Could Carter have won if Reagan's secret was out?

[EnergizedLib]

Last edited Tue Jan 7, 2025, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

If people knew before Election Day 1980 that the Reagan Campaign made a deal to delay the release of the hostages until after the election, if they knew of this treason, does President Carter win re-election and this country much better off than what it became?

[LAS14]

1. Since it was a different era, when people were rational, and norms were respected...

... maybe.

Not now, for sure.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. No. What Carter needed to do was not debate in the last week of the campaign. /nt

[JHB]

14. It wasn't the debate that sank him, it was people realizing there would be no "October Surprise"

The debate was on October 28. The Republicans had been screaming about an October Surprise to preemptively blunt any boost Carter might get by getting the hostages home, even as the Reagan campaign worked behind the scenes to ensure that wouldn't happen.

The numbers had been pretty close, but once it was clear there would be no hostage homecoming, they nosedived, and people wanted something to change. It happened at the same time as the debate aftermath, but that wasn't the driver of his loss.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Reagan delivered the line in actor's voice, in the last debate

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?" The debate gave him the opportunity to say it.

[JHB]

25. One zinger was not enough. Crashing hopes was.

We'll never know for real, but how would that line have landed if it was said in an environment where Carter had gotten our people home?

Over-emphasis of one line divorced from the actual environment is just accepting the spin of the Acolytes of Saint Ron. We're free to look at other factors.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Back then, morality and values still mattered, so, yes. I think Carter would have had a chance.

[mr715]

4. Uh... No

We ran that experiment in 2024 sorta kinda.

[EnergizedLib]

5. It's a different time, no?

[mr715]

6. Is it though?

Information travels faster and there is a thinner veneer of collegiality, but we're still talking about the Department of Education being funded.

We're still talking about Israel and Palestine.

We're still talking about conservation.

We're still fighting the culture war.

[EnergizedLib]

7. Someone as vile as the felon wouldn't have been accepted

In a different time.

I really believe this. I question how different the election would have been in 1980 if the conspiring with Iran was out, because different generations wouldn’t have stood for that, I don’t think.

Some of our issues persist, and not that we’ve ever been perfect, but we had some modicum of morals, decency and norms before the felon came into our lives and ruined everything.

[mr715]

11. I don't know bout that!

There are a lot of pretty vile ones.

George Bush Jr. was no walk in the park.

[EnergizedLib]

12. He was an intellectual lightweight

But not even he stopped the kinds of lows we have seen since 2015.

[mr715]

15. There was the small matter of war

I agree with you that Trump represents a true, deep seated meanness. Pettiness. Trump has done irreparable internal harm to our body politic. Bush started a war and promoted torture. His international footprint may be worse in my eyes.

We can call em MAGA or Tea Party or just plain old Republican. They are the same people.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

8. Reagan following in the footsteps

of Nixon and typical GOP corruption.

[yorkster]

10. And it is never mentioned in any discussion

of Carter's loss to Reagan, or any discussion of the Reagan presidency.

[EnergizedLib]

13. Whitewashing history at its finest

[Johonny]

26. Nixon deeply disliked Reagan

[JHB]

9. Depends on how early and how clearly it was (hypothetically) exposed

You would have needed video footage of Reagan''s people meeting with Iranians or some other "plain as day" level evidence, and it would have had to come out weeks before the election to sink in.

Otherwise too many people just wouldn't have believed it enough to change their vote.

[GoCubsGo]

17. Probably not.

As I recall, he was blamed for the whole hostage crisis in the first place. He was also having difficulties cleaning up the Nixon/Ford inflation mess. People are still blaming Carter for causing it to this day, even though his predecessor had a big "Whip Inflation Now" campaign.

[EnergizedLib]

19. President Biden gets blamed for inflation

What a selective memory and misunderstanding people have of things.

[modrepub]

18. Not A Chance

Was too young to vote but I remember the election.

Carter was a good honest man. TBH, I would thing those in the intelligence community would have heard about this and possibly brought it to someone's attention. Given Carter's personality, I would be surprised if he would have gone total negative on his opponent. Wasn't his style.

I remember the mood at the time was complete capitulation on most people's part. The exhaustion of runaway inflation (21% interest rates), the energy crisis (it was a very cold winter in my neck of the woods and to save energy Carter closed public schools for a few days), the Iranian hostage situation and the failure of our military to retrieve them just made everyone pessimistic of the future.

For better or worse, Reagan offered a change. In the end, incumbent POTUS are judged on what they've done lately. Things were not going well in most people's minds so it was out with the old and in with someone who projected confidence and had an aw shucks response to anyone's pessimism.

[Clouds Passing]

20. Yes. Carter would have trounced Reagan/CIABush. What they did was treason, but Gwhb is no stranger to treason.

[mr715]

21. Yet

Treason is a central component of today's republican party.

[Clouds Passing]

22. And it has been since nixon commited treason.

[mr715]

23. Amazing

Each and every one, in some way.

I guess "treason" is highly technical but also highly accurate in Reagan's case.

[Clouds Passing]

24. LBJ called nixon's action to keep war going in vietnam treason.

[live love laugh]

27. Yes.

[lees1975]

28. At that point in American history, yes, it would have made a difference.

Another scandal, bigger than Watergate, in that short of a period of time, yes, Carter wins if that secret ever got out.

[snot]

29. Maybe.

Remember, Ted Koppel had a running program focussed on the hostage crisis and excoriating Carter for failing to free the hostages, literally night after night for what seemed like months (I believe the program was on most week nights, or something like that – it was more than once a week) – though I don't recall anyone having any suggestions as to how to accomplish that, apart from the rescue effort attempted under Carter but that failed through no fault of his own (one of the helicopters crashed and the mission had to be aborted). With or without Reagan, Iran had no intention of letting the hostages go in a hurry.

I never forgave Koppel for his exploitation of that situation, which I believe greatly damaged Carter's chances.

What the media chooses to focus on, and not, often communicates more than what they do say.

[EnergizedLib]

30. Do you mean like how this current press

Has treated President Biden?

[RockRaven]

31. No.

Having that knowledge make such a difference would require American voters to be better than they are. Even in 1980, they were not.

[Polybius]

32. I doubt it, for all his faults, Reagan was a charismatic speaker (slowed down a bit in 1980, but still energetic)

History has proven that generational candidates with charisma usually win (FDR, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, and perhaps Newsom in 2028).

The only thing that might have made Carter win was giving Iran 24 hours to release the hostages. If they didn't comply, order a full out military strike, with the overthrow of their government. I love Carter, but imagine that happening to us now. There's no way that Clinton, Obama, or Biden would not have ordered military action.