Ronald Reagan came so close to securing the Republican nomination in 1976, nearly defeating an incumbent President too, but fell just short because his pick for VP alienated some conservatives. Let's say that Reagan somehow wins the nomination and bests Ford (which I don't believe will require too much effort), and gears up to face Jimmy Carter in the general election. How does Reagan fare as a nominee in 1976? Without the baggage Gerald Ford carried does he win? Or does he lose by a larger margin than Ford did because of his views? In which areas of the United States would Reagan overperform in compared to Ford, and which areas would he underperform? Which states would he carry?
Electoral map in 1976 with Reagan as the GOP Nominee
- Thread starter Bomster
- Start date
Okay, so this could be unpopular because Reagan seems to be one of the most hated figures on this site, but I think Reagan wins. Not by his 1980 margin, but he still wins nonetheless. The 1976 election was damn close being Ford v. Carter, and Reagan was just simply a better candidate than Ford. He was a much better speaker, and has much stronger support from his base. Reagan also doesn't have the whole Nixon pardon tainting him, nor is he associated with the corruption of DC. He's obviously not as pure and clean as Carter (no one is), but if we assume Carter still makes the mistakes he made IOTL such as the playboy interview, I think Reagan wins by 2-3% in the popular vote, and could flip states like Mississippi, Texas, Missouri, and maybe Ohio and Pennsylvania. If he just flips MS, MO, and TX and loses ME and OR, that would put him at 275 and Carter at 263.
Would Reagan carry Michigan, which IOTL was Ford's home state would could explain why he carried it?
I agree with Hcira1. Reagan was a better campaigner than was Ford and not have the Nixon pardon, which outweighs the extremist reputation.
The actual election between Reagan and Carter in 1980 makes for an interesting comparison. Reagan won with a 9.7% nationwide popular vote margin, with a recession, the embargo, the Iranian crisis, and Carter's unpopularity with the Democratic establishment all hurting Carter. Reagan also carried 45 states. However, Carter ran close to Reagan in the polls during the campaign, and Reagan's nationwide popular vote total was 50.7%, only 2.7% higher than Ford got in 1976.
I think that without Carter's problems as an incumbent, the hypothetical 1976 race plays out like the actual 1980 race, with the polls being close , but the difference is that there is no sudden Reagan surge at the end, with him winning the nationwide popular vote by between 2% and 3%. He also wins the debates as long as he avoids making a gaffe.
In the OTL 1976 campaign, Ford carried eight states with less than 2% of the vote: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Oklahoma, Virginia, South Dakota, California, and Illinois. Does Reagan's reputation as being more conservative mean he loses any of these, despite improving on Ford's nationwide popular vote total by 2% to 3%? I think he could lose Oregon, Maine, and Iowa, totaling 18 EVs. The other five were not as close and/ or Reagan's conservative reputation would have hurt him left. He is almost certain to lose Oregon, the closest Ford state and not all that conservative.
Carter carried Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi with less than 2% of the vote, totalling 43 EVs. Reagan will at least carry Ohio and Mississippi and pick up 32 of these EVs.
Reagan needs a 29 EV swing to win, assuming he picks up the vote of the California elector who IOTL voted for Reagan. The electoral vote will be close. Taking Ohio and Mississippi and losing none of the Ford states gets Reagan to 273 and is enough. Carter's margins were 0.3% in Ohio and 1.9% in Mississippi. If Carter wins Oregon, Reagan will have to win Wisconsin (OTL 1.7% Carter margin) as well. Wisconsin had one more EV (11) than Oregon and Maine combined (10), so as long as Reagan wins Ohio, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, he can afford to lose both Oregon and Maine and still win. He has more of a problem if Carter also manages to win Iowa (1% OTL Ford margin), since the four next closest Carter states had margins of between 2% and 4%.
I went through the Senate elections in 1976, and the one place where switching the Republican candidates might of made a difference was Ohio, where Howard Metzenbaum, the Democrat, defeated incumbent Republican Robert Taft Jr. by a 3% margin. IOTL, Carter carried the state and this was the closest margin of any Senate election. In most of the other ones the margins were too big, and the few with small margins would not have been affected by the switch. ITTL, Reagan running 2% to 3% ahead of Ford and carrying the state could well have made a difference. Of course, Reagan being the incumbent after 1977 starts affecting the Senate elections in subsequent cycles. I suspect that if Taft wins, the Democrats still win that seat in 1982.
The OTL House of Representatives elections saw the Democrats make a net gain of a single seat, with an apparent 1.6% popular vote swing to the Republicans. I did go through the close races, and the problem here is that even with a slightly stronger presidential candidate, any additional seats the Democrats would have lost due to close races were in districts they would have likely won back in the better environment of the 1978 midterms, and with the one exception, the Congressman switched parties to the GOP anyway. Maybe an additional dozen GOP seats at the most, not much of a dent in the Democratic margin, and there aren't even many butterflies since the Democrats just win most of them back two years later.
The actual election between Reagan and Carter in 1980 makes for an interesting comparison. Reagan won with a 9.7% nationwide popular vote margin, with a recession, the embargo, the Iranian crisis, and Carter's unpopularity with the Democratic establishment all hurting Carter. Reagan also carried 45 states. However, Carter ran close to Reagan in the polls during the campaign, and Reagan's nationwide popular vote total was 50.7%, only 2.7% higher than Ford got in 1976.
I think that without Carter's problems as an incumbent, the hypothetical 1976 race plays out like the actual 1980 race, with the polls being close , but the difference is that there is no sudden Reagan surge at the end, with him winning the nationwide popular vote by between 2% and 3%. He also wins the debates as long as he avoids making a gaffe.
In the OTL 1976 campaign, Ford carried eight states with less than 2% of the vote: Oregon, Maine, Iowa, Oklahoma, Virginia, South Dakota, California, and Illinois. Does Reagan's reputation as being more conservative mean he loses any of these, despite improving on Ford's nationwide popular vote total by 2% to 3%? I think he could lose Oregon, Maine, and Iowa, totaling 18 EVs. The other five were not as close and/ or Reagan's conservative reputation would have hurt him left. He is almost certain to lose Oregon, the closest Ford state and not all that conservative.
Carter carried Ohio, Wisconsin, and Mississippi with less than 2% of the vote, totalling 43 EVs. Reagan will at least carry Ohio and Mississippi and pick up 32 of these EVs.
Reagan needs a 29 EV swing to win, assuming he picks up the vote of the California elector who IOTL voted for Reagan. The electoral vote will be close. Taking Ohio and Mississippi and losing none of the Ford states gets Reagan to 273 and is enough. Carter's margins were 0.3% in Ohio and 1.9% in Mississippi. If Carter wins Oregon, Reagan will have to win Wisconsin (OTL 1.7% Carter margin) as well. Wisconsin had one more EV (11) than Oregon and Maine combined (10), so as long as Reagan wins Ohio, Mississippi, and Wisconsin, he can afford to lose both Oregon and Maine and still win. He has more of a problem if Carter also manages to win Iowa (1% OTL Ford margin), since the four next closest Carter states had margins of between 2% and 4%.
I went through the Senate elections in 1976, and the one place where switching the Republican candidates might of made a difference was Ohio, where Howard Metzenbaum, the Democrat, defeated incumbent Republican Robert Taft Jr. by a 3% margin. IOTL, Carter carried the state and this was the closest margin of any Senate election. In most of the other ones the margins were too big, and the few with small margins would not have been affected by the switch. ITTL, Reagan running 2% to 3% ahead of Ford and carrying the state could well have made a difference. Of course, Reagan being the incumbent after 1977 starts affecting the Senate elections in subsequent cycles. I suspect that if Taft wins, the Democrats still win that seat in 1982.
The OTL House of Representatives elections saw the Democrats make a net gain of a single seat, with an apparent 1.6% popular vote swing to the Republicans. I did go through the close races, and the problem here is that even with a slightly stronger presidential candidate, any additional seats the Democrats would have lost due to close races were in districts they would have likely won back in the better environment of the 1978 midterms, and with the one exception, the Congressman switched parties to the GOP anyway. Maybe an additional dozen GOP seats at the most, not much of a dent in the Democratic margin, and there aren't even many butterflies since the Democrats just win most of them back two years later.
Interesting question above about Michigan. IOTL, Ford won it in 1976 with a 5.4% margin, while losing the nationwide popular vote by less than 1%. Reagan carried the state in 1980 with a 6.4% margin, 3.3% less than his nationwide popular vote margin of 9.7%. This suggests that without Ford on the ballot, Michigan will be close, but Reagan still wins it with a nationwide popular vote margin of 2% to 3%.
If Reagan is the GOP nominee, does Ford still attempt to run or does he just accept that he got screwed?
How does this look for a map?
Also the easiest POD for Reagan to win the 1976 RNC is for him to name someone other than Richard Schweiker as his veep. Who are some other plausible candidates for Reagan? Also would Liberal Republicans, like in 1980, turn to third parties? Perhaps Eugene McCarthy, the Libertarians, or their own candidate (John Anderson 4 years early, or maybe Pete McClokey)?
Last edited:
I think Reagan would win Texas and Missouri, but other than that I agree with your mapHow does this look for a map?
Also the easiest POD for Reagan to win the 1976 RNC is for him to name someone other than Richard Schweiker as his veep. Who are some other plausible candidates for Reagan? Also would Liberal Republicans, like in 1980, turn to third parties? Perhaps Eugene McCarthy, the Libertarians, or their own candidate (John Anderson 4 years early, or maybe Pete McClokey)?
There’s a convincing argument to be made either way. I tend to think it’s possible Reagan wins because of his strengths as a campaigner. However, it’s worth noting that Carter actually had a fair amount of evangelical support. The evangelical Christian base was not yet consolidated in one party. That process was already on a pretty inevitable path to politics power over the course of the next four years but it’s strength was not yet what it was. It’s equally possible Carter ekes out another close win against Reagan.
What I do think is fairly certain is that Reagan is a one term president. Not because I buy that 1976 is an irreparably poisoned chalice, but because Reagan would be forced to confront the Panama Canal issue. Not ratifying the treaties would have resulted in a guerilla war in Panama that may have boosted him in the short term but would have the stink of a Vietnam style conflict by the 1980 election. This issue (besides being unpopular on its own) likely would have underscored concerns of swing voters (who ITTL would’ve risked it in Reagan). They would go back to a more steady hand in 1980. And it’s certainly possible that he’d also have an Iranian hostage crisis to contend with. Any economic agenda would likely have stalled as Congress was heavily Democratic and while tax cuts were becoming the trend, they’d not yet reached their zenith within the party.
Conceivable Democratic candidates include Jerry Brown, Hugh Carey, and Walter Mondale...
What I do think is fairly certain is that Reagan is a one term president. Not because I buy that 1976 is an irreparably poisoned chalice, but because Reagan would be forced to confront the Panama Canal issue. Not ratifying the treaties would have resulted in a guerilla war in Panama that may have boosted him in the short term but would have the stink of a Vietnam style conflict by the 1980 election. This issue (besides being unpopular on its own) likely would have underscored concerns of swing voters (who ITTL would’ve risked it in Reagan). They would go back to a more steady hand in 1980. And it’s certainly possible that he’d also have an Iranian hostage crisis to contend with. Any economic agenda would likely have stalled as Congress was heavily Democratic and while tax cuts were becoming the trend, they’d not yet reached their zenith within the party.
Conceivable Democratic candidates include Jerry Brown, Hugh Carey, and Walter Mondale...
Its worth pointing out that the circumstances that prevented the US from outright invading North Vietnam do not exist in Panama, and considering the relatively small population, its a much easier country to just outright occupy. Not to say there wouldn't be political fallout from that course of action, but I think its a much better situation for the US than Vietnam. What I do think Reagan would do more effectively than Carter is working with Volcker (or whoever else Reagan appoints assuming its not Volcker) to combat stagflation. I also believe he would remove the price controls on oil which would prevent the energy crisis. The problem for Reagan in 1980 would be if the hostage crisis plays out the same way it did OTL, and if the inevitable recession caused by his combating of inflation isn't over by the time of the election. If the recession is ongoing, he loses. If the recession is over, he wins. At least thats my opinion any ways
I think thats pretty accurate.
How about this then?
On a slightly unrelated note, even though I don't think he was a good president, it would be such a shame if Carter never was elected. He's probably the best man ever to be president, and him losing likely butterflies most of his post-presidency work.
There is also the fact that by 1980 Republicans would have been in office for 12 years! By then with all of the inevitable economic and foreign turmoil of the late 70s the American people wish for a change of pace.
Yes, this is a good point. Although like I said I do think the energy crisis would not be anywhere near as bad under Reagan, and I think inflation would be stamped out quicker. He likely would lose in 1980, but whoever wins would be set up perfectly for an economic boom in the 1980s even bigger than OTL (assuming they don't do something like reinstitute price controls or other economic mismanagement).
Ted Kennedy maybe? Idk if he would've decided to run, but if he did I think he would be both the most likely candidate to win the primaries, and have the best odds against Reagan. Regardless of a recession, Reagan's natural charisma would be a huge challenge if the democrats nominated someone like Mondale, if its Kennedy, that problem is countered pretty effectively.
Ted Kennedy never seemed all that interested in running for President aside from it being an unspoken requirement for a Kennedy boy. If he runs and wins the nomination he would win but not by a large margin and he effectively becomes the liberal Bill Clinton.
I'm not sure why he's likelier to win. Yes, Reagan would have been a 'better' campaigner, but there's other things here to note:
1. Assuming he beats Ford in a race, the GOP's liberals and moderates aren't going to be pleased at all. They voted for Ford because he was essentially an establishment Republican, having served eight years as the GOP's House leader. Reagan is much less likely (though it's within the realm of possibility) to win Northeastern or Midwestern close states like New Jersey, Maine, Illinois, etc -- OTL, Reagan did well in these states later on because he was either a challenger to an unpopular President (1980) or a very popular incumbent (1976). Moreover, Reagan in 1976 was still very much regarded as excessively conservative; he became acceptable to moderates between 1976 and 1980 largely by toning down some of the rhetoric and developing an avuncular image, while choosing the moderate George Bush as his running mate in 1980. He simply doesn't have that advantage in 1976, and his chances amongst moderates -- who Carter narrowly won and who comprised 51% of the electorate -- are very low.
2. Also to note is that Reagan was trailing Carter even more heavily than Ford in almost all polls. While Carter led Ford by 52-37 (15 points), he led Reagan by 55-32 (23 points). Even in the South -- where it is presumed Reagan would do better -- Carter led Reagan by 30+ points. In the South, 40% of both Ford's and Reagan's supporters promised to defect if their candidate would not win the nomination, a situation not helped by the fact that Carter in 1976 was very much regarded as a favorite son of the South, while Reagan is just the former Gov. of California.
3. Incumbency has benefits, the types Reagan isn't going to be associated with. The Rose-Garden Strategy was critical for Ford to regain his lead, as the economic recovery prior to the election enabled the race to become neck and neck. When the economy improves, Reagan isn't going to be credited for that; yes, people miffed at Nixon's pardon or South Vietnam won't associate Reagan with the failures of the Ford administration, but Reagan isn't going to be credited with the Ford administration's successes, either.
The electoral map isn't going to be all that favorable to Reagan -- I can see Carter winning NJ, IL, ME, and maybe even CT or MI in the North, and possibly a few Western states as well. If Reagan improves on Ford's performance, it will likely be by flipping MS and (at best) Texas or Missouri, but that's hardly certain. Again though, he is not favored to win this race; the South, critical to his chances in this case if he hopes to offset the losses he'd sustain in the North, would be highly disposed to Carter and indeed was still heavily Democratic on a local level.
1. Assuming he beats Ford in a race, the GOP's liberals and moderates aren't going to be pleased at all. They voted for Ford because he was essentially an establishment Republican, having served eight years as the GOP's House leader. Reagan is much less likely (though it's within the realm of possibility) to win Northeastern or Midwestern close states like New Jersey, Maine, Illinois, etc -- OTL, Reagan did well in these states later on because he was either a challenger to an unpopular President (1980) or a very popular incumbent (1976). Moreover, Reagan in 1976 was still very much regarded as excessively conservative; he became acceptable to moderates between 1976 and 1980 largely by toning down some of the rhetoric and developing an avuncular image, while choosing the moderate George Bush as his running mate in 1980. He simply doesn't have that advantage in 1976, and his chances amongst moderates -- who Carter narrowly won and who comprised 51% of the electorate -- are very low.
2. Also to note is that Reagan was trailing Carter even more heavily than Ford in almost all polls. While Carter led Ford by 52-37 (15 points), he led Reagan by 55-32 (23 points). Even in the South -- where it is presumed Reagan would do better -- Carter led Reagan by 30+ points. In the South, 40% of both Ford's and Reagan's supporters promised to defect if their candidate would not win the nomination, a situation not helped by the fact that Carter in 1976 was very much regarded as a favorite son of the South, while Reagan is just the former Gov. of California.
3. Incumbency has benefits, the types Reagan isn't going to be associated with. The Rose-Garden Strategy was critical for Ford to regain his lead, as the economic recovery prior to the election enabled the race to become neck and neck. When the economy improves, Reagan isn't going to be credited for that; yes, people miffed at Nixon's pardon or South Vietnam won't associate Reagan with the failures of the Ford administration, but Reagan isn't going to be credited with the Ford administration's successes, either.
The electoral map isn't going to be all that favorable to Reagan -- I can see Carter winning NJ, IL, ME, and maybe even CT or MI in the North, and possibly a few Western states as well. If Reagan improves on Ford's performance, it will likely be by flipping MS and (at best) Texas or Missouri, but that's hardly certain. Again though, he is not favored to win this race; the South, critical to his chances in this case if he hopes to offset the losses he'd sustain in the North, would be highly disposed to Carter and indeed was still heavily Democratic on a local level.
Im assuming he would remove the price controls on domestic oil when he first comes into office which would be well before the 1979 crisis. Price controls have the effect of lowering production when the market price is above the price control. Not to state the obvious though because Im sure you're aware of that, as its fairly basic economics. So when the price of oil spikes in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution, domestic production wouldn't be limited by the price control and therefore would increase also (basic supply and demand). With the increased ability for domestic production to compensate for an interruption in oil imports, the shortage wouldn't be as bad.
Also I would like to note that during the 1980 primaries, Carter was up on Reagan by as much as 29 points, Reagan's strength is in getting his message out personally, which he would have a far greater opportunity to do in the general election with the debates and such.
Last edited: