Would Carter have won in 1980 if he had gotten the hostages out? (Roman, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1980? The inflation rate was 13.5%. Recession. 8% unemployment rate. Blue collar workers were getting crushed by the changing economy. Moderator cut: History forum rule violations removed.
Fast forward 12 years. “It’s the economy, stupid”. Iran wasn’t the defining issue. It was the kickoff of the poorly educated angry white man revolution. 12 years later, Bill Clinton got those votes because 12 years of Republican leadership did nothing to change the erosion of high paid blue collar worker jobs.
Moderator cut: Paragraph removed discussing politicians and Current Events.
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-03-2022 at 05:41 AM..
Reason: Read the History forum rules.
There is nothing you have said that would suggest that Carter was "fool". What he was a man that beset by a series of problems that had been decades in the making. Some of those problems he wrestled with quite well. I think of the Camp David Accords which brought peace to Israel and Egypt as well as the Panama Canal Treaty which returned the canal to the country of Panama over a slow and careful transitionary period. He did not solve the "Energy Crisis". However, the Energy Bill passed by Congress made some critical advances in terms of encouraging development of solar technology.
I will also say this. His thick Georgia accent made him a poor public speaker and at times he was difficult to understand. Ronald Reagan was excellent when it came to speaking and as President earned the title, "The Great Communicator". At times, even I enjoyed his jokes and cornball humor.
Carter lost the election because the economy went bad during his presidency and because Americans didn't like the way foreign policy had turned on us and was showing us to be weak.
He submitted a detailed bill to Congress, outlining a federal energy policy. This included conservation measures to cut down on consumption while increasing domestic production by various means, while developing renewable energy sources and providing tax incentives for homeowners to convert to solar energy. It included improving mileage on vehicles, incentives for home insulation to save energy, and many other measures. He set an example by putting solar panels on the roof of the White House, which his successor removed, showing his disdain for renewables and support for the oil companies.
Some of his energy policy proposals are now standard practice, such as regional utilities sharing energy with other utilities if one has a surplus while the other is at peak need.
He also revolutionized American foreign policy by linking it with human rights. This began to shift the US away from dealing with corrupt and abusive strongmen, like the Shah of Iran. Human rights are now a cornerstone of US foreign relations, sometimes to a fault; it's sometimes used as a cudgel, while the US hasn't been consistent in its own observance of "best practices" in the area of human rights.
He submitted a detailed bill to Congress, outlining a federal energy policy. This included conservation measures to cut down on consumption while increasing domestic production by various means, while developing renewable energy sources and providing tax incentives for homeowners to convert to solar energy. It included improving mileage on vehicles, incentives for home insulation to save energy, and many other measures. He set an example by putting solar panels on the roof of the White House, which his successor removed, showing his disdain for renewables and support for the oil companies.
Some of his energy policy proposals are now standard practice, such as regional utilities sharing energy with other utilities if one has a surplus while the other is at peak need.
He also revolutionized American foreign policy by linking it with human rights. This began to shift the US away from dealing with corrupt and abusive strongmen, like the Shah of Iran. Human rights are now a cornerstone of US foreign relations, sometimes to a fault; it's sometimes used as a cudgel, while the US hasn't been consistent in its own observance of "best practices" in the area of human rights.
Note that Carter's synth fuel initiative was a complete failure. Pulling support from the Shah allowed an even worse violator of human rights to take over.
Few historians would say Carter was a good and effective President. Many bad decisions.
In the 1980 Presidential election, Carter attempted to get the hostages out in April 1980. The rescue attempt failed with the helicopters crashing. People say Carter may have won had he gotten the hostages out. I don't think so. If he had gotten them out in October, maybe. But if he had gotten them out in April, the crisis would have been long over by November. The number 1 issue would have been the awful economy. I think Reagan still would have won. 1980 was a strange election. Virtually all the polls had the race a toss up or Reagan by a few points at most. In the end, it was a huge landslide.
Interest rates were through the roof. Inflation was through the roof. Unemployment was sky-high. The Soviets were rampaging through Afghanistan. OPEC had us over a barrel.
And Jimmy Carter had the audacity to go on TV and lecture us on malaise. If there was ever a tone-deaf moment, that was it.
I didn't vote for Reagan. I voted for Anderson instead. But Jimmy Carter wasn't just ineffectual. He had this weird supercilious streak that completely rubbed the American public the wrong way.
Again, I didn't vote for Reagan either time. But, looking back, I think Reagan made a better president than Carter did. Yeah, there were big problems with his presidency. But compared to the train wreck that was Jimmy Carter, it's a trade-off I can live with.
Interest rates were through the roof. Inflation was through the roof. Unemployment was sky-high. The Soviets were rampaging through Afghanistan. OPEC had us over a barrel.
And Jimmy Carter had the audacity to go on TV and lecture us on malaise. If there was ever a tone-deaf moment, that was it.
I didn't vote for Reagan. I voted for Anderson instead. But Jimmy Carter wasn't just ineffectual. He had this weird supercilious streak that completely rubbed the American public the wrong way.
Again, I didn't vote for Reagan either time. But, looking back, I think Reagan made a better president than Carter did. Yeah, there were big problems with his presidency. But compared to the train wreck that was Jimmy Carter, it's a trade-off I can live with.
Reagan lost the nomination to Ford in 1976. Supposing he could have defeated Carter in the general, I believe Reagan would have been a better President than he was in 2001-2008. Four years younger and more in charge. By around 2006, unfortunately he was suffering from Alzheimer's and Nancy Reagan was basically running the government.
In addition, a 1976 Reagan Administration would have been better for the country. Carter basically delayed the long-overdue American renewal by 4 years.
Americans were sick of the chaos and division of the Vietnam years and badly needed to feel good about their country again. Reagan offered this. Carter offered the illusion of healing but in practice he bumbled and stumbled his way through a disastrous first term that caused only more bitterness and anger.
Reagan lost the nomination to Ford in 1976. Supposing he could have defeated Carter in the general, I believe Reagan would have been a better President than he was in 2001-2008. Four years younger and more in charge. By around 2006, unfortunately he was suffering from Alzheimer's and Nancy Reagan was basically running the government.
In addition, a 1976 Reagan Administration would have been better for the country. Carter basically delayed the long-overdue American renewal by 4 years.
Americans were sick of the chaos and division of the Vietnam years and badly needed to feel good about their country again. Reagan offered this. Carter offered the illusion of healing but in practice he bumbled and stumbled his way through a disastrous first term that caused only more bitterness and anger.
Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Not sure what suffering from Alzheimer's in 2006 had to do with his presidency that had ended 17 years earlier.
Interest rates were through the roof. Inflation was through the roof. Unemployment was sky-high. The Soviets were rampaging through Afghanistan. OPEC had us over a barrel.
And Jimmy Carter had the audacity to go on TV and lecture us on malaise. If there was ever a tone-deaf moment, that was it.
I didn't vote for Reagan. I voted for Anderson instead. But Jimmy Carter wasn't just ineffectual. He had this weird supercilious streak that completely rubbed the American public the wrong way.
Again, I didn't vote for Reagan either time. But, looking back, I think Reagan made a better president than Carter did. Yeah, there were big problems with his presidency. But compared to the train wreck that was Jimmy Carter, it's a trade-off I can live with.
I don't dispute if you look at numbers that things went considerably better under the Reagan presidency. What I dispute is that Jimmy Carter could have done much about any of the problems that you or others list.
High interest rates were a response to high inflation by the federal reserve system. They ended inflation by creating a recession.
Carter did not cause high energy prices. As you put it, OPEC had us over a barrel. This was the result of decades of consuming huge amounts of oil and having insufficient domestic oil reserves. Carter was not President when 95% of that process took place.
Carter was not responsible for the inflation that followed the end of the Vietnam War.
Afghanistan is on the border of Russia or the former Soviet Union. There is little an American president could do to stop such an invasion other than impose economic sanctions. Carter did impose sanctions on the Soviets. We provided aid to Afghans fighting the Soviets and they eventually drove them from their country a few years later. He also got all of our hostages back from Iran alive. However, that happened after he lost the election and he gets little credit for that either.
What happened to Carter is he got the blame for economic conditions and foreign policy problems he did little to create. Americans only react to the way things are. They generally do not bother to analyze how we ended up in the place that we did.
Carter did not cause high energy prices. As you put it, OPEC had us over a barrel. This was the result of decades of consuming huge amounts of oil and having insufficient domestic oil reserves. Carter was not President when 95% of that process took place.
Carter was not responsible for the inflation that followed the end of the Vietnam War.
Where Carter does bear some blame is not immediately dismantling oil and gas price controls. When there were about four or so tiers of prices for fungible products such as crude oil or gasoline the price controls are either a) ineffective, as when supply is abundant and market prices are well below ceilings (as was the case from about August 1974 to October 1978 and then again from August 1979 through January 1981 decontrol, when most prices were to ".9"; b) distortion and shortage-creating, as when prices were at ceiling levels, as was the case for most of the period from April 1973 to July 1974, and November 1978 through August 1979. What happened was various adjustments were made for refiners and marketers that depended on expensive imported oil. This had the effect of forcing overall prices upwards and creating shortages, which exacerbated that impact. OPEC has really never had much to do about it; they are as effective in controlling prices as an association of wheat or cotton farmers.
You have a point about the "Vietnam" effect. However, Carter's replacement for Arthur Burns (who ran him own ruinously expansive monetary policy to ensure Nixon's re-election during Phase I and Phase II price controls from August 1971 through January 1973) was G. William Miller, who really let it rip on monetary policy. Carter was forced to bring in Volcker as Fed chair in October 1979 when almost Weimar-level inflation was beginning.
That's jogging my memory. I remember reading something about how Carter got things done in the international arena, managing the sticky issues, via back room negotiations, generally. So the public wasn't even aware of some of the situations he handled effectively. He didn't wave it around in front of everyone. He had no need for that.
I don't recall Jimmuh doing very much that was effective, other than showing our foes what a pansie in the White House looks like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
It wasn't a huge landslide. Only 25% of registered voters bothered to vote. Reagan won a majority of that 25%. Not really much to brag about. But Ronnie was a consummate actor. He could get a lot of people to believe almost anything, including that the economy was fine. He cast Carter as a worry-wart, for saying the economy was the #1 issue.
Election Voting-age Population (VAP) % Turnout of VAP
1976 152,308,000 53.6%
1980 163,945,000 52.8%
1984 173,995,000 53.3%
1988 181,956,000 50.3%
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
Reagan did not say that the economy was "fine." Quite the opposite, actually. And he was right. The inflation rate in 1980 was 13.5%. Unemployment was a bit over 7%. And the annual GDP growth rate was negative.
Moreover, you have a very strange definition of what constitutes a landslide. Turnout was 52.6% (don't know where you got your 25% figure) and Reagan won by almost 10 percentage points. He won 44 states and 489 electoral votes.
As for the question of the OP, no, I don't think Carter would have won, even if he had managed to rescue the hostages. We still would have had high unemployment and inflation. We still would have had "malaise." Carter's margin of defeat would have certainly been smaller, because the hostage crisis would not have been such a drag on his popularity, or lack thereof. But everything else that contributed to his defeat would have still been there.
Part of the problem with the hostage rescue attempt/disaster/multiple military killed was that some genius at the top wanted as many services involved as possible. PC window dressing. ONE service, USMC or Army Special Forces, would have been far more logical. You've trained with those people, you know what they're going to do, you know your frequencies, you know your battlefield ops plan. The man at the top could have vetoed that, but he didn't.
I always found Jimmuh pretty much a clueless sad sack. Much like Xoe is today. Bad guys smell weakness, they smell blood in the water, you are toast if you can't get it together. Jimmuh was not POTUS material. He won because of the earlier media Watergate activities which the press--who hated Nixon ever since he beat their golden boy Gorgeous George McGovernment in 1972--blew Watergate up into something it was not.
Once, seated, Jimmuh seemed quite content to preside over a decline in US power and influence.
He beat a bumbling Jerry Ford. But RWR was a master campaigner and speaker--unlike Carter--and his agenda was one of peace through strength. That formula wins. Unlike WIN.
And yes, 489 electoral votes vs 49, yeah, you could call that a landslide.
It was known after the election, that a little over half the electorate turned out to vote, and of those, just over half voted for Reagan. Half of the almost 54% that voted = a little over 1/4.
Turnout is not the same as who got how many votes. It's incorrect to say that the 1980 election had a 25% turnout, even though it would be essentially correct to say that 25% of the eligible electorate voted for Reagan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
