No, not the Gulf War; I meant the idea that invading and occupying Iraq would be paid for from Iraqi oil revenue.
I am surprised that Cheney did not make that work.
Oh, he made it work, all right – for Halliburton.
Yeah, I realized that seconds after I posted.
It was an unforeseen consequence. Turns out if old people can afford to buy food they end up living longer.
Selfish creeps . . .
If you want to go back even farther if Woodrow Wilson had followed through with his overly ambitious “Fourteen Points” peace plan, then Ho Chi Minh and the group that he lead to the Versailles Treaty negotiations after WWI would have had a free Vietnam to return to and might not have become radicalized.
Technically, Johnson’s heart condition really should have preclude him from being President. Since he had suffered a near-fatal heart attack in 1955, he should have been excluded from consideration as a running mate for Kennedy as he could have died at any time. That he did not given the stresses of the office that he held was itself a minor miracle (depending, of course, upon your political views of him and his accomplishments)
I exaggerated. The point is that Carter ran as an outsider and was not a party bigwig. He wouldn’t have even tried to run for office in 1976 if the old rules applied.
Given the economy any Republican would have beat Carter. Reagan beat the point spread, but by a below average margin. And during the nomination process Reagan was by far the most right wing candidate. He didn’t secure absolute majorities in the beginning: it was a matter of getting a plurality of votes and having a ton of moderate candidates split up the remaining majority. If the economy was strong Reagan wouldn’t have won. If we had a typical Democrat rather than Carter and the economy was just as weak… Reagan still would have won. As would have any other Republican.
And to review, Reagan’s nomination was by no means in the bag. Reset the historical randomizer again (which is what the OP entails) and while Reagan would still have a shot, his election wouldn’t be probable. And he was the only right winger running.
I’ll be specific. Given the economy and incumbency, Carter should have gotten 45.7% of the two party vote. In 1980 he got 44.8%, which is a little worse than the benchmark. By 9/10ths of percentage point to be exact. On average the model is off by 2.04 percentage points. So it wasn’t a blowout, though it was framed that way.
IMO, Carter was an exceptionally weak candidate but plenty of people thought Reagan was bonkers. A more mainstream Republican would have done better against Carter.
Okay, here’s a possible scenario.
Johnson manages to keeps Vietnam a relatively low-key issue at about the same level it was under Kennedy. He pushes for his Great Society agenda. He beats Goldwater in 1964.
Without Vietnam, Johnson is a stronger candidate and runs for re-election in 1968. Nixon decides not to risk another defeat and sits this election out. Somebody - let’s say Rockefeller - is the Republican nominee but is defeated by Johnson.
Johnson isn’t eligible to run again in 1972. He hates Robert Kennedy (who wasn’t assassinated in this scenario) and doesn’t want him to be his successor. With his enhanced stature as a two-term President and with no Vietnam albatross around his neck, Johnson is able to push Kennedy into the background and get his selection - Vice President Humphrey - the nomination.
Nixon decides this is his year. He’s spent the sixties building up a network of favors and he begins calling them in. He gets the nomination and beats Humphrey.
Feeling the country has gone too far to the left, Reagan challenges Nixon for the Republican nomination in 1976 just as he challenged Ford. But Nixon is an experienced political player and keeps the nomination and goes on to defeat Humphrey.
And Reagan finds out that Nixon is a lot more vindictive than Ford as well. Like Johnson before him, Nixon spends his second term sabotaging a rival’s future. So Bush, not Reagan, gets the 1980 Republican nomination.
Not to my knowledge. That just struck me as the most logical NASA nomenclature for the next major modification to the Apollo Block II CM. The Block I had no docking hatch. Among some other changes, the Block II did. The Russians are still using Soyez spacecraft, albeit updated. I thought the Apollo CSM was a pretty good spacecraft. And if they could land one on land (some desert in Nevada or near Edwards) they wouldn’t have to spend all that money sending out a USN carrier group to recover them.
::Rolls dice:: …and Humphrey wins a close 1976 race.
Inflation heads upwards, but Humphrey is smart enough not to appoint a hawk to the Federal Reserve one year before a Presidential election. That makes 1980 a closer election. Will Reagan be nominated? Will Humphrey be re-elected? Unclear, but expect a recession in 1981 or 1982 as inflation pushes 15% and a new Fed chair finally clamps down. (As much as Volker though? Who knows?)
Say Reagan isn’t elected. It could Bush or Humphrey. Either way, the Soviets aren’t in utter freak out mode so when Andropov dies in Feb 1984, he is replaced by another reformer – Gorbachev – rather than the holding pattern candidate Chernenko. The Soviet learning curve is accelerated by 13 months relative to Earth Prime.
But given Watergate and Ford pardoning the Trickster, I don’t believe ANY Republican could have defeated whatever Democrat won the Democratic nomination in 76.
…so Nixon sends plumbers over to wiretap Reagan’s telephone and steal the files of Nancy’s astrologer… OH NOES!!!
To be clear, I’m saying that any Republican could have beaten Carter in 1980, given the appointment of Paul Volker to head the Federal Reserve and the subsequent election year recession.
You would think so. But the economy plus incumbency gives a generic Democratic Presidential candidate 50.2% of the 2 party vote. The economy wasn’t especially strong and oil prices had quadrupled since 1973 (IIRC). Carter got 51.0% of the vote, beating the spread by 0.9%. Which isn’t much, given that he was running against the Trickster’s VP.
Of course if there was no Vietnam, Nixon probably would have been less paranoid, my last post notwithstanding.
ETA: I’m getting my numbers from table 3 in this pdf: http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/RAYFAIR/PDF/2010C.pdf
Use equation 1.
I’m with you up until you have Nixon over Humphrey. Without Vietnam, there are no war protesters, no rioting in the streets in 1968, no “Silent Majority” demanding a return to law and order. With the country going well, I think Humphrey beats Nixon in 1972. Thus no President Nixon, no Watergate, no President Carter. Democrats may still get burned by the oil embargo and subsequent inflation. Republicans may decide it’s time to go hard right in 1976, enter Ronald Reagan. But I don’t think he could have stopped a second Humphrey term. So Humphrey is succeeded by Mondale, then perhaps Clinton enters about the time he did in reality.
Clinton only enters if Democrats lose a lot of elections. The Democratic primary electorate wouldn’t give him the time of day if they weren’t desperate for a victory.
We’re probably looking at President Dukakis in that situation.
Now I know that you have lost it. Michael Dukakis was never going to be President even if he hadn’t sabotaged himself by dithering about the death penalty or looking like Snoopy driving that tank. He was too much a milquetoast for the job.
Here’s another reason that a Johnson presidency hinged upon sheer luck and misfortune: Let’s presume that Kennedy was only wounded and had not been killed in Dallas. Johnson would have finished his term,but may not have received the support which came from Kennedy’s death. He then would been a “Gerald Ford”: a single term promoted VP.
If southern Democrats had realized Johnson’s true goals with regard to civil rights, they would have impaired his run. A review of the votes from the Southern bloc regarding the legislation indicates that. Johnson’s ability to misdirection their attention was the primary thing that allowed him to win.
Y’all are missing the point on health care.
Had Johnson won in 1968, it’s pretty obvious that some form of NHS would have come about. Ted Kennedy - in the scenario he would have succeeded his brother JFK in 1962 just like in the main timeline - came very close to getting universal insurance passed in 1973 or thereabouts prior to Nixon’s resignation. Kennedy later claimed that if he’d been willing to work more closely with Nixon it would have gotten passed.
There’s no doubt at all that Kennedy would have worked more closely with Johnson than he ever could have with Nixon. Ergo, along with the rest of the Great Society we’d be 40+ years deep into some form of the ACA by now.
Humphrey couldn’t run in 1980. (He died in 1978)