AHC: Make Reagan a one term President.
- Thread starter dw93
- Start date
- Status
Democrats run someone less wooden than mondale, probably. Can't be a proto-DLC type like hart tho since the economic libertarianism of the dlc types wouild turn off normal people.
Reagan being a two-termer like in otl strikes me as FAR less likely than people think.
Reagan being a two-termer like in otl strikes me as FAR less likely than people think.
Deleted member 180541
This is quite easy. Paul Volcker, the chair of the Federal Reserve, was the person responsible for curbing inflation and leading the economic recovery falsely attributed to Reagan. If you have him fire Volcker early on in his administration, perhaps appointing Alan Greenspan in his place, the early 80s recession will be worse and last longer. Before the economic recovery it was common belief that Reagan would loose re-election. His approval rating got as low as 35% in January 1983 and the GOP lost 25 House seats in the midterms. If the Democrats have a better candidate in 1984, like Gary Hart or John Glenn, and let's say the Iran-Contra affair happens earlier for good measure, Reagan will loose re-election.
Quickest answer: John Hinkley strikes true.
Greenspan and Volcker had the same program. Reagan was ideologically aligned with both of them.
One possibility would be Reagan digging in his heels over Lebanon. Instead of pulling out in early 1984 he decides to double down in order to keep the promises he made to Amin Gemayel and to Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Things keep escalating as the various Syrian backed militias keep attacking the MNF and the US and France keep retaliating. At this point the Reagan administration risks getting pulled into a war with Syria, which increases the odds of also getting into a conflict with Iran.
However, this could go either way. If the tensions and terrorism keep escalating without direct conflict with Syrian forces in Lebanon, I think you could very easily get the 'nut-job war monger' narrative to stick, because to the public it will look like Reagan is needlessly allowing the conflict to escalate. But if an actual shooting war breaks out between the MNF and Syrian forces directly, you might trigger a rally-around-the-flag effect, causing support for Reagan to grow, especially if the war starts because Syrian forces attacked the US Marines stationed in Beirut, or possibly elsewhere in Lebanon if the doubling down expands past the capital.
However, this could go either way. If the tensions and terrorism keep escalating without direct conflict with Syrian forces in Lebanon, I think you could very easily get the 'nut-job war monger' narrative to stick, because to the public it will look like Reagan is needlessly allowing the conflict to escalate. But if an actual shooting war breaks out between the MNF and Syrian forces directly, you might trigger a rally-around-the-flag effect, causing support for Reagan to grow, especially if the war starts because Syrian forces attacked the US Marines stationed in Beirut, or possibly elsewhere in Lebanon if the doubling down expands past the capital.
It depends on what you’re looking for. There are 5 ways to get a Reagan one term presidency.
1) Carter, starting on January 1st, 1980, gets a personality change and does everything in his power to win the election short of Watergate. Even boosting John Anderson’s campaign to take away Republican votes. If Carter pulls everything off right (especially the Iranian hostage situation), he might just squeak by, and if the margin is small enough, and Reagan is seen as having led a good enough campaign, he’ll be the frontrunner for 1984.
2) Have things go bad enough during Reagan’s first term that he loses in 1984 ITTL, especially to another Democratic nominee.
3) Hinkley (but that’s kind of a cop out).
4) Reagan’s Alzheimer’s develops earlier/ more aggressively and he decides not run for re-election/he still decides to run, but the cognitive decline is so bad that he loses.
5) Iran-Contra comes out during Reagan’s first term and he either gets impeached and removed, or is so unpopular that he chooses not to run/becomes the first incumbent to lose a primary.
1) Carter, starting on January 1st, 1980, gets a personality change and does everything in his power to win the election short of Watergate. Even boosting John Anderson’s campaign to take away Republican votes. If Carter pulls everything off right (especially the Iranian hostage situation), he might just squeak by, and if the margin is small enough, and Reagan is seen as having led a good enough campaign, he’ll be the frontrunner for 1984.
2) Have things go bad enough during Reagan’s first term that he loses in 1984 ITTL, especially to another Democratic nominee.
3) Hinkley (but that’s kind of a cop out).
4) Reagan’s Alzheimer’s develops earlier/ more aggressively and he decides not run for re-election/he still decides to run, but the cognitive decline is so bad that he loses.
5) Iran-Contra comes out during Reagan’s first term and he either gets impeached and removed, or is so unpopular that he chooses not to run/becomes the first incumbent to lose a primary.
Last edited:
By the time Reagan is president Volcker has already done the shock and as @Sol Zagato points out Greenspan would just continue what Volcker was already doing
Running someone other than Mondale isn’t going to change anything. The most obvious way to have him lose in 1984 without outlandish things happening would be for his Alzheimer’s to be much worse in 1984 and for him to completely flop in the debates in a way where people think he’s mentally not able to be president anymore.
If it’s close enough (10-25,000 votes in a state or two), he could easily make the case that he’ll get it the next time around, especially against Mondale, and especially making the case that Anderson was a spoiler.
Deleted member 180541
This is not true. If Reagan had Volcker fired in 1981 over public backlash and widespread protests over his monetary policies - it was, after all, the most attacked, maligned, and criticised Federal Reserve in history - Greenspan would not come in and simply continue his agenda. This change in leadership and direction would lead to a extended and worse recession.
Why wouldn’t it? Having a better candidate in 1984 would further secure victory for the Democrats.
Exactly.
Following a successful (even successful-ish) two-term Cárter administration, Mondale could pull it off, especially if he gets a better campaign manager and campaigns well (especially since Reagan no longer has an incumbency advantage).
If we’re talking candidates who can beat an incumbent Reagan (who isn’t undergoing a major scandal so as to not make it too easy), I propose the following:
1) Gary Hart
2) Joe Biden
3) Bill Bradley
4) Mo Udall
5) Ted Kennedy
6) Mario Cuomo
7) Jesse Jackson
There's an incomplete TL whose premise was basically having everything go wrong for him, like everything. The author basically caused the PATCO strike, the passage of the 1981 tax cuts, the Grenada invasion, Cuba, Nicaragua... they even had Baker leave the White House and the 1982 midterms turn out to be an absolute bloodbath for the Republican Party with the loss of the Senate. I agree with their reasoning and believe that a combination of all those things should be enough to prevent Reagan's re-election, with the exception of the Cuba situation though. Where I would differ is in the idea that all of this would result in a Mondale victory, since I believe any other candidate would be better positioned to win the 1984 election. However, I don't really know who that person could have been. Frankly, the likely 1984 Democratic candidates didn't seem to have the material.
Please use the Post-1900 Misc. thread for these sorts of WI.
You need to actually start a discussion not just ask a question or issue an AH challenge
Locked
You need to actually start a discussion not just ask a question or issue an AH challenge
Miscellaneous >1900 (Alternate) History Thread
It is often the case that people on this forum have miscellaneous or frivolous questions that could be easily answered by the many experts on this forum but are difficult to find the answer to on Google Scholar/Books or Wikipedia because they don't often deal in alternatives. There are other...
www.alternatehistory.com
Locked
- Status