2012 Barack Obama Enters The 1984 Election

[Zyobot]

On January 1st, 2012, the Blue Wall of consistently Democratic-voting states that has formed over the last few election cycles--as well as Swing States that have gone for either party recently--get sent back to January 1st, 1984. President Obama and his cabinet and family come along for the ride not only to represent the uptimers and their interests, but also to challenge incumbent President Ronald Reagan for the White House.

Entering the race as the incumbent uptimer POTUS with lots of new voters seeking to reelect him, how does Obama fare? Will the Great Communicator finally meet his match, or will Obama fall short with enough downtimers to lose his second bid for the presidency? Those interested in creating a final electoral map might find YAPms to be a useful service.

To better visualize the swaths of 2012 America that get sent back, though, here's a map from Wikipedia that color-codes states based on recent voting patterns. The dark and light blue states represent Democratic-voting states that have been sent back in time, while purple ones represents the Swing States that join them for the ride as well. The red states on the map, meanwhile, are their 1984 versions.


Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

Attachments:

[James G]

None of those red or purple states will vote for a black man in 1984. No matter what.
On the other hand, Reagan has just lost a big chunk of his support based with the old California gone.

[Zyobot]

Apr 9, 2020 20:26:59 GMT James G said:

None of those red or purple states will vote for a black man in 1984. No matter what.
On the other hand, Reagan has just lost a big chunk of his support based with the old California gone.

Yeah, I wondered how the downtimers in Red States would receive Obama. Though, as I said in the OP, the purple states are also from 2012 and therefore more likely to vote for their POTUS.

[stevep]

Apr 9, 2020 20:13:59 GMT Zyobot said:

On January 1st, 2012, the Blue Wall of consistently Democratic-voting states that has formed over the last few election cycles--as well as Swing States that have gone for either party recently--get sent back to January 1st, 1984. President Obama and his cabinet and family come along for the ride not only to represent the uptimers and their interests, but also to challenge incumbent President Ronald Reagan for the White House.

Entering the race as the incumbent uptimer POTUS with lots of new voters seeking to reelect him, how does Obama fare? Will the Great Communicator finally meet his match, or will Obama fall short with enough downtimers to lose his second bid for the presidency? Those interested in creating a final electoral map might find YAPms to be a useful service.

To better visualize the swaths of 2012 America that get sent back, though, here's a map from Wikipedia that color-codes states based on recent voting patterns. The dark and light blue states represent Democratic-voting states that have been sent back in time, while purple ones represents the Swing States that join them for the ride as well. The red states on the map, meanwhile, are their 1984 versions.


Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

  Zyobot,

  Well I think Texas is the only one of the big demographic states still from 1984 so if the purples join the blue's in voting for Obama I would suspect he would win the electoral vote if not the public one.  He's got the west coast the old industrial heartland and the northern part of the east coast plus possibly Florida as well.  That looks like a hell of a lot of votes and those areas, apart from possibly pasts of the 'rust belt' would have more voters than in 1984.  Also a black man as President might get a lot of the blacks on some of the southern states more active although as James says there will be less support for Obama that he might have got OTL.

  In 1984 the US census estimated population was 235,825,000 and in 2012 it was 313,874,000 , nearly 80 million more.  True a fair chunk of that growth occurs in the southern red states and wouldn't be available in TTL but your probably looking at ~40-50M more people overall.

  The other issue is how the two economies mess or don't 2012 has an advantage in that its more advanced but a disadvantage in that its isolated from its OTL trade partners.   So how the economy in both components goes would be important.

  When did Reagan make his famous/notorious computer chips and potato chips statement?  If its already happened that could come back to bite him given the loss of industrial power since - at least for the 2012 people.  Also the up timers will know a lot more details about the Iran-Contra deal and possibly other issues.

  Its going to be a difficult time for everybody with the USA split like this and a lot of disruption of their and hence the world economy.  Also how does Moscow take knowledge of the impending fall of the USSR?  Does it prompt faster reform or hard liners deciding to prevent it by whatever means?  A lot of issues to consider and all could play a part in the electoral issue.

  Steve

[insect]

Obama was born in 1961.in 1984 he would be 23 so Republicans would say he is ineligible but he is from 2012 but I can see someone saying that.

[stevep]

Apr 16, 2020 1:47:53 GMT insect said:

Obama was born in 1961.in 1984 he would be 23 so Republicans would say he is ineligible but he is from 2012 but I can see someone saying that.

  That definitely a possibility given all the Republicans got up to during his years as President, but there would be two big problems with that.

a)  While things are heated they are nothing like as venomous as in the 21st century so I suspect such a move might alienate a lot of 1984 voters from the Republicans.  I also suspect, while he did some nasty things while in power Reagan himself would oppose such an idea, either or moral grounds or simply because he realises it would backfire publically.

b)  By the same argument many if not most of the 2012 people would be too young to vote and a fair number would have a negative age.  I can't see that being accepted by all bar the most extreme Republican or racist so that would undermine any attempt to disqualify Obama on age grounds.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

This may be easily overshadowed by most elements of TTL's 1984 election, but I wonder what downtimers might make of this song praising Obama while he was still just a presidential candidate on the 2008 campaign trail?

The Hush Sound - We Believe in (Barack Obama)


Of course, I don't think that electoral music endorsing a certain candidate is unprecedented (JFK's jingle comes to mind right about now). But as far as being composed, released and performed by a private band instead of Obama's campaign, well...

[Zyobot]

As another elephant in the room that no one has brought up so far, how would the presidential debates between Presidents Reagan and Obama look? Aside from them sharing their plans for a better future and rebutting one another’s points as usual, I’ve a feeling that there’ll be quite the exchange of witty lines between the two. Maybe Reagan will try to reuse his “youth and inexperience” joke from the OTL 1984 debates, while Obama unknowingly takes inspiration from his OTL self’s “less horses and bayonets” quote from when he rebuked Mitt Romney’s proposals for the military.

Otherwise, I’m unsure how their sparring would look in practice. Well, except that I’d probably pay to watch the two of them debate on stage, of course.

[Zyobot]

With James G's point about downtimers being...harder for the Obama coalition to sway in their favor, I'm guessing that the 1984 DNC would find itself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, do they nominate their most obvious contender who has by far the largest following in the 2012 Democratic and swing states (which collectively amount to well over 270 electoral votes)? Or, do they opt for someone who's much less famous, but more acceptable to generic 1984 voters who harbor elements that might flip out once they learn that a black man was crowned the Democratic nominee (chiefly Southern Democrats still butthurt after losing the battle over Civil Rights)?

Personally, I think the most clear-cut choice is to nominate Obama anyway, even if those afflicted with Racist Derangement Syndrome lose their shit over it. Then moderate Eighties voters can see how toxic and crazy those elements of the electorate are, which might drive some portion of them into the arms of the awaiting Obama coalition. But that's just my take on some likely political strategy that I think uptimer Democrats might employ here.

[stevep]

Jun 18, 2020 16:10:30 GMT Zyobot said:

With James G's point about downtimers being...harder for the Obama coalition to sway in their favor, I'm guessing that the 1984 DNC would find itself between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, do they nominate their most obvious contender who has by far the largest following in the 2012 Democratic and swing states (which collectively amount to well over 270 electoral votes)? Or, do they opt for someone who's much less famous, but more acceptable to generic 1984 voters who harbor elements that might flip out once they learn that a black man was crowned the Democratic nominee (chiefly Southern Democrats still butthurt after losing the battle over Civil Rights)?

Personally, I think the most clear-cut choice is to nominate Obama anyway, even if those afflicted with Racist Derangement Syndrome lose their shit over it. Then moderate Eighties voters can see how toxic and crazy those elements of the electorate are, which might drive some portion of them into the arms of the awaiting Obama coalition. But that's just my take on some likely political strategy that I think uptimer Democrats might employ here.

  Isn't much of the old south Republican by now anyway, starting with Nixon's period?  As such their probably unlikely to get much support from those areas unless their really able to moblise the black vote.  More of a concern in parts of the north from 1984 who probably are going to be more affected by the idea of a black President driving them away from the Democrats and hence lose states they might otherwise win.

  One thing I would expect is that Obama, and possibly also Reagan would seek a VP from the other region to have an up-time/down-time mix but no idea who they might choose.  That not only makes both groups feel represented on the ticket but also means whoever wins will have someone who can give them a clearer idea how the other half of the country is thinking.

  Is Obama likely to mention the problems with Reagan's policies, i,e. Irangate - although that technically hasn't happened yet - or the major increases in debt and inequality coming from his tax cuts and higher military spending.  From the 2012 position also Starwars is a clear waste of money.  This is the advantage of the up-timer in that they have access to information that their down-timer opponents don't have.  Some up time Republicans can probably try to counter but there's no clear scandals for Obama and a fair amount of hate fables that could easily backfire in the views of the 1984 voters if their used.

[kyng]

Yeah, I don't see Obama picking up any states that he lost in 2012 here. Since they're all their 1984 versions, they'll be even less willing to vote for Obama than they were in 2012 (not only due to him being black, but also due to his stances on social issues being way out of step with what they were back then)

As for the Obama 2012 states... they're all in their 2012 versions. I can't see Reagan having much appeal to any Obama voters who were too young to vote in 1954 (that is, any who are under 46 years old in this election). However, I suspect that Reagan might make some inroads with his base of "Reagan Democrats" (at least, those who were still alive in 2012). Instead of voting "Reagan 1980 - Reagan 1984 - Obama 2012", perhaps some of those vote for Reagan a third time.

My gut feeling is: Reagan picks up a few of the closer Obama states, especially those he won by large margins in 1984 (e.g. Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio). This would be enough for a narrow Reagan Victory - although, he doesn't come close to winning California, because its demographics have changed too drastically.

[stevep]

Jun 20, 2020 21:45:20 GMT kyng said:

Yeah, I don't see Obama picking up any states that he lost in 2012 here. Since they're all their 1984 versions, they'll be even less willing to vote for Obama than they were in 2012 (not only due to him being black, but also due to his stances on social issues being way out of step with what they were back then)

As for the Obama 2012 states... they're all in their 2012 versions. I can't see Reagan having much appeal to any Obama voters who were too young to vote in 1954 (that is, any who are under 46 years old in this election). However, I suspect that Reagan might make some inroads with his base of "Reagan Democrats" (at least, those who were still alive in 2012). Instead of voting "Reagan 1980 - Reagan 1984 - Obama 2012", perhaps some of those vote for Reagan a third time.

My gut feeling is: Reagan picks up a few of the closer Obama states, especially those he won by large margins in 1984 (e.g. Florida, New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio). This would be enough for a narrow Reagan Victory - although, he doesn't come close to winning California, because its demographics have changed too drastically.

  Could be.  Impossible to tell for sure how things would have gone and especially how both populations would have reacted to the shock of such an event.  Both were famous for being good communicators.  Also both were helped by replacing Presidents and policies that had been seen as major failures who had led the country to a period of serious decline, Carter in 1980 and Bush in 2008.  Going up against Presidents who were seen as successful by their supporters and dubiously by their opponents would make for a hell of a fight.