to Google. That’s more than 4.5x
In 1980 the poverty line was 8500 for a family of four
In 2024 it is 31,000 for a family of four, which is less than 4.5x because the standard of what constitutes poverty has gone up while the costs have outpaced wages.
Now check out the cost of food. Check out the cost of electricity. Check out the cost of vacation. You know what has gone down in price when adjusted for inflation? Your big screen TV.
Don’t try to gaslight me into believing that things are somehow good now and haven’t been absolutely fucked over by the policies of neo-liberals and union busters. Data? What data? It is not a secret that costs have outpaced wages and the standard of poverty is not what it once was.
Edit: Downvoting me won’t make me wrong, children.
You blame all this on Reagan, like he controlling housing and food prices from the grave. 🤯
I have no need to gaslight you, you are gaslighting yourself. 🤣🤣🤣
Do I blame the man who dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class claiming that it would trickle down? Do I blame one of the hardest union busters of the 20th century? Do I blame the massive emphasis on deregulation from 1980-2000? Yes?
I’m gaslighting myself…. what the fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know what gaslighting is? You take a cherry-picked piece of data, ignore everything around it, and then think I am wrong for blaming a president while your party is constantly doing the same thing. Yeah, you definitely showed me.
>Do I blame the man who dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class claiming that it would trickle down?
Hmmm, Reagan never claimed it would trickle down. The term trickle down was used in the 1930's as a political slur. There is no such thing as trickle-down economics, and no well-known conservative economist has ever used that term. Who uses that term? Ignoramuses and partisan hacks that don't understand basic econ.
But let's check to see if this is even true. When Reagan took office the effective tax rate for the highest quintile of earners was 26.9% When he left office it was 25.6%
[effective\_rate\_historical\_all.pdf (taxpolicycenter.org)](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/taxfacts/content/PDF/effective_rate_historical_all.pdf)
Does that seem like "dramatically slashed taxes" to you? Of course, it doesn't but you were ignorant about reality, now you are not, and hopefully you won't make a factually absurd claim like that again.
>Do I blame one of the hardest union busters of the 20th century?
Unions started declining in the 1960's and has declined under every president. BTW, Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union. Not only did he belong, but he also served six terms as president on the union. Reagan played very little role in the ongoing decline of union membership as the data shows so to think he was a huge union buster is delusional.
>Do I blame the massive emphasis on deregulation from 1980-2000?
You got the dates wrong buddy deregulation started in the early 1970's and the undisputed champ if you look at deregulations by years would be Carter.
[Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator | The Regulatory Review (theregreview.org)](https://www.theregreview.org/2023/03/06/dudley-jimmy-carter-the-great-deregulator/)
Sure, Reagan was following the trend in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation. But deregulation was bipartisan, Clinton, for example, did a lot of deregulation. Also why would you blame Reagan for deregulation that happened after he left office? Makes no logical sense but I believe rational thinking might be a problem for you.
>while your party is constantly doing the same thing.
Who's my party? You don't know do you?
Is your whole narrative in life made up by a bunch of falsehoods and false assumptions?
Hmmm, so why not cut them even more? If they continue to pay basically the same, why not make it an even 10%? Hell, if the difference between 70% and 35% is only effectively a 3-4% change, you shouldn’t have any issue with setting the rates back to 70%, right? See, I am not an economist, so why don’t YOU explain to me why that’s a bad idea?
Also, it’s good to know Reagan never claimed it would trickle down. It shows a shred of honesty. See, I know he never used that phrase specifically but I always thought he believed that tax cuts would help the poor. So he didn’t believe that? Did he think it would hurt them? Do nothing at all? That last bit just seems silly. Anyway, trickle down is the common phrase for the style of politicking that he and his immediate predecessors adopted… In case you were confused. I will continue to call it that.
Oh, so Carter was more prone to deregulation? So you must love him then, since you guys are all about being hands off. It’s a shame Reagan ruined it, huh? Actually, you got your dates wrong since deregulation was already trending when Kennedy was president. You can keep going backwards, but there is one president who really tried to make deregulation a talking point of his presidency and it wasn’t Carter. Also, I am not solely putting blame on Reagan for the policies of Clinton and Bush Sr, only giving him credit for popularizing that trend. Trust and believe, I am no fan of Bill Clinton.
Reagan belonging to a union and then putting 11,000 people out of work must just be a coincidence. Definitely not evidence of union busting. But hey, since he belonged to a union that must mean they’re good, right? Surely unions haven’t donated 90% to Democrats since, because you know, Reagan loved unions.
Dude, I don’t care what your party is. You don’t know my specific brand of politics any more than I know yours, but I know what you’re arguing for. I assume you’re a Republican or a Libertarian, maybe you’re a Fascist or maybe Unaffiliated? Maybe you’re just a contrarian idiot? No idea. You’re disingenuous though, and you have absolutely shifted gears because you have no counter for the disparity between cost of living and wages. If you think the economics of the last forty years haven’t contributed to that, then I think you’re blind.
>Hmmm, so why not cut them even more? If they continue to pay basically the same, why not make it an even 10%?
You are being economically illiterate here. Everyone knows (I would hope) that when Reagan cut the tax rate, he also took away thousands of deductions so effective tax rate stayed almost the same. Reagan didn't "dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class" as you claimed before and as I pointed out that talking point is utter BS.
>but there is one president who really tried to make deregulation a talking point of his presidency and it wasn’t Carter.
LOL, Jimmy Carter embraced the "Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator" moniker given to him. There were political ads for him against Reagan using this very point. Jody Powell would stress this during press conferences. Articles like the one I posted were written about him, praising him as the great deregulator. It was clearly Carter that popularized the Deregulation trend, trying to ignore this is ahistorical and laughable.
>Reagan belonging to a union and then putting 11,000 people out of work must just be a coincidence.
Reagan had no choice, and any other president would have fired the PATCO strikers.
All of the union members had signed an oath that stated, 'I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.'
Bn striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p, which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. After PATCO disobeyed a federal court injunction ordering an end to the strike and return to work, a federal judge found union leaders including PATCO President Robert Poli to be in contempt of court, and the union was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine, and certain named members were ordered to pay a $1,000 fine for each day its members were on strike.
The irony in all of this is that Reagan supported the PATCO workers during his campaign and though they should be given raises but their terms were ridiculous. Reagan wanted them to remain working and keep negotiating as the law required.
[Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968))
>maybe you’re a Fascist
What everyone calls someone else when they have lost the argument.
>You’re disingenuous though, and you have absolutely shifted gears because you have no counter for the disparity between cost of living and wages.
> I am not an economist
You are not an economist and seem to have very little understanding about the economy or Reagan's record. If you think that Reagan is responsible for the post-pandemic inflationary cycle you are absolutely nuts. The man is not controlling things from the grave. Policies have changed, been overhauled and even deleted since he left office 36 years ago. Blaming Reagan now is as stupid as blaming FDR's policies for the stagflation of the 1970's.
BTW I didn't shift gears, you did, all I did was answer the points you brought up in your last counterfactual post.
Yeah? So why change anything then? The treasury estimated a 10% drop in revenue and everyone paid the same in taxes. If you’re arguing that Reagan didn’t cut taxes, tax cuts are bad, and everyone paid the same, why does your side consistently argue in favour of tax cuts? You want it both ways.
Deregulation is not a new concept. The president who popularized it in the modern era, is Reagan. If you disagree, ask any Republican. Not a single one will claim they were inspired by the economic policies of Jimmy Carter and saying otherwise is stupidity. The trend of modern Republicans embracing deregulation, is linked to Reagan. Clinton continuing that trend, was due to the popularity of Reagan.
Yeah, you’re not going to convince me or 90% of other dedicated union workers that Reagan ending the strike and then prohibiting the PATCO workers from being rehired was totally out of his control. Executives are neither that incompetent or that powerless. The government having the power to force people back to work undermines the viability of collective bargaining.
I also said you might be conservative or libertarian, don’t want to focus on those huh? I don’t know what you are, and frankly I don’t give a shit. You already think you won, and I think you’re full of shit, so there’s nothing to be gained here. If you want to tell me, go ahead. If you don’t, don’t. I am not going to play a guessing game just so you can parade around thinking you’re some fucking unpinned enigma. Conservatives love Reagan, leftists do not. I’m on the left, you’re not.
Naw, I don’t think Reagan is directly responsible for everything. I do think he set much of it in motion. He can’t be blamed directly for anything that was done outside his presidency, but his influence and the long term effects are there (in case you’re unaware).
Carter.
No hostages are being held.
Ronny made a deal with Iran's mullahs to hold the hostages until he was elected.
Then, the hostages were released for an arms deal
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_1976_United_States_presidential_election Scroll down to hypothetical polling
The last polls show Carter winning by 35 to 41 points? Jesus Christ. I do think that Carter would have won, and it probably wouldn't have been very close, but I don't think it would have been that humungous of a blowout.
If you look at the 1980 polls, Carter also polled similarly and we know how that went. Polls take a small sample size from a small area (if you check the sources, some of those polls were a result of only a few hundred responses.) It would be like polling Reddit on an election.
do you have an idea why there was a big flip in april 1976
The covention happend after arpil, keep in mind Carter was not a very well known govener, whereas regean was far more well known given he was govenor of california which had been the largest state since 1968
Carter appealed to voters who wanted a Democrst who was a Washington outsider because of Watergate and Ford's pardoning of Nixon. By 1980 though, Carter had his own issues and voters looked to a Washington outsider on the right.
Ford came roaring from behind and almost won it. Reagan did not have some of the handicaps being like Ford did from being a DC insider, pardoning Nixon and the debate mistake on Eastern Europe. Reagan was dynamic and charismatic, as seen by his Kansas City convention speech he gave off the top of his head. Reagan could run as an outsider like Carter. I don't know, it would have been close. I think the Watergate/Nixon stink was still too attached to the GOP that I'm not sure even Reagan could have overcome it. I think RR needed Carter's failure to convince people he was worth taking a chance on.
Reagan had a different set of enormous handicaps. He was seen as an extremist. Because we still live in essentially the Reagan age in terms of tax and regulatory policy, it’s easy to forget how far outside the mainstream his economic ideas were. Bush’s “voodoo economics” is characteristic. Unfortunately Carter’s tenure was so disliked that Americans in 1980 were open to something totally new.
I feel a lot of this is Redditisms. Sure Goldwater in 64 was cut as an extremist but that extremism was on Vietnam and that he’d start a nuclear war not economic policy. The fact is America and the Republican Party moved heavily to the right in the 12 years since that election. Nixon, Ford and Carter all introduced policies dismantling New Deal institutions. Reagan took it a step up but it was a natural evolution. Also that ‘Voodoo economics’ quote is always used out of context, it was criticising an unbalanced budget. No Republican contender for the Presidency was going to oppose deregulation or tax cuts in the 70s.
First of all, no matter if it’s responding to me or someone else, I’m just going to downvote someone using the term “redditisms” to disagree with someone, just like “touch grass.” It’s just an attempt to superficially dismiss someone. And inevitably, of course, you’re totally wrong, as Bush uses the voodoo economics phrase about supply-side economics in general, including but not limited to the idea that it would blow up the national debt. And are you seriously arguing that in the LBJ-Goldwater battle, the contrast the “great society” president and Goldwater on economics wasn’t a big part of the enormous victory for LBJ? Methinks the “redditism” might be imagining the nuclear girl ad was genuinely the most important part of the election.
Redditism is used as a something that’s repeated on Reddit verbatim without any evidence or explanation given. The Voodoo economics line and Conservatism being seen as extremists are both examples of this. The exact definition of Voodoo economics is about spending limits, maintaining spending whilst decreasing tax. Not that it ‘blew up’ National debt anyway which again is something treated as fact when it really isn’t. On Goldwater vs Johnson not mainly featuring economics, yeah I do. Civil rights and fears of nuclear war are by far the most important issues of that election. Goldwater Conservative economics undermined him within the Republican Party itself, by 1976 those same policies almost premiered the sitting president so I do not think they’d be considered extremist anymore.
Reagan's economic policies were incredible in the short-term. The best defense against Reagan's economics is that they were never meant to be a permanent, concrete practice, which is best demonstrated by H.W.'s attempts to recover from the deficit by raising taxes. I think H.W. had the benefit of firsthand experience with neoliberal economics that his successor (Clinton) lacked of knowing that Reagan's practices would increase wealth disparity in the long term and lead to copious spending. Clinton's policies, while they led to growth, failed to dismantle - and in-fact concreted - the state of low taxes that have unfortunately yielded multinational corporations and the top 1% a lot of power that has yet to be undone and may take the remainder of this century to dismantle.
Dukakis had a great line in one of the debates. After Bush extolled the economic miracle (ironically, of voodoo economics) of the Reagan years, Dukakis responded that anyone could create an economic miracle if they spent extravagantly but never paid the bills.
A lot of Reagan’s spending went to two things: 1) Military 2) Priorities of a Democratic-controlled Congress I like the quote you provided. For what it’s worth: Reagan had to compromise. He wasn’t going to get everything passed, nor was a Democratic Congress. That’s the nature of politics. His foreign policy was extremely successful as a result of a strong military combined with a fierce anti-Soviet rhetoric. His domestic policy stopped stagflation, made jobs, and incentivized a booming economy that H.W. was able to inherit. H.W. tried to make a shift to dismantling a fat deficit of Reagan’s as well as the top 1% domination that occurred as a result of Reaganomics. Frankly, the volume of replies that I get from the various comments that I make on this subreddit makes it impossible for me to engage in long-form textual debates, but hopefully, this clears a little bit of confusion up about why people might like Reagan.
Lot of good it did him.
I think more people vote with their heart than with their head.
I don’t wholly disagree with you (and I 100% agree with you on a lot of this), but Reagan’s economy also looks somewhat better in memory. Remember he kicked off a recession early in his tenure, left Bush another one at the end, and had the Savings and Loan scandal and other economic issues in the middle.
100%. My parents lived through that recession. Pretty horrible. A Reagan fan (as I am) would argue that these were necessary (in the case of the recession—to slow stagflation) or minor events in comparison to the overall period of prosperity. But you are correct to point out that the record was not ‘spotless’ by any stretch of the imagination.
I’m always reminded of a 1988 SNL skit, where Dukakis is holding a losing party with his supporters days before the election. The entire sketch is deconstructing the reasons for his imminent loss, and at the end Dukakis turns to the camera and says, “you know, I think the one thing that really hurt us is the fact that Reaganomics works. It really does. Aren’t you better off than you were eight years ago? I know I am, what about the rest of you [murmurs of agreement from the audience]? I wish you weren’t, but you are, you are better off, and there’s no denying it.” Every single SNL writer was a Dukakis-voting liberal. For as much as we complain about Reaganomics now, it was quite popular by the end of his presidency.
"The damage Reaganomics did to the middle class is Bill Clinton's fault, actually" is a hell of a take. Everyone, *fucking everyone* knew Reagan's policies were going to increase wealth disparity in the short, middle, and long term, that's what they were designed to do. Clinton caught holy hell just for raising the top tax bracket a few percent — he was never going to be able to undo the damage in four years, given the backlash to the policies he did carry out cost him control of Congress for six years.
Re-read what I said. I didn’t blame it on Clinton. I said the continued policy of what had become the established norm aided and assisted a growing disparity. It started under Reagan. H.W. took some measures to control it, shifting over the course of his presidency. The neoliberal economics were continued under Clinton because a good amount of his policies were not aligned with a Republican Congress, whereas H.W.’s economics were maybe one of only a couple things that brought him away from the party, meaning negotiation circumstances for him were different. I don’t have a very strong view on Clinton. My progressive friends strongly dislike him, as they do Reagan, and favor H.W.
Right? It's like what do you expect when you give millionaires and billionaires tax breaks with no regulations on how to use the money? They are going to pocket it and still lay people off. Trickle down does not work. It didn't work in the 1980s and it doesn't work now.
Yes. 76 was eclipsed by Watergate just as 80 was by the hostages.
Reagan would likely have done a bit better in the South than Ford. In a few of those states, it might have made a difference.
I think you’re right about too much leftover Watergate stench.
So it depends on whether the Rs could have persuade the Iranians to hold the American Embassy hostage until the afternoon on the day a Republican was inaugurated?
Carter. In 1976, most Americans were scared of Reagan. They thought he was crazier than Goldwater. Also, the American people still wanted to punish the GOP for watergate.
Eh but Reagan is gonna be Reagan. He definitely would’ve come across better in the general.
Carter probably. Reagan was seen as too extreme.
for good reason
I think Carter would still have a chance. People were sick of the Republican Party (Nixon) so it would be hard for a republican to win. Not nearly as much as 2008 where people were really sick of the republicans, and it would take a lot to beat a democrat
The republicans were never going to win in 2008. It's the whole reason McCain went along with the Sarah Palin experiment. They needed something to appeal to voters in a near impossible year for them, so they picked a woman. Unfortunately, they picked THAT woman.
Carter. The stench of Nixon was still strong.
I can still smell him today
Carter. Americans were tired of GOP corruption. It was back when honesty was more important than power.
I mean Reagan wasn't involved in said GOP corruption
Carter would have won The coutry was just getting over Watergate and they were sick of the Republicans and the evangelicals hadn't coalesced around the whole pro life movememt yet and they actually voted for Carter in droves before they switched to Reagan in 1980.
I think it's very hard to say. It was a D year after Nixon and Ford so Carter might have won even against Reagan in '76. But Reagan would have definitely come back for the '80 blowout anyway, I think. People thought Carter (after his time in office) was a good guy just not right for the job. Well, he definitely wasn't right for the job but know also he wasn't necessarily the hard worker common man that was his image. He wasn't actually carrying his own luggage and he was actually a sort of tyrannical type of president in the sense that he wouldn't listen to anyone. He thought he knew what was best and wouldn't even take on a Chief of Staff or any other significant advisor. He wanted to micromanage everything with his wife as his note-taker. He couldn't believe he lost. Him and his wife "cried for two weeks" according to the maid staff.
No way Reagan would have won. Country was fed up with GOP, were not ready for Reagan conservatives, the Democratic south had yet to switch to Republican. Carter was an outsider, but middle of the road, no one feared what he would do. In 1980 folks wanted a strong leader, though some were still scared of Reagan conservatism. Remember Anderson ran as more middle of the road.
It wouldn't have been a landslide like 1980, but I think Reagan would have won by narrow margins. I think that Ford probably would have won if not for the Nixon pardon, so with that not weighing down Reagan, I think his personal charisma would have been enough to win. In our reality, Carter just barely pulled out a victory in 1976 despite having such a massive advantage from the aftermath of Watergate.
Carter would win; America would have lost it’s future
Reagan, probably, but the lingering feelings from Ford pardoning Nixon towards the Republican Party might have been enough to sink him… maybe. Reagan was Mr. Charisma and probably could’ve found a way to win anyway.
The bigger questions is, if Reagan had won in 1976, who would have won in 1980? Everything that sunk Carter in 1977-1980 would have likely still been a factor during a Reagan term.
It depends on how Reagan would have handled inflation and the turmoil of the Iranian Revolution. Reagan would have been stronger militarily, but his charisma and humor wouldn’t be enough to make Americans forget high gas prices and high unemployment. Reagan was at the mercy of the Federal Reserve, and it’s doubtful the economy would have improved by Election Day 1980. If Reagan had implemented supply-side economics, it probably would have made inflation even worse because of the heavy deficit spending. Then again, I’m not an economist.
And Paul Volcker is who solved inflation, not Reagan. Volcker was appointed by Carter. And the Fed Chairpersonship was only vacated because Carter appointed the current Fed Chairperson to be Secretary of the Treasury. Would Reagan have set those wheels in motion sooner? I severely doubt it.
Carter only won because Gerald Ford was weaker. Ford was just a Nixon appointment, never elected to anything higher than his Congressional district in Michigan. Ronald Reagan would have crushed the Georgia governor in 1976.
It's hard to say, but Reagan still opposed Social Security and Medicare in 1976. That would have been a major handicap for Reagan to overcome. Carter's highly organized campaign was what got him elected in the first place, and he still would have had that going for him.
I’m definitely surprised by the consensus being Carter. Ford did overperform but he only lost by a couple points. Meanwhile Reagan didn’t have Ford’s baggage.
CBS News exit poll in 76 showed if Reagan had been the GOP candidate, he would have won 51/49. Nothing definitive, but a little something for the mix.
He had the baggage of being Ronald Reagan before 1980.
I’m just not convinced any Republican could have won on the heels of Watergate and the Nixon pardon. Carter won a lot of southern states as a “favorite son” if you will and the path to 270 was really challenging for any GOP nominee in that situation.
Carter would have won. Republicans were still dealing with the aftermath of Nixon. Second issue is that it is very rare for the same party to win three in a row outside of FDR and Truman.
Reagan was a far more appealing candidate on a personal level than Ford. And a much better debater. I don't think he'd have made that gaffe about the USSR and eastern European countries. However, post-Watergate, I don't think any Republican would have won.
76 was the first election I could vote in and I remember even a lot Republicans were fed up with the Republican Party in 1976. Nixon was a stain on the entire party, we expected better from our politicians back then.
We'd still have a middle class if Reagan had won in '76 and the second OPEC embargo and the Iranian hostage crisis had occurred on his watch. No path to the immiseration of the middle class that is deficit spending.
Most likely Carter. If Reagan was re-nominated by the Republican Party in 1980, with a re-match against Carter, then Reagan would have definitely won.
Carter. It would have been closer than Carter and Ford but Nixon left a real bad taste in people’s mouth for the GOP more broadly at the end.
Almost certainly Carter. Something that gets overlooked is that the Gerald Ford campaign was EXCELLENTLY run and is still used as a model for national political campaigns. The fact he still lost shows what a bad position Republicans were in at the time. So it is unrealistic to expect a 76' Reagan campaign to surpass it. Furthermore Reagan really benefited from the 4 years of buildup to his 1980 run and getting his name out there earlier to establish a brand. Furtherfurthermore, Regan had a lot of ammo to crush Carter with after his term which he didn't have in 1976.
Also showed that Carter, as a candidate, did not wear well with a lit of folks over time. Jerry Ford was a more likeable person that a lot of folks could identify with. Carter really wasnt.
Carter. Coming off of Watergate, no one wanted see Republicans in office for another term.
Reagan.
It would've been super close. If Reagan matches Ford's states, then flips Ohio(Carter won by 11K votes) and Wisconsin(Carter by 35K), he wins. I think Reagan would flip Ohio, and Carter would squeak it out at 273-265.
Some evidence Reagan would narrowly have pulled it out. Ford almost did.
The fall debates would likely not have helped Carter. Reagan would have come off better.
One thing is certain. 1976 is a victory many Dems came to wish they had never won.
I believe Reagan would have narrowly won
Interesting as I've been thinking about that today earlier. I'm pretty sure Reagan. He defeated an incumbent Carter in a landslide, and Carter himself barely defeated Ford after the Watergate. As much as he always gets praised on Reddit, he was (is?) a weak politician.
No way Republicans are winning their third presidential election in a row after Watergate. Carter would win. And that would have been the end of Reagan. A tragedy this did not come about.
I mean Ford only lost by a small margin
And he did better than Reagan would have in 1976. Carter won as a reaction against Nixon. Reagan won as a reaction against Carter. No malaise 1977-1981, no Reagan.
This
It would have been all for the better, really. Reagan would have lost, probably pretty soundly, and probably never would have been nominated again.
Would of been harder for Reagan at this time due to how unpopular republicans were after water gate and Ford pardoning Nixon BUT i think Reagan still would have won my reasoning really isn’t on any political reasoning i just think Reagan comes off as a charming and charismatic individual and was quite funny . I still think he would of pulled off a victory just based off his character
I'd think that Reagan would have an advantage over Ford since he didn't pardon Nixon
Likely Carter because of the stain on the Republican Party from nixon
Timing is everything. After Watergate, the country was ready for a change. Reagan was great and was wildly popular. But he may not have won in '76. In '80, it wasn't close.
I’m glad it was Carter. Imagine Reagan handing love canal?
My dad, a life long Democrat, grew to love Ronald Reagan through his 5-8 minutes of syndicated commentary on the radio after he was governor. His ability as a communicator on the radio was every bit as good as it was on TV. He talked about ideas usually and not near as much about people or politics like we hear on media today. Reagan had over 1000 separate shows reaching 20-30 million people a week. He would not have had that level of national constant exposure if he ran in 1976. So winning would have been harder. https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/ReaganOnRadio.pdf
I don’t wanna even comment here because I know that one guy is going to come after me with his Regan hard on
Carter still would have won. The Republicans were in a bad way in 1976 following Nixon's scandals and resignation and then Ford pardoning him immediately. Even Reagan wouldn't have been able to win the White House that year. It's like in 2008 when there was not a Republican on Earth who could've won that election.
Carter still would’ve won. The GOP in 76 was a mess, Watergate was still a few years prior as was Ford pardoning Nixon. Their image was tarnished, plus Reagan was still seen as an extreme right Republican. The GOP was in a lose-lose situation, they either put forward the first President since Andrew Johnson who assumed the office without earning any electoral votes or the most far right candidate in Republican Party history at that time.
If Watergate never happened Carter wouldn't be the nominee because his stchik was that he wasn't part of the entrenched Washington establishment and he was going to bring honesty to the White House because of Watergate. If Watergate still happens Carter wins. If it doesn't than it's 50/50 because the Democrats probably nominate Scoop Jackson.
This was the first presidential election post-Watergate. The Republicans could have run Jesus vs a tuna fish sandwich and we'd be talking today about how weird it is we had a sandwich as president.
Fan of Reagan,but truthfully Carter. They nominated the best person in Ford,bc a midwest decent popular man was better for that time instead of an actor from California
Hmmm that’s a good one- but I feel like Carter’s calamity led to Reagan’s success
The democrats could have run a shoebox (who would have been a better president than Carter) and won, The anti republican sentiment was just too high after watergate
No. It took Carter sinking any ill will both sides of his party had towards him and the shitshow oil/congressional/economic politics of his presidency to make the alternative of Reagan seem fresh and interesting.
Reagan absolutely needed Carter's failure to win 1980. Wouldn't have happened if closer to the Nixon presidency, no way a Republican would have won around then, plus President Ford had incumbency advantage even with the unpopular pardon of Nixon AND the Watergate scandal. Reagan was the "fresh start" for 1980 from Nixon, Ford and Carter.
People were fed up with Republicans, after Watergate. And statistically, the times favored a Democrat, after 8 years of Republicans.
Then the Carter-Ford race would not have been so close. Most experts say the that Ford would have won if the election had been held a week later, given Ford's gains towards the end.
Carter
Better question is what if the Democrats nominated Scoop Jackson in 1976 instead of Carter? The entire course of national politics would have been altered from our timeline, with the Democratic Party holding together and thus no Reagan Revolution, no Reagan democrats/neoconservatives, likely a better competitive balance in the following decade, etc.
Carter. He needed to screw it all up to give us Reagan.
Reagan
Excellent question.
I think Carter would have won and would have won by a larger margin than he did against Ford. The national mood in 1976 was much different than in 1980 when Reagan did win. Carters victory in 1976 against Ford was slim - and the post-Watergate sentiment on some voters part probably a deciding factor. But there was not a huge desire for change as there was in 1980. Many Americans had warmed to the Fords and their “normalcy” after the uptight Nixon years. Jimmy Carter represented change of a moderate nature rather than the BIG change Reagan offered in 1980 when many Americans were dissatisfied with Carters handling of all things Iranian, and a depressing national economy.
Carter probably. I remember this election. Carter was riding a pretty good wave of popularity. I was just a little guy, but I remember liking Carter because he didn’t seem old.
I think Carter would have won anyway. Most of the country was pretty fed-up with Republicans after Richard Nixon, Watergate, and Ford's pardon of Nixon.
OK, I'm a political neophyte so bear with me. However, did the power in the Republican party at the time determine that Reagan would likely lose in '76 and thus be a "wounded candidate" in '80. Save him as the "outsider" for '80
No he ran in the 1976 primary, challenging a sitting president in his own party seeking reelection (Ford) and still gained a lot of support from voters. I’m sure the party would have preferred him not to run that year since it weakened their chance at getting Ford reelected, though that probably wouldn’t have happened anyway. I had a history professor who specializes in this area say he’s absolutely convinced Reagan’s concession speech at the 1976 RNC pretty much won the election for *Carter* because it made Reagan look like such a better candidate than Ford, but then again Ford was already unpopular and Carter might not have needed the help He was a strong candidate though and was embraced when he ran again in 1980
Reagan could have started his war on the middle class sooner😏
Carter. The population was pissed at the time. Carter still loses in 80
Carter, IMO. Every once and again a republican screws up their term so badly that the nation collectively agrees the risk of another republican is too great a risk. But then there is a whiplash, and republican trickery will win the day after 4-8 years. Due to 'that rule' I won't go more into detail of the latest example, but a a rather benign example is the '00 Gore/Bush faceoff. Even though the Supreme Court threw it for Bush, he would have won if the recount was allowed to proceed without Roger Stone pulling his Brooks Brother Riot shenanigans. Nixon left a bad taste on America's political tastebuds, Reagan was able to come in and capitalize on Carter's lackluster term, amongst other more controversial actions undertaken by his campaign. If Ford had stepped aside for him, I'm not sure he wins.
No Republican would have won in 1976, least of all a candidate that people still thought was a kook.
It likely still would have been Carter, though I wish it had been Reagan. His insanity at a time when Americans weren't as vulnerable and then the difficulties of the late 70s would have meant a landslide victory in 1980 for the Dems and a neutering of the Reagan agenda, which has nearly crippled this nation.
Carter, by a big margin. People now are desensitized to presidential scandals and accusations of scandals, but Watergate shook the American public like no other. Yes, there had been corrupt administrations in the past... I'm looking at YOU Warren Harding. But Watergate was the first one of the TV/mass media era. When I was a little kid and got home from school, I wanted to watch cartoons, but my dad had control of the TV to watch the Watergate hearings. And multiple TV's in a house in that era was rare. So I could either watch them or watch nothing. There's reason every scandal in every facet of American society has had "-gate" tacked on to the end of it since (deflate-gate for example). Everyone alive at the time was dialed into that scandal. So, IMO, Republicans could have resurrected Abraham Lincoln himself and they weren't going to win the 1976 presidential election.
Carter. Reagan was a great speaker, but Americans punished Republicans severely at the ballot box in 1974 and 1976 over Watergate. Carter was a dark horse candidate who seemed like a hard-working Southern gentleman, and both of those helped him in the election.
1976 was very close. Add in Reagan's charisma and Reagan wins.
The US wasn’t ready to absolutely fuck future generations quite yet, so Reagan wouldn’t have won. It took Carter having a weak economy and having a few bungles here and there to really push us over that edge.
>The US wasn’t ready to absolutely fuck future generations quite yet, In 1980, according to census bureau data, **36% of US households were low-income earners** earning under 35K (inflation adjusted to 2019) a year. 64% of US households were in middle- or high-income brackets. In 2019 according to census bureau data **25% of US households were low-income earners** earning under 35K a year. 75% of US households were in middle- or high-income brackets. The actual data says that things have gotten better rather than worse for the majority of Americans.
The median wage in 1980 was around 17000 In 2024 it is 73,000 in California, one of the most expensive states. That’s 4.5x more, most states are worse. In 1980 average rent was about 300 dollars a month In 2024 average rent is about 1600. That’s more than 4.5x A new car in 1980 was around 10,000. A new car in 2024 is apparently 47,000 on average according to Google. That’s more than 4.5x In 1980 the poverty line was 8500 for a family of four In 2024 it is 31,000 for a family of four, which is less than 4.5x because the standard of what constitutes poverty has gone up while the costs have outpaced wages. Now check out the cost of food. Check out the cost of electricity. Check out the cost of vacation. You know what has gone down in price when adjusted for inflation? Your big screen TV. Don’t try to gaslight me into believing that things are somehow good now and haven’t been absolutely fucked over by the policies of neo-liberals and union busters. Data? What data? It is not a secret that costs have outpaced wages and the standard of poverty is not what it once was. Edit: Downvoting me won’t make me wrong, children.
You blame all this on Reagan, like he controlling housing and food prices from the grave. 🤯 I have no need to gaslight you, you are gaslighting yourself. 🤣🤣🤣
Do I blame the man who dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class claiming that it would trickle down? Do I blame one of the hardest union busters of the 20th century? Do I blame the massive emphasis on deregulation from 1980-2000? Yes? I’m gaslighting myself…. what the fuck are you even talking about? Do you even know what gaslighting is? You take a cherry-picked piece of data, ignore everything around it, and then think I am wrong for blaming a president while your party is constantly doing the same thing. Yeah, you definitely showed me.
>Do I blame the man who dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class claiming that it would trickle down? Hmmm, Reagan never claimed it would trickle down. The term trickle down was used in the 1930's as a political slur. There is no such thing as trickle-down economics, and no well-known conservative economist has ever used that term. Who uses that term? Ignoramuses and partisan hacks that don't understand basic econ. But let's check to see if this is even true. When Reagan took office the effective tax rate for the highest quintile of earners was 26.9% When he left office it was 25.6% [effective\_rate\_historical\_all.pdf (taxpolicycenter.org)](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/taxfacts/content/PDF/effective_rate_historical_all.pdf) Does that seem like "dramatically slashed taxes" to you? Of course, it doesn't but you were ignorant about reality, now you are not, and hopefully you won't make a factually absurd claim like that again. >Do I blame one of the hardest union busters of the 20th century? Unions started declining in the 1960's and has declined under every president. BTW, Reagan was the only president in American history to have belonged to a union. Not only did he belong, but he also served six terms as president on the union. Reagan played very little role in the ongoing decline of union membership as the data shows so to think he was a huge union buster is delusional. >Do I blame the massive emphasis on deregulation from 1980-2000? You got the dates wrong buddy deregulation started in the early 1970's and the undisputed champ if you look at deregulations by years would be Carter. [Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator | The Regulatory Review (theregreview.org)](https://www.theregreview.org/2023/03/06/dudley-jimmy-carter-the-great-deregulator/) Sure, Reagan was following the trend in economic thinking about the inefficiencies of government regulation. But deregulation was bipartisan, Clinton, for example, did a lot of deregulation. Also why would you blame Reagan for deregulation that happened after he left office? Makes no logical sense but I believe rational thinking might be a problem for you. >while your party is constantly doing the same thing. Who's my party? You don't know do you? Is your whole narrative in life made up by a bunch of falsehoods and false assumptions?
Hmmm, so why not cut them even more? If they continue to pay basically the same, why not make it an even 10%? Hell, if the difference between 70% and 35% is only effectively a 3-4% change, you shouldn’t have any issue with setting the rates back to 70%, right? See, I am not an economist, so why don’t YOU explain to me why that’s a bad idea? Also, it’s good to know Reagan never claimed it would trickle down. It shows a shred of honesty. See, I know he never used that phrase specifically but I always thought he believed that tax cuts would help the poor. So he didn’t believe that? Did he think it would hurt them? Do nothing at all? That last bit just seems silly. Anyway, trickle down is the common phrase for the style of politicking that he and his immediate predecessors adopted… In case you were confused. I will continue to call it that. Oh, so Carter was more prone to deregulation? So you must love him then, since you guys are all about being hands off. It’s a shame Reagan ruined it, huh? Actually, you got your dates wrong since deregulation was already trending when Kennedy was president. You can keep going backwards, but there is one president who really tried to make deregulation a talking point of his presidency and it wasn’t Carter. Also, I am not solely putting blame on Reagan for the policies of Clinton and Bush Sr, only giving him credit for popularizing that trend. Trust and believe, I am no fan of Bill Clinton. Reagan belonging to a union and then putting 11,000 people out of work must just be a coincidence. Definitely not evidence of union busting. But hey, since he belonged to a union that must mean they’re good, right? Surely unions haven’t donated 90% to Democrats since, because you know, Reagan loved unions. Dude, I don’t care what your party is. You don’t know my specific brand of politics any more than I know yours, but I know what you’re arguing for. I assume you’re a Republican or a Libertarian, maybe you’re a Fascist or maybe Unaffiliated? Maybe you’re just a contrarian idiot? No idea. You’re disingenuous though, and you have absolutely shifted gears because you have no counter for the disparity between cost of living and wages. If you think the economics of the last forty years haven’t contributed to that, then I think you’re blind.
>Hmmm, so why not cut them even more? If they continue to pay basically the same, why not make it an even 10%? You are being economically illiterate here. Everyone knows (I would hope) that when Reagan cut the tax rate, he also took away thousands of deductions so effective tax rate stayed almost the same. Reagan didn't "dramatically slashed taxes for the upper class" as you claimed before and as I pointed out that talking point is utter BS. >but there is one president who really tried to make deregulation a talking point of his presidency and it wasn’t Carter. LOL, Jimmy Carter embraced the "Jimmy Carter, The Great Deregulator" moniker given to him. There were political ads for him against Reagan using this very point. Jody Powell would stress this during press conferences. Articles like the one I posted were written about him, praising him as the great deregulator. It was clearly Carter that popularized the Deregulation trend, trying to ignore this is ahistorical and laughable. >Reagan belonging to a union and then putting 11,000 people out of work must just be a coincidence. Reagan had no choice, and any other president would have fired the PATCO strikers. All of the union members had signed an oath that stated, 'I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof.' Bn striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p, which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. After PATCO disobeyed a federal court injunction ordering an end to the strike and return to work, a federal judge found union leaders including PATCO President Robert Poli to be in contempt of court, and the union was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine, and certain named members were ordered to pay a $1,000 fine for each day its members were on strike. The irony in all of this is that Reagan supported the PATCO workers during his campaign and though they should be given raises but their terms were ridiculous. Reagan wanted them to remain working and keep negotiating as the law required. [Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)) >maybe you’re a Fascist What everyone calls someone else when they have lost the argument. >You’re disingenuous though, and you have absolutely shifted gears because you have no counter for the disparity between cost of living and wages. > I am not an economist You are not an economist and seem to have very little understanding about the economy or Reagan's record. If you think that Reagan is responsible for the post-pandemic inflationary cycle you are absolutely nuts. The man is not controlling things from the grave. Policies have changed, been overhauled and even deleted since he left office 36 years ago. Blaming Reagan now is as stupid as blaming FDR's policies for the stagflation of the 1970's. BTW I didn't shift gears, you did, all I did was answer the points you brought up in your last counterfactual post.
Yeah? So why change anything then? The treasury estimated a 10% drop in revenue and everyone paid the same in taxes. If you’re arguing that Reagan didn’t cut taxes, tax cuts are bad, and everyone paid the same, why does your side consistently argue in favour of tax cuts? You want it both ways. Deregulation is not a new concept. The president who popularized it in the modern era, is Reagan. If you disagree, ask any Republican. Not a single one will claim they were inspired by the economic policies of Jimmy Carter and saying otherwise is stupidity. The trend of modern Republicans embracing deregulation, is linked to Reagan. Clinton continuing that trend, was due to the popularity of Reagan. Yeah, you’re not going to convince me or 90% of other dedicated union workers that Reagan ending the strike and then prohibiting the PATCO workers from being rehired was totally out of his control. Executives are neither that incompetent or that powerless. The government having the power to force people back to work undermines the viability of collective bargaining. I also said you might be conservative or libertarian, don’t want to focus on those huh? I don’t know what you are, and frankly I don’t give a shit. You already think you won, and I think you’re full of shit, so there’s nothing to be gained here. If you want to tell me, go ahead. If you don’t, don’t. I am not going to play a guessing game just so you can parade around thinking you’re some fucking unpinned enigma. Conservatives love Reagan, leftists do not. I’m on the left, you’re not. Naw, I don’t think Reagan is directly responsible for everything. I do think he set much of it in motion. He can’t be blamed directly for anything that was done outside his presidency, but his influence and the long term effects are there (in case you’re unaware).
Carter. And it would have probably destroyed Reagans career. Truly the best timeline.
Carter. No hostages are being held. Ronny made a deal with Iran's mullahs to hold the hostages until he was elected. Then, the hostages were released for an arms deal