1988: Jimmy Carter nominated for a comeback

[President Johnson]

How would Jimmy Carter have done if he ran for a second nonconsecutive term and had been nominated by the Democrats. They probably wouldn't have the latter, but assuming he's the nominee, does he lose as badly as Dukakis?

[MIKESOWELL]

I can't help but think that he loses in an electoral landslide not far off from his loss in 1980. His strength in the South would have been somewhat eroded by then which was his only strength in the first place. Dukakis lost California but won New York. Jimmy Carter was a bad fit for both states at his strongest (1976). I think he loses even worse than Dukakis.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Something like this:

[Mechavada]

How would Jimmy Carter have done if he ran for a second nonconsecutive term and had been nominated by the Democrats. They probably wouldn't have the latter, but assuming he's the nominee, does he lose as badly as Dukakis?

Chances are he does even worse.

A lot of things had changed in the time between Carter's defeat in 1980 and the 1988 election season.  While in office Carter had positioned himself on a number of issues during his presidency that would make him look like a commie next to "Proud ACLU Member" Michael Dukakis in 1988.  While the GOP wouldn't be able to play the dirty WEEKEND PASSES ads they did against the Duke they would have a field day with Carter's previous support for de-escalating the "War on Drugs", his peacenicking, his opposition to the death penalty, how he "abandoned" evangelicals on the abortion issue, his support for "fad energy", and his turn toward gun control in 1980.  Now yes, Carter was overall pretty moderate as a president and in fact began a lot of trends people associate with Reagan (deregulation), but people in 1988 who didn't have thousands of news and political websites at their finger tips didn't have the prescience to remember that and largely believed that Carter was everything that was wrong with the Democratic Party which was why he lost as bad as he did.  With eight years of Reagan and Reagan's VP running for election with a bloodthirsty wolfhound of a strategist looking to destroy whichever Democrat got the nomination chances are whatever appeal Carter has with Plains/Western state voters suffering under the Farm Crisis of the late 80s gets evaporated by this perception that he's a pot smoking bleedingheart liberal.  And worse of all he'll be seen as a hick by a lot of coastal voters. . . . . which would damage him even in base states.

Here's a favorable map:

HW Bush probably wins around 54-55% of the vote in this scenario and does a point better than Reagan in 1980.  There was no way Carter could have come back after that loss in 1980.  No way.

[HisGrace]

Carter picks up Georgia but probably loses NY, Iowa, and Wisconsin and does worse in the PV. No way was this ever going to happen.

[Alben Barkley]

How would Jimmy Carter have done if he ran for a second nonconsecutive term and had been nominated by the Democrats. They probably wouldn't have the latter, but assuming he's the nominee, does he lose as badly as Dukakis?

Chances are he does even worse.

A lot of things had changed in the time between Carter's defeat in 1980 and the 1988 election season.  While in office Carter had positioned himself on a number of issues during his presidency that would make him look like a commie next to "Proud ACLU Member" Michael Dukakis in 1988.  While the GOP wouldn't be able to play the dirty WEEKEND PASSES ads they did against the Duke they would have a field day with Carter's previous support for de-escalating the "War on Drugs", his peacenicking, his opposition to the death penalty, how he "abandoned" evangelicals on the abortion issue, his support for "fad energy", and his turn toward gun control in 1980.  Now yes, Carter was overall pretty moderate as a president and in fact began a lot of trends people associate with Reagan (deregulation), but people in 1988 who didn't have thousands of news and political websites at their finger tips didn't have the prescience to remember that and largely believed that Carter was everything that was wrong with the Democratic Party which was why he lost as bad as he did.  With eight years of Reagan and Reagan's VP running for election with a bloodthirsty wolfhound of a strategist looking to destroy whichever Democrat got the nomination chances are whatever appeal Carter has with Plains/Western state voters suffering under the Farm Crisis of the late 80s gets evaporated by this perception that he's a pot smoking bleedingheart liberal.  And worse of all he'll be seen as a hick by a lot of coastal voters. . . . . which would damage him even in base states.

Here's a favorable map:

HW Bush probably wins around 54-55% of the vote in this scenario and does a point better than Reagan in 1980.  There was no way Carter could have come back after that loss in 1980.  No way.

There is no chance in hell Carter loses Georgia in any year.

[Alben Barkley]

Actually the more I read, the more I think Carter could have WON in 1988. Would have been close, but I don’t think he would have hit the same pitfalls Dukakis did that cost him his lead. Would not have been easy, but Carter wouldn’t have been subject to the same “too liberal” attacks that sunk Dukakis. Also wouldn't have made bizarre missteps like the tank photo. He would have been subject to attacks on his “failed” presidency, but public opinion was already re-evaluating him more favorably by this point:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-18-mn-4470-story.html

Not impossible to think that states that had soured on Reagan and/or didn’t care much for Bush would have welcomed Carter back.

Possible winning map:

That’s every state Dukakis lost by less than 10 plus GA, LA, AR, TN, and KY. Ends up looking an awful lot like Clinton ‘92. Not inconceivable in a best case scenario.

[NewYorkExpress]

I don't think Carter would have run, and even if he did run, there's no way he wins the nomination. Dukakis or someone on the left wing would beat him.

If he did win the nomination, it would be close, but H.W Bush, rides Reagan's residual popularity to a narrow victory.

[dirks]

Carter would do better than Dukakis. He would use his campaign to revise history and defend 76-80...just as anybody else would. He'd be more of a known commodity. He'd probably take some credit for 80's prosperity...that some of his policies laid the groundwork for the good times of the 80s. Some moderate southern evangelicals would gravitate to him once again. But not enough to make a real difference.

Not even sure if he carries Georgia...but he probably takes California from Bush. Maybe even Penn and Maryland if he runs a really great campaign and picks a strong VP, but he definitely loses NY in the process

Dukakis was a wretched candidate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can't see Carter winning.  I'm not sure Carter would have done better than Dukakis.

Who would his running mate be?  It wouldn't be Mondale; that's for sure.

[Alben Barkley]

Carter would do better than Dukakis. He would use his campaign to revise history and defend 76-80...just as anybody else would. He'd be more of a known commodity. He'd probably take some credit for 80's prosperity...that some of his policies laid the groundwork for the good times of the 80s. Some moderate southern evangelicals would gravitate to him once again. But not enough to make a real difference.

Not even sure if he carries Georgia...but he probably takes California from Bush. Maybe even Penn and Maryland if he runs a really great campaign and picks a strong VP, but he definitely loses NY in the process

Dukakis was a wretched candidate.

But even Bill Clinton did that four years later so why couldn't Carter?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Carter would do better than Dukakis. He would use his campaign to revise history and defend 76-80...just as anybody else would. He'd be more of a known commodity. He'd probably take some credit for 80's prosperity...that some of his policies laid the groundwork for the good times of the 80s. Some moderate southern evangelicals would gravitate to him once again. But not enough to make a real difference.

Not even sure if he carries Georgia...but he probably takes California from Bush. Maybe even Penn and Maryland if he runs a really great campaign and picks a strong VP, but he definitely loses NY in the process

Dukakis was a wretched candidate.

But even Bill Clinton did that four years later so why couldn't Carter?

Carter was a disappointment to Southern evangelicals when they found out that he wasn't going to expend real political capital to advance social conservatism.  He was a disappointment to the pro-military voters in the South who were happy that their communities were built up, economically, with Reagan's defense buildups. 

Bush was (as an adult) from Texas.  The Democrats tried very hard to make Bush 41 appear to be a Yankee and not a "real Texan", but it didn't work.

[Agonized-Statism]

Vice President George Bush (R-TX) / Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN) ✓
Fmr. President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) / Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA)

Carter wouldn't appeal to the law and order Reaganite sensibilities of the day, which were arguably even stronger than they were in 1980. I do think he maintains the Dukakis map plus Georgia, however: the Midwest was reacting to the Farm Crisis and Cascadia was in bad shape economically.