Jump to content
270soft Forum

Spirits Behind the Curtain - 1980


Recommended Posts

As we all know, Gerald Ford lost his bid for reelection against Georgian Governor Jimmy Carter by a two point margin, having come back from a deficit as far as thirty four points. This loss is often attributed to a massive blunder on the part of Ford, where he supposedly claimed that ".....there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration..." Up to that point, he had been surging in the polls, coming closer and closer to finally out-pacing Carter. After that remark, the surge simply dissipated, and Carter managed to eke out a win. In a interview he gave many years later, he stated that he had meant at the time that he would not allow the Soviet Union to dominate the spirits of the people of Eastern Europe, and regretted that he had no been more clear. (You should have been a LOT clearer)

Here, I have it so that Ford specifically mentions this, that he won't let the people of Eastern Europe have their spirits beaten down by the Soviet Union, thus not coming cross as, well, you know. He manages to eke out a narrow victory in the election. I have asked others about how his Presidency would have gone, and the general consensus is that it would have been a bad, yet moderate version of the Carter years; the economy is still in a slump, but is in better condition compared to OTL. The Panama Canal is still ours for the time being, Iran still has had its revolution, things still remain tense between Egypt and Israel. Again, in some cases it is slightly worse, but overall slightly better.

Along with the economy, the election will be dominated by what is known as the "Tehran Embassy Siege". Ford had, while watching Iran destabilize, built up the embassy in the case of a possible popular rising in Iran, including more proper defenses and the deployment of military personnel to protect State Department personnel. When the Shah is let into the United States for medical treatment, Iranian militants attempt to take embassy and fail, instead setting up a blockade around its perimeter. The Iranian Government, while initially "neutral", comes out in support of the militants and aids the blockade with its own forces. Negotiations will dominate the majority of the election, but will not conclude until sometime after election day.

The candidates as I currently have them are as follows:

Democrats

- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

- Governor Jimmy Carter (D-GA)

- Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)

- Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA)

- Senator Mo Udall (D-AZ)

- Senator George McGovern (D-SD)

- Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)

- Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL)

Later Planned Additions (Not sure about percentages)

- Senator John Glenn (D-OH)

- Governor Cliff Finch (D-MS)

- Governor Hugh Carey (D-NY) [off?]

Republicans

- Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

- Vice President Robert Dole (R-KS)

- Representative George Bush (R-TX)

- Governor John Connally (R-TX)

- Senator Howard Baker (R-TN)

- Representative John Anderson (R-IL)

- Representative Phil Crane (R-IL)

- Ben Fernandez (R-NV)

Later Planned Additions (Not sure about percentages for everyone except Stassen, who will be a Stassen)

Senator Lowell Wiecker (R-CT)

Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD)

Governor Harold Stassen (R-PA)

Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD)

Commerce Secretary Elliot Richardson (R-MA)

Independent

- Representative John Anderson (R-IL)

American Independent

- Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) [planned addition at a later stage]

The scenario may be downloaded from here; remember, it is still a BETA: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FGGBPZHY

I do need some help in a number of areas, which are listed below:

- Additional possible candidates, included if certain listed candidates should be off, if unlisted candidates should be on, et cetera...

- Additional possible VP candidates for all the parties, and what candidates would or would not accept them.

- Better percentages in regards to candidates' polling strength in the primaries. While the current system does work, I would like one that was more accurate; for example, I don't really like how Mo Udall is currently placed within the field.

- Accuracy of Issue Positions in regards to the states and to the candidates.

Even though it is unfinished, hope you guys still have fun with this version.

Sincerely,

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all know, Gerald Ford lost his bid for reelection against Georgian Governor Jimmy Carter by a two point margin, having come back from a deficit as far as thirty four points. This loss is often attributed to a massive blunder on the part of Ford, where he supposedly claimed that ".....there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration..." Up to that point, he had been surging in the polls, coming closer and closer to finally out-pacing Carter. After that remark, the surge simply dissipated, and Carter managed to eke out a win. In a interview he gave many years later, he stated that he had meant at the time that he would not allow the Soviet Union to dominate the spirits of the people of Eastern Europe, and regretted that he had no been more clear. (You should have been a LOT clearer)

Here, I have it so that Ford specifically mentions this, that he won't let the people of Eastern Europe have their spirits beaten down by the Soviet Union, thus not coming cross as, well, you know. He manages to eke out a narrow victory in the election. I have asked others about how his Presidency would have gone, and the general consensus is that it would have been a bad, yet moderate version of the Carter years; the economy is still in a slump, but is in better condition compared to OTL. The Panama Canal is still ours for the time being, Iran still has had its revolution, things still remain tense between Egypt and Israel. Again, in some cases it is slightly worse, but overall slightly better.

Along with the economy, the election will be dominated by what is known as the "Tehran Embassy Siege". Ford had, while watching Iran destabilize, built up the embassy in the case of a possible popular rising in Iran, including more proper defenses and the deployment of military personnel to protect State Department personnel. When the Shah is let into the United States for medical treatment, Iranian militants attempt to take embassy and fail, instead setting up a blockade around its perimeter. The Iranian Government, while initially "neutral", comes out in support of the militants and aids the blockade with its own forces. Negotiations will dominate the majority of the election, but will not conclude until sometime after election day.

The candidates as I currently have them are as follows:

Democrats

- Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)

- Governor Jimmy Carter (D-GA)

- Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson (D-WA)

- Governor Jerry Brown (D-CA)

- Senator Mo Udall (D-AZ)

- Senator George McGovern (D-SD)

- Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX)

- Governor Reubin Askew (D-FL)

Republicans

- Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

- Vice President Robert Dole (R-KS)

- Representative George Bush (R-TX)

- Governor John Connally (R-TX)

- Senator Howard Baker (R-TN)

- Representative John Anderson (R-IL)

- Representative Phil Crane (R-IL)

- Ben Fernandez (R-NV)

Later Planned Additions (Not sure about percentages for everyone except Stassen, who will be a Stassen)

Senator Lowell Wiecker (R-CT)

Senator Larry Pressler (R-SD)

Governor Harold Stassen (R-PA)

Senator Charles Mathias (R-MD)

Commerce Secretary Elliot Richardson (R-MA)

Independent

- Representative John Anderson (R-IL)

The scenario may be downloaded from here; remember, it is still a BETA: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FGGBPZHY

I do need some help in a number of areas, which are listed below:

- Additional possible candidates, included if certain listed candidates should be off, if unlisted candidates should be on, et cetera...

- Additional possible VP candidates for all the parties, and what candidates would or would not accept them.

- Better percentages in regards to candidates' polling strength in the primaries. While the current system does work, I would like one that was more accurate; for example, I don't really like how Mo Udall is currently placed within the field.

- Accuracy of Issue Positions in regards to the states and to the candidates.

Even though it is unfinished, hope you guys still have fun with this version.

Sincerely,

James

The Democrats are lacking an inspirational, return America to greatness Reaganesque figure, as Kennedy was Kennedy and Carter was well, Carter; may I suggest John Glenn? Also, I question whether Reagan would've run for office in this environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Glenn would have problems with experience (having only been in the Senate for four to five years), but I guess it is understandable. Alright, I'll add him in with the others right next to Carter and Kennedy.

As for Reagan, I have heard from many that he would have run in 1980 regardless of the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Anderson would not have ran 3rd party if Ford was President. If you want a 3rd Party throw in Jesse Helms or Phil Crane.

He is there to offer himself as a "middle-ground" candidate between the Liberal Kennedy and the Conservative Reagan, who each have won their respective primaries. Basically, he is supported by Moderate Republicans, Moderate Democrats, and Independents that are no happy with either of the nominees. On another note, I am disappointed in that I cannot find more possible running mates for him, especially among the Democratic Party. I have found reports of Hugh Carey being mentioned, but I am thinking of adding him as a Democratic Presidential candidate, and he was not too keen on the idea anyway. All that I have at the moment are John Lindsay and Edward Brooke.

Jesse Helms as a Third Party Candidate would be interesting, and my mind more likely than Phil Crane to bolt away from a more Liberal Republican nominee. Crane would not risk jeopardizing his de facto leadership of the conservative Republicans in the House on a third party run. Percentages are a problem, as are running mates for Helms, but I'll see what I can dig up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...