Background
BACKGROUND
THE REPUBLICANS
The GOP has controlled the White House since 1968, but its welcome is becoming worn out, especially in the wake of Watergate. No matter who is nominated, they’re going to have a hell of a time retaining the executive branch.
Gerald Ford: the incumbent President. His policies have left him as a deeply unpopular incumbent, notably his pardon of Richard Nixon. In addition, his centrist policies have deeply enraged conservatives within the GOP, best embodied by the anger over Nelson Rockefeller’s appointment as Vice President. Holding the Oval Office gives him a major advantage, but the primaries will definitely not come easy for him.
Ronald Reagan: former Governor of California. The undisputed leader of the revived conservative movement, he’s led a crusade against government spending and urban crime in his state, and has spoken out for unyielding foreign policy. Tapping into the aforementioned conservative anger, his plan is to bring conservatism back to the White House, but doing so requires toppling an incumbent President in the primaries, a feat not accomplished in nearly a century.
THE DEMOCRATS
The Democratic Party is back, and it’s on the rise. 1974 was very promising, with supermajorities becoming a reality as they rail against the corruption of Nixon and Ford’s blind-eye approach to such. However, with so many clamoring for the White House, it’s anyone’s guess who will make it.
Jimmy Carter: former Governor of Georgia. A complete unknown on the national stage, Carter is an example of the “New South” of moderate pro-civil rights leaders in the South. However, despite his virtually nonexistent profile, he may have a plan to win...
Fred Harris: an Oklahoma Senator, Harris is a liberal from a decidedly illiberal state. Despite a near miss as triple H’s running mate in 1968, losing out to Ed Muskie, he’s still a relatively low-profile figure nationally.
Mo Udall: one of the twists of a large primary field, Arizona Representative Morris “Mo” Udall is an independently-minded left-leaning Arizonan, one renowned for his charisma and sense of humor. While relatively low-profile before, Udall may become more notable, but whether any sort of win is likely is another story.
Henry “Scoop” Jackson: Washington Senator, foreign policy hawk, and all-around Cold War Democratic poster child. One of the frontrunners of this campaign, and a national figure due to his foreign policy critiques. However, it’s unclear if Jackson can convert this into a winning campaign, as one of the most conservative Democrats running.
Lloyd Bentsen: Texas Senator. A moderate who unseated Ralph Yarborough in the primary, he’s a resurgent figure after a tenure in Congress as a young man in the 1950s. He’s scored convincing wins in Texas, keeping a waning Democratic tradition in the Lone Star State alive. While young and relatively inexperienced, he at least knows he’s no Jack Kennedy.
Terry Sanford: former North Carolina Governor, Sanford hopes to show the face of the “New South” as well, by demonstrating his progressive civil rights stances and liberal stances elsewhere. However, his return after nearly a decade leaves him with a decidedly low profile.
Sargent Shriver: Kennedy associate, ambassador, and all-around liberal. However, Sarge Shriver has one major problem, and it comes in the form of George McGovern. Acting as a replacement running mate following Tom Eagleton’s removal, Shriver will struggle to shake the ball and chain that is McGovern’s disastrous 1972 defeat.
Milton Shapp: Governor of Pennsylvania, and severely limited quantity with a near-zero chance of winning the primaries.
Birch Bayh: an avowed liberal Senator from Indiana, Bayh is… honestly not much to talk about.
George Wallace: the once and future Alabama Governor, and future resident of Satan’s penthouse. Wallace is utterly infamous for his anti-civil rights stances, even physically standing in a schoolhouse door to prevent integration. However, after his 1972 campaign, he can’t pull that feat again. His energy and fighting spirit isn’t gone, but it’s limited by his wheelchair and his deteriorating health.
Jerry Brown: a late addition to the race, and Ronald Reagan’s successor in Sacramento. Brown is a heavy fiscal conservative, otherwise liberal, and gubernatorial neophyte. He can be described as both “rather conservative” and “rather liberal” relative to the other candidates, which doesn’t harm his popularity but does make it mildly difficult to sort out where he stands at times.
Frank Church: Idaho Senator, and a foreign policy wonk only rivaled by Scoop Jackson. One of the first Anti-Vietnam Senators, Church led a high-profile committee investigating abuses by the FBI and CIA. He is a known quantity, but he needs to expand out of his intelligence bubble to succeed.
Robert Byrd: a Senator from West Virginia, Byrd is undoubtedly not going far at all, as there’s not much to discuss here.
In this backdrop, we see one of the largest political curveballs of the post-war US, although it seemed absurd at the time: enter Charles Mathias. “Mac” was a complete rarity, a liberal Republican senator from Maryland, who, despite being a Republican in deep-blue Maryland, was even re-elected in the Democratic wave of 1974. He was a noted enemy of the conservatives and their prophet, Ronald Reagan, and fought with them in Congress frequently, even earning the ire of Richard Nixon. However, after polls showed Reagan gaining on the president, Mac knew he couldn’t stomach that, and launched a longshot to top all longshots.
Mathias was immediately lambasted by the press. His campaign was referred to as "a stroll for the presidency" by columnist George Will. He was running left of the President against a growing conservative movement, why would he ever win? Why was he even doing this? Notably, Governor Reagan even labeled him as “Senator Don Quixote” in a speech, drawing a burst of laughter from the crowd. Mathias was looking to just be a dissident voice that was overshadowed by the star power of Reagan and the executive power of Ford. However, Mac had a plan.
Mathias knew that early states would be the most vital in the new system, as two other candidates, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had picked up on. Due to Reagan’s state of choice being New Hampshire, Mac made the decision to stick to Iowa. In addition, another major detail about the nature of Reagan’s rise hit Mac - moderates who disliked Ford were split: they either took him over Reagan’s conservatism, or they swallowed an ideological pill to not get Ford back. Thus, the pathway for the Mathias campaign emerged.
“I’m Mac Mathias, and you probably have only a vague idea of who I am, if any at all. I’m a Senator from Maryland, a proud fighter against corruption and for everyday Americans, and now, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. These past administrations have been nothing but corrupt, and I’ve been one of the first in this party to admit that. I supported Nixon's impeachment, taking a stand nearly none in my party had the backbone to do, including the President, who pardoned a man who deserved no such dignity. However, that’s not all I have to say. I need to say, Reaganite conservatism isn’t the response to corruption and nonsense. Governor Reagan is not a continuation of the Nixon administration, sure. He’s not going to appoint Henry Kissinger, okay. He’s not going to pardon crooks, fine. But his burn-the-house-down approach is not the answer to bad government either. We can’t abandon our values as a nation, and by following Reagan’s path we abandon voters of all stripes, those who stand to be hurt the most from slashed welfare, in favor of special interests. I’m here to bring a real option against the Nixon/Ford eight-year run that doesn’t involve hurting so many Americans. That’s why I’m running for president, it’s to change the channel on the ridiculous show playing in Washington.”
This sort of stump speech was given by Mac all across the state, from counter-tops in Des Moines diners to barns in small towns no politician would visit in their right mind to even a rousing speech given from off of a literal stump in Sioux City. If there was over two hundred people in any part of Iowa, you were nearly guaranteed to find “the Senator from La Mancha” there at some point, firing up the locals in some way, whether it was professing for civil rights (“America is a nation for all the people, and by fighting against civil rights and their policies in the name of ‘state’s rights,’ you fight the very soul of this country!”), jabbing at Ford, often to ripples of laughter (“What did New York even do to him to deserve that? Did he get food poisoning from a bad pizza or something?”), or even calling back to Reagan’s acting career (“Don’t you have somewhere to be instead of New Hampshire, Mr. Governor? Bonzo needs to be put to bed!”). Nationally, his profile was still tiny. In Iowa, however, Mac Mathias and his passionate, humor-filled speeches began to win Iowans over, preparing them to “Change The Channel,” as his campaign slogan became from that speech. By January, Ford and Reagan still led in Iowa, but Mathias was undoubtedly gaining. As caucus day came, a nasty surprise was in for one of the camps:
IOWA CAUCUS - 1/19
REPUBLICAN
Gerald Ford: 34.6%
Charles Mathias: 34.1%
Ronald Reagan: 32.3%
DEMOCRATIC
Uncommitted: 37.2%
Jimmy Carter: 27.6%
Birch Bayh: 13.2%
Fred Harris: 9.9%
Mo Udall: 6.0%
Sargent Shriver: 3.3%
Scoop Jackson: 1.1%
Suddenly, the nation cared about this barnstorming Marylander who came in second, and more importantly, Reagan and Ford both cared a hell of a lot more. Ford had only won by a razor's edge, and Reagan had been nudged to third. Reagan ramped up his campaign in New Hampshire, just to keep lost ground after Mathias’ post-Iowa bounce. Meanwhile, Ford pushed onwards to Massachusetts, to hold down enough moderates to eke out a victory. The barnstorming dragged on, and as February rolled around, margins had continued to narrow, showing New Hampshire as a Ford-Reagan contest, and Massachusetts as a Ford-Mathias contest.
NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY - 2/24
REPUBLICAN
Ronald Reagan: 41.2%
Gerald Ford: 40.7%
Charles Mathias: 18.1%
DEMOCRATIC
Jimmy Carter: 28.4%
Mo Udall: 22.7%
Birch Bayh: 15.2%
Fred Harris: 10.8%
Sargent Shriver: 8.2%
Scoop Jackson: 2.2%
George Wallace: 1.3%
MASSACHUSETTS PRIMARY - 3/2
REPUBLICAN
Charles Mathias: 40.1%
Gerald Ford: 39.6%
Ronald Reagan: 26.3%
DEMOCRATIC
Scoop Jackson: 22.3%
Mo Udall: 17.7%
George Wallace: 16.7%
Jimmy Carter: 13.9%
Fred Harris: 7.6%
Sargent Shriver: 7.2%
Birch Bayh: 4.8%
Other: 9.8%
VERMONT PRIMARY - 3/2
REPUBLICAN
Charles Mathias: 43.3%
Gerald Ford: 42.5%
Ronald Reagan: 14.2%
DEMOCRATIC
Jimmy Carter: 45.8%
Sargent Shriver: 30.5%
Fred Harris: 14.2%
Other: 9.4%
And thus, 1976 was shaping up to be a wild ride of a year, electorally. The Republicans had went to become anybody’s game, while the Democrats were surprisingly led by Jimmy Carter. Truly, the nation was in for a shock to the system during a decade that had been nothing but shock after shock.
Tune in next time for the result of the primary season!
THE REPUBLICANS
The GOP has controlled the White House since 1968, but its welcome is becoming worn out, especially in the wake of Watergate. No matter who is nominated, they’re going to have a hell of a time retaining the executive branch.
Gerald Ford: the incumbent President. His policies have left him as a deeply unpopular incumbent, notably his pardon of Richard Nixon. In addition, his centrist policies have deeply enraged conservatives within the GOP, best embodied by the anger over Nelson Rockefeller’s appointment as Vice President. Holding the Oval Office gives him a major advantage, but the primaries will definitely not come easy for him.
Ronald Reagan: former Governor of California. The undisputed leader of the revived conservative movement, he’s led a crusade against government spending and urban crime in his state, and has spoken out for unyielding foreign policy. Tapping into the aforementioned conservative anger, his plan is to bring conservatism back to the White House, but doing so requires toppling an incumbent President in the primaries, a feat not accomplished in nearly a century.
THE DEMOCRATS
The Democratic Party is back, and it’s on the rise. 1974 was very promising, with supermajorities becoming a reality as they rail against the corruption of Nixon and Ford’s blind-eye approach to such. However, with so many clamoring for the White House, it’s anyone’s guess who will make it.
Jimmy Carter: former Governor of Georgia. A complete unknown on the national stage, Carter is an example of the “New South” of moderate pro-civil rights leaders in the South. However, despite his virtually nonexistent profile, he may have a plan to win...
Fred Harris: an Oklahoma Senator, Harris is a liberal from a decidedly illiberal state. Despite a near miss as triple H’s running mate in 1968, losing out to Ed Muskie, he’s still a relatively low-profile figure nationally.
Mo Udall: one of the twists of a large primary field, Arizona Representative Morris “Mo” Udall is an independently-minded left-leaning Arizonan, one renowned for his charisma and sense of humor. While relatively low-profile before, Udall may become more notable, but whether any sort of win is likely is another story.
Henry “Scoop” Jackson: Washington Senator, foreign policy hawk, and all-around Cold War Democratic poster child. One of the frontrunners of this campaign, and a national figure due to his foreign policy critiques. However, it’s unclear if Jackson can convert this into a winning campaign, as one of the most conservative Democrats running.
Lloyd Bentsen: Texas Senator. A moderate who unseated Ralph Yarborough in the primary, he’s a resurgent figure after a tenure in Congress as a young man in the 1950s. He’s scored convincing wins in Texas, keeping a waning Democratic tradition in the Lone Star State alive. While young and relatively inexperienced, he at least knows he’s no Jack Kennedy.
Terry Sanford: former North Carolina Governor, Sanford hopes to show the face of the “New South” as well, by demonstrating his progressive civil rights stances and liberal stances elsewhere. However, his return after nearly a decade leaves him with a decidedly low profile.
Sargent Shriver: Kennedy associate, ambassador, and all-around liberal. However, Sarge Shriver has one major problem, and it comes in the form of George McGovern. Acting as a replacement running mate following Tom Eagleton’s removal, Shriver will struggle to shake the ball and chain that is McGovern’s disastrous 1972 defeat.
Milton Shapp: Governor of Pennsylvania, and severely limited quantity with a near-zero chance of winning the primaries.
Birch Bayh: an avowed liberal Senator from Indiana, Bayh is… honestly not much to talk about.
George Wallace: the once and future Alabama Governor, and future resident of Satan’s penthouse. Wallace is utterly infamous for his anti-civil rights stances, even physically standing in a schoolhouse door to prevent integration. However, after his 1972 campaign, he can’t pull that feat again. His energy and fighting spirit isn’t gone, but it’s limited by his wheelchair and his deteriorating health.
Jerry Brown: a late addition to the race, and Ronald Reagan’s successor in Sacramento. Brown is a heavy fiscal conservative, otherwise liberal, and gubernatorial neophyte. He can be described as both “rather conservative” and “rather liberal” relative to the other candidates, which doesn’t harm his popularity but does make it mildly difficult to sort out where he stands at times.
Frank Church: Idaho Senator, and a foreign policy wonk only rivaled by Scoop Jackson. One of the first Anti-Vietnam Senators, Church led a high-profile committee investigating abuses by the FBI and CIA. He is a known quantity, but he needs to expand out of his intelligence bubble to succeed.
Robert Byrd: a Senator from West Virginia, Byrd is undoubtedly not going far at all, as there’s not much to discuss here.
In this backdrop, we see one of the largest political curveballs of the post-war US, although it seemed absurd at the time: enter Charles Mathias. “Mac” was a complete rarity, a liberal Republican senator from Maryland, who, despite being a Republican in deep-blue Maryland, was even re-elected in the Democratic wave of 1974. He was a noted enemy of the conservatives and their prophet, Ronald Reagan, and fought with them in Congress frequently, even earning the ire of Richard Nixon. However, after polls showed Reagan gaining on the president, Mac knew he couldn’t stomach that, and launched a longshot to top all longshots.
Mathias was immediately lambasted by the press. His campaign was referred to as "a stroll for the presidency" by columnist George Will. He was running left of the President against a growing conservative movement, why would he ever win? Why was he even doing this? Notably, Governor Reagan even labeled him as “Senator Don Quixote” in a speech, drawing a burst of laughter from the crowd. Mathias was looking to just be a dissident voice that was overshadowed by the star power of Reagan and the executive power of Ford. However, Mac had a plan.
Mathias knew that early states would be the most vital in the new system, as two other candidates, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had picked up on. Due to Reagan’s state of choice being New Hampshire, Mac made the decision to stick to Iowa. In addition, another major detail about the nature of Reagan’s rise hit Mac - moderates who disliked Ford were split: they either took him over Reagan’s conservatism, or they swallowed an ideological pill to not get Ford back. Thus, the pathway for the Mathias campaign emerged.
“I’m Mac Mathias, and you probably have only a vague idea of who I am, if any at all. I’m a Senator from Maryland, a proud fighter against corruption and for everyday Americans, and now, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. These past administrations have been nothing but corrupt, and I’ve been one of the first in this party to admit that. I supported Nixon's impeachment, taking a stand nearly none in my party had the backbone to do, including the President, who pardoned a man who deserved no such dignity. However, that’s not all I have to say. I need to say, Reaganite conservatism isn’t the response to corruption and nonsense. Governor Reagan is not a continuation of the Nixon administration, sure. He’s not going to appoint Henry Kissinger, okay. He’s not going to pardon crooks, fine. But his burn-the-house-down approach is not the answer to bad government either. We can’t abandon our values as a nation, and by following Reagan’s path we abandon voters of all stripes, those who stand to be hurt the most from slashed welfare, in favor of special interests. I’m here to bring a real option against the Nixon/Ford eight-year run that doesn’t involve hurting so many Americans. That’s why I’m running for president, it’s to change the channel on the ridiculous show playing in Washington.”
This sort of stump speech was given by Mac all across the state, from counter-tops in Des Moines diners to barns in small towns no politician would visit in their right mind to even a rousing speech given from off of a literal stump in Sioux City. If there was over two hundred people in any part of Iowa, you were nearly guaranteed to find “the Senator from La Mancha” there at some point, firing up the locals in some way, whether it was professing for civil rights (“America is a nation for all the people, and by fighting against civil rights and their policies in the name of ‘state’s rights,’ you fight the very soul of this country!”), jabbing at Ford, often to ripples of laughter (“What did New York even do to him to deserve that? Did he get food poisoning from a bad pizza or something?”), or even calling back to Reagan’s acting career (“Don’t you have somewhere to be instead of New Hampshire, Mr. Governor? Bonzo needs to be put to bed!”). Nationally, his profile was still tiny. In Iowa, however, Mac Mathias and his passionate, humor-filled speeches began to win Iowans over, preparing them to “Change The Channel,” as his campaign slogan became from that speech. By January, Ford and Reagan still led in Iowa, but Mathias was undoubtedly gaining. As caucus day came, a nasty surprise was in for one of the camps:
IOWA CAUCUS - 1/19
REPUBLICAN
Gerald Ford: 34.6%
Charles Mathias: 34.1%
Ronald Reagan: 32.3%
DEMOCRATIC
Uncommitted: 37.2%
Jimmy Carter: 27.6%
Birch Bayh: 13.2%
Fred Harris: 9.9%
Mo Udall: 6.0%
Sargent Shriver: 3.3%
Scoop Jackson: 1.1%
Suddenly, the nation cared about this barnstorming Marylander who came in second, and more importantly, Reagan and Ford both cared a hell of a lot more. Ford had only won by a razor's edge, and Reagan had been nudged to third. Reagan ramped up his campaign in New Hampshire, just to keep lost ground after Mathias’ post-Iowa bounce. Meanwhile, Ford pushed onwards to Massachusetts, to hold down enough moderates to eke out a victory. The barnstorming dragged on, and as February rolled around, margins had continued to narrow, showing New Hampshire as a Ford-Reagan contest, and Massachusetts as a Ford-Mathias contest.
NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY - 2/24
REPUBLICAN
Ronald Reagan: 41.2%
Gerald Ford: 40.7%
Charles Mathias: 18.1%
DEMOCRATIC
Jimmy Carter: 28.4%
Mo Udall: 22.7%
Birch Bayh: 15.2%
Fred Harris: 10.8%
Sargent Shriver: 8.2%
Scoop Jackson: 2.2%
George Wallace: 1.3%
MASSACHUSETTS PRIMARY - 3/2
REPUBLICAN
Charles Mathias: 40.1%
Gerald Ford: 39.6%
Ronald Reagan: 26.3%
DEMOCRATIC
Scoop Jackson: 22.3%
Mo Udall: 17.7%
George Wallace: 16.7%
Jimmy Carter: 13.9%
Fred Harris: 7.6%
Sargent Shriver: 7.2%
Birch Bayh: 4.8%
Other: 9.8%
VERMONT PRIMARY - 3/2
REPUBLICAN
Charles Mathias: 43.3%
Gerald Ford: 42.5%
Ronald Reagan: 14.2%
DEMOCRATIC
Jimmy Carter: 45.8%
Sargent Shriver: 30.5%
Fred Harris: 14.2%
Other: 9.4%
And thus, 1976 was shaping up to be a wild ride of a year, electorally. The Republicans had went to become anybody’s game, while the Democrats were surprisingly led by Jimmy Carter. Truly, the nation was in for a shock to the system during a decade that had been nothing but shock after shock.
Tune in next time for the result of the primary season!
Last edited:
