IOTL the 1976 election went from being a potential landslide victory for the democrats into a very narrow victory due to a number of factors. By having the democratic nominee be someone besides carter, how well would they realistically have done against Ford? How would it have affected downballot races?
Alternate dem nominee for 1976 election
- Thread starter Archon00062
- Start date
It really depends who the nominee is, honestly. Someone like Frank Church or Mo Udall won’t dominate a region like Carter did the South, which means that they have to win states across the country where they might face various challenges. I think it’s difficult to envision someone who can both win a primary and dominate a national election in 1976 outside of a Chappaquiddickless Teddy K or Humphrey or Mondale, and the latter 2 aren’t going to run. The best choice might be a brokered convention going with Fred Harris or John Glenn, but it’s hard to imagine the convention settling on either of them.
Frank Church would have beaten Ford pretty handily imo, would have had much stronger support from labor and the new deal wing of the party and as a Westerner himself he’d have more appeal in the west than a normal new dealer would. Ford’s rose-garden won’t work nearly as well (if he does it in this alt-election) against an incredibly well-respected powerful senator like it did against an outsider governor. And Church wouldn’t have done anything as dumb as Carter’s playboy interview
Not one who can be easily attacked or negatively painted as McGovern (for example). I'd say he eeks it out but he'd never have the big polling lead that Carter had.
Henry Jackson. A liberal on domestic affairs but a hardliner on foreign affairs and defence. He would have carried the South through the latter.
Chapman
Donor
Jerry Brown/Birch Bayh is a ticket I think could beat out Ford. Brown was/is eccentric for sure and runs the risk of being painted as crazy and inexperienced (he had only just became Governor of California in 1975) but I think he has the potential to win. He wouldn't win the south, probably being shut out entirely, but he has a chance to flip his home state plus potentially Oregon and Washington on the west coast. He might also do better than Carter in Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. If he goes for Bayh as VP then the two of them might do well in the midwest - Indiana probably won't be in play but you never know, Ford only won it by about 8% so it's not unthinkable. Brown's strong fiscal conservatism ironically might hurt him in trying to become the Democratic nominee, but could help him in the general election. If he can avoid major gaffes and keep Ford's feet to the fire I think he could pull it off.
He’s got the Nelson Rockefeller problem: would probably be a great candidate to win the general election, would face extremely difficult odds of ever winning the nomination.
I've always felt that the "potential landslide" was an artifact of the spring-summer polls when the GOP was torn betwen Ford and Reagan while Carter looked triumphant among the Democrats--and then of course Carter got a convention bounce.
IMO fundamentals always pointed to the election being close. A westerner--Udall? Church? even Brown?--would no doubt have done worse than Carter in the South but might have made up for it in western states Carter lost, above all CA but also OR, WA, NM, and NV. Also a northern or western candidate might have seemed less culturally alien to voters in IL (except southern IL), NJ, CT, and MI.
I would be wary of anyone who said *either* that no Democrat but Carter could have won *or* that the Democrats would clearly have done better with another candidate.
IMO fundamentals always pointed to the election being close. A westerner--Udall? Church? even Brown?--would no doubt have done worse than Carter in the South but might have made up for it in western states Carter lost, above all CA but also OR, WA, NM, and NV. Also a northern or western candidate might have seemed less culturally alien to voters in IL (except southern IL), NJ, CT, and MI.
I would be wary of anyone who said *either* that no Democrat but Carter could have won *or* that the Democrats would clearly have done better with another candidate.
Last edited:
marktaha
Banned
Would have voted for him but Jackson as candidate would have lost more votes to McCarthy than he took from Ford.
Not sure I agree. I think he does almost as well as Carter in the South, better in the West, a bit better in the Midwest given his closer ties to unions, and a bit better in the northeast given his ties to the establishment Dems.
Senator Fred Harris is from the conservative state of Oklahoma, which is also an oil state,
And yet,
He ran an anti-corporate campaign. Who’s keeping us down? The big corporations, esp. the oil companies. You want “high concept” kind of like a Hollywood movie, let’s say he catches this wave about right. And given that a second oil shock was “on schedule” for 1979, let’s say Fred Harris has as good a chance as anyone to still be popular in 1980!
(Announcement made Jan. 11, 1975)
“The change in the Presidential campaign financing laws mean that a few rich people won't choose our President in 1976. Federal financing, including federal matching funds in the primaries, together with severe restrictions of contributions and spending, mean that the people now have a fighting chance against the ITTs and the Gulf Oils.”
****************************
Yes, Fred Harris ran an anti-corporate campaign. And this is from Jan. 1975, so plenty of time before the Iowa Caucus Jan. 76 and the New Hampshire primary Feb. 76. Or at least it seems like plenty of time to me.
* If Harris makes it to the general election, I think a higher % of American voters respond to an anti-gov’t message than they do to an anti-corp message.
Jerry Brown as the Democratic nominee is probably one of the few ways you'll get Ford to crack 350+ EVs. This NYT article by Richard Reeves, which was later reprinted in the book 'Old Faces of 76' paints a picture of a fascinating figure, who would also probably fall flat on his face on the nation scene. Some choice lines:
Jerry Ford is hardly the most graceful of politicians but he'd look positively Lincolnesque when compared against Brown. Someone, who in the Democratic wave year of 1974, eeked out a 3 point win in California after blowing a large lead in the polls.
Ford's rose garden strategy would be tailor made to beat a candidate like Moonbeam.
Last edited:
@GDIS Pathe
about Jerry Brown:
“I am going to starve the schools financially until I get some educational reforms,” said the Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr.
“What reforms? What do you want?” asked Jack Rees, the executive director of the California Teachers Association.
“I don't know yet.”
*****************************
Overall . . what a mix of left and right populism!
And I guess this would an example of right-wing populism. So, there are a 100 things Brown doesn’t know about public schools. But he knows that he’s pretty much, umm, . . against the whole thing!
In particular, the occasional reality, and much exaggerated urban legend, that you can’t fire a clearly crappy teacher. (I’m guessing, but that’s pretty much the crux of the matter in a lot of cases)
about Jerry Brown:
“I am going to starve the schools financially until I get some educational reforms,” said the Governor of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr.
“What reforms? What do you want?” asked Jack Rees, the executive director of the California Teachers Association.
“I don't know yet.”
*****************************
Overall . . what a mix of left and right populism!
And I guess this would an example of right-wing populism. So, there are a 100 things Brown doesn’t know about public schools. But he knows that he’s pretty much, umm, . . against the whole thing!
In particular, the occasional reality, and much exaggerated urban legend, that you can’t fire a clearly crappy teacher. (I’m guessing, but that’s pretty much the crux of the matter in a lot of cases)
Last edited:
I mean... practically any of the OTL candidates are realistic nominees provided they actually figure out the primary system like Carter's people did, and get in early enough in Iowa/New Hampshire. Carter won simply because he was organisationally and strategically clued-in to the new system. Pretty much no-one else was.
The OTL reception of Brown in the primaries definitely suggests he was a realistic nominee if he'd just started early enough.
Basically that early momentum paid big dividends with fundraising and news coverage, right?
Yeah. Carter was just doing things more or less how they're done today; start from the beginning and keep going. We forget how many people found working the primary system difficult to comprehend, or just couldn't be arsed with the full process.
Though I suppose some people to this day delude themselves they can jump in halfway through.