Reagan loses big to Ford in ‘76 primary challenge, isn’t a factor in 1980.

[GeographyDude]

“ . . . He [Reagan] sometimes slipped into motels and hotels through back doors, then begged off working the crowds waiting outside with a lame excuse: `I'm sorry, but I'm running behind schedule.' he did not go after the suburban straphangers until it was too late. . ”

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9603/29/index.shtml

This is Reagan campaigning in the 1976 Illinois Republican primary. And this is a campaign which is going exactly nowhere!

It wasn’t until the North Carolina Republican primary with Reagan hitting the pay dirt issue of the Panama Canal Treaty that his campaign really came to life. Ford and Reagan went into that summer’s Republican Convention almost tied, with Ford slightly leading. Reagan did the maneuver of announcing Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate in an attempt to pry off moderate votes. It didn’t work.

But what if it’s not even close?

How does American politics (and policy and society and economics) play out without Reagan as a force or becoming president? Please stop about ten years before the present to avoid current politics. Thanks.

Your ideas please.

 

[ejpsan]

Ford would have been in much better shape going in to the General Election with a Republican Party not battered and bruised by a bitter fight but united.
Reagan would go back to California doing radio spots and going on the "Rubber Chicken Dinner" circuit making after dinner speeches in the small cities and towns across the country.
If the consensus of this site is true that the 1976 election was a "Poison Chalice" for whomever was elected President and if Ford won then 1980 would have been an overwhelming year for the Democrats.
In reality Reagan was one of the weaker candidates for the Republican nomination for the General Election it just that he went against the holder of the "Poison Chalice" President Carter and he barley got over 50% of the vote because a lot of people thought he was too extreme.
So assuming a Ford win and basically the same economic conditions facing the United States then Bob Dole as the Vice President would have been the favorite for the nomination but would have lost to a credible Democratic nominee.
Reagan probably would have been considered to be washed up in 1980 and if he did run he could be considered to be the "Conservative Harold Stassen".

So what does this means for American politics, an economic recovery in the 80's would thought to be results of Democratic Party programs and ideas and the Republican Party would born the brunt of the blame for the 70's.

 

[mr1940s]

There is an interesting parallel between Reagan in 1976 and Ted Kennedy in 1980. Both candidates were seen as presumptive frontrunners when they challenged incumbent presidents of their own parties. However, both candidates ran poorly in early Primary states losing their first contests, only to recover their stride later on in the process as voters in later states began to look at them as protest votes against the Incumbent President, ultimately dragging out the process to the point where the incumbent had a lead in delegates but was unsuccessfully challenged at a divisive convention.

 

[Vidal]

As I work on Jimmy Two, I've been reading Craig Shirley's account of Reagan's 1980 campaign (Rendezvous with Destiny). It's easy to forget there were plenty of chances in the 1980 primaries for Reagan's campaign to have gone off the rails then - even after nearly beating Ford. The campaign wasn't expecting Bush's come-from-behind victory and Connally's speech about Middle East Peace decimated his image with the Christian Right when they'd previously been split between him and Reagan (Graham and Connally were close).

I think it's important to consider Reagan's motivations for running in 1980. I don't know that they exist in quite the same way in a Ford wins scenario, regardless of how he does in the 76 primaries. But if Ford still goes on to lose to Carter, I actually think Reagan is better positioned in 1980 to run in the primaries if he does worse against Ford. Part of Reagan's miscalculation was the "front walker" strategy of 1979 and early 1980. He did significantly fewer appearances and interviewers than primary competitors, he announced his campaign comparatively late (some candidates had already entered and exited the race before Reagan formally declared), and this gave Bush the ability to gain ground in Iowa under the radar.

If Reagan has a worse stretch in the 76 primaries, Sears probably doesn't adopt the strategy of lying low until the primaries begin (or Reagan goes with someone else as campaign manager who also agrees Reagan needs to be present early). Reagan was a great campaigner, and if he's out and on the ground in a big way in the lead up to the primaries, unlike IOTL in 1980, he may not even lose Iowa. And quick wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will cement him as the front runner.

 

[mr1940s]

As I work on Jimmy Two, I've been reading Craig Shirley's account of Reagan's 1980 campaign (Rendezvous with Destiny). It's easy to forget there were plenty of chances in the 1980 primaries for Reagan's campaign to have gone off the rails then - even after nearly beating Ford. The campaign wasn't expecting Bush's come-from-behind victory and Connally's speech about Middle East Peace decimated his image with the Christian Right when they'd previously been split between him and Reagan (Graham and Connally were close).

I think it's important to consider Reagan's motivations for running in 1980. I don't know that they exist in quite the same way in a Ford wins scenario, regardless of how he does in the 76 primaries. But if Ford still goes on to lose to Carter, I actually think Reagan is better positioned in 1980 to run in the primaries if he does worse against Ford. Part of Reagan's miscalculation was the "front walker" strategy of 1979 and early 1980. He did significantly fewer appearances and interviewers than primary competitors, he announced his campaign comparatively late (some candidates had already entered and exited the race before Reagan formally declared), and this gave Bush the ability to gain ground in Iowa under the radar.

If Reagan has a worse stretch in the 76 primaries, Sears probably doesn't adopt the strategy of lying low until the primaries begin (or Reagan goes with someone else as campaign manager who also agrees Reagan needs to be present early). Reagan was a great campaigner, and if he's out and on the ground in a big way in the lead up to the primaries, unlike IOTL in 1980, he may not even lose Iowa. And quick wins in Iowa and New Hampshire will cement him as the front runner.

A weaker Reagan performance could lead to a stronger field in 1980 as more candidates think they have a shot of beating him in the primary. The most obvious example of such a candidate is Ford who considered running in the primary, and whose specter prevented the moderate vote of the primary from consolidating until much later. Or you could see someone like Bill Thompson run, a candidate who was never tested in the Presidential arena.

 

[Vidal]

A weaker Reagan performance could lead to a stronger field in 1980 as more candidates think they have a shot of beating him in the primary. The most obvious example of such a candidate is Ford who considered running in the primary, and whose specter prevented the moderate vote of the primary from consolidating until much later. Or you could see someone like Bill Thompson run, a candidate who was never tested in the Presidential arena.

True, though I would argue Ford was really the only big potential candidate who stayed out. Kemp, too, maybe. He was a rising star and could potentially have chipped away at Reagan.

You had a long-serving US Senator who was the party's veep nominee (Dole), the son of a prestigious political family who was Chair of the RNC and CIA Director (Bush), the Senate Minority Leader (Baker), a rising star of the conservative movement (Crane), and a former Sec. of Treasury who was governor of one of the largest states and sat next to JFK when he was shot (Connally).

I think the field had a lot of big personalities and strong contenders. They just don't look like they were serious candidates because Reagan did so well.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . and he [Reagan] barley got over 50% of the vote because a lot of people thought he was too extreme. . .

Yes, thank you. People seem to forget that while 1980 was a landslide against Carter, who got only 41% of the popular vote,

it was just a bare majority in favor of Reagan who got 50.7% of the popular vote.

Independent candidate John Anderson got most of the balance. Plus, the Libertarian Party candidate got about 1%.

 

[gentboss]

Most likely George H.W. Bush is the GOP nominee in the alt-1980, but he's still going to need a way to satisfy Republican conservatives. He snaps his fingers - what about that young whippersnapper Bob Bauman from Maryland? Catholic, conservative, but not such a big name he could undermine Bush.

Robert Bauman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bush's people ask Bauman:
"Hey, uh, there aren't any, you know, ladies n your past, are there?"

He assures them that no, that's definitely not going to be a problem...

 

[Comte de Geneve]

Mr1940's, did you mean Jim Thompson, the gov of ILL and future namesake of the ugliest building in Chicago?

 

[mr1940s]

Mr1940's, did you mean Jim Thompson, the gov of ILL and future namesake of the ugliest building in Chicago?

Yes I did!

 

[Whanztastic]

Mr1940's, did you mean Jim Thompson, the gov of ILL and future namesake of the ugliest building in Chicago?

How dare you.

Most likely George H.W. Bush is the GOP nominee in the alt-1980, but he's still going to need a way to satisfy Republican conservatives. He snaps his fingers - what about that young whippersnapper Bob Bauman from Maryland? Catholic, conservative, but not such a big name he could undermine Bush.

Robert Bauman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bush's people ask Bauman:
"Hey, uh, there aren't any, you know, ladies n your past, are there?"

He assures them that no, that's definitely not going to be a problem...

I assume Bush with his CIA background would have a decent vetting process.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . and Connally's speech about Middle East Peace decimated his image with the Christian Right when they'd previously been split between him and Reagan (Graham and Connally were close). . .

Do you mean Billy Graham the evangelist?

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . But if Ford still goes on to lose to Carter, I actually think Reagan is better positioned in 1980 to run in the primaries if he does worse against Ford. Part of Reagan's miscalculation was the "front walker" strategy of 1979 and early 1980. . .

This is an excellent point. John Sears convinced Reagan that Iowa was a sure win and that it would be fine and in fact a show of strength to skip a debate shortly before the Caucus. Well, Iowa voters did mind. And Bush won the 1980 Iowa Caucus.

Reagan was strong enough to recover from this early mistake, although Bush stayed in the race longer than any other serious competitor.

But if Reagan is weaker overall, he might make other mistakes, which he has a harder time recovering from.

 

[Vidal]

Do you mean Billy Graham the evangelist?

yes

 

[David T]

Ford would have been in much better shape going in to the General Election with a Republican Party not battered and bruised by a bitter fight but united.

This has often been argued but I have seen a counterargument: that the Reagan challenge got more previous non-voters to vote in the GOP primaries--and that the majority of them did end up voting for Ford In November.

 

[CountDVB]

If the consensus of this site is true that the 1976 election was a "Poison Chalice" for whomever was elected President and if Ford won then 1980 would have been an overwhelming year for the Democrats.
In reality Reagan was one of the weaker candidates for the Republican nomination for the General Election it just that he went against the holder of the "Poison Chalice" President Carter and he barley got over 50% of the vote because a lot of people thought he was too extreme.
So assuming a Ford win and basically the same economic conditions facing the United States then Bob Dole as the Vice President would have been the favorite for the nomination but would have lost to a credible Democratic nominee.
Reagan probably would have been considered to be washed up in 1980 and if he did run he could be considered to be the "Conservative Harold Stassen".

So what does this means for American politics, an economic recovery in the 80's would thought to be results of Democratic Party programs and ideas and the Republican Party would born the brunt of the blame for the 70's.

It very much is a poison chalice. Even if the drastic measures to try and curb high inflation (like Carter did when he put Volcker in 1979) were done as soon as possible, the Iranian Revolution would pretty much disrupt any chance of doing so. So anyone ruling in 1976-1980 would very much be screwed.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Even if the drastic measures to try and curb high inflation (like Carter did when he put Volcker in 1979) were done as soon as possible, the Iranian Revolution would pretty much disrupt any chance of doing so. . .

There was a circa 1971 type of stagflation which was kind of mysterious, but energy shock stagflation is easy as pie to understand:

You have an abrupt rise in the price of a major input such as oil. The supply curve moves inward, and that is that. You end up at a place of both higher prices and lower overall GDP.

All you can do, given this new reality, is to continue growing your economy in sensible and straightforward ways.

Consequently, I am very skeptical of claims of ‘drastic measures’ or ‘strong measures’ or caricatures of a ‘strong man’ such as Volcker. The real life Paul Volcker tried a number of things before he settled on holding interest rates high in order to ‘cool’ inflation. Most probably this contributed to the depth of the 1982 recession, and in my judgment, probably wasn’t worth it. We have to at least achieve a large number of jobs, moderate inflation, a growing overall economy, all pretty much at the same time — plus other goals such as education, human infrastructure, improving public health, etc.

 

[CountDVB]

Consequently, I am very skeptical of claims of ‘drastic measures’ or ‘strong measures’ or caricatures of a ‘strong man’ such as Volcker. The real life Paul Volcker tried a number of things before he settled on holding interest rates high in order to ‘cool’ inflation. Most probably this contributed to the depth of the 1982 recession, and in my judgment, probably wasn’t worth it. We have to at least achieve a large number of jobs, moderate inflation, a growing overall economy, all pretty much at the same time — plus other goals such as education, human infrastructure, improving public health, etc.

There was also Reagan's tax cuts and other policies that he did. Stagflation was a thing that needed to be dealt with though the root also laid in the reliance of oil as the foundation for a global economy.

 

[dwkelley]

So assuming a Ford win and basically the same economic conditions facing the United States then Bob Dole as the Vice President would have been the favorite for the nomination but would have lost to a credible Democratic nominee.

I know there has been (at least one) timeline done on "Ford beats Carter", but I can't see it. Ford is the guy who pardoned Nixon, he isn't going to win.

But if Ford still goes on to lose to Carter, I actually think Reagan is better positioned in 1980 to run in the primaries if he does worse against Ford.

Again, I have to disagree. If Reagan really bombed out, I think he will give up in disgust, thinking he lost his touch with the nation (he has, after all, been a movie star and Governor of California, so this rejection has got to hurt). I wonder if he would turn to a run for the Senate? Then he would have a national presence, but only has to run in one state where he is very popular. And maybe, he thinks, if he wins a Senate seat in '78 (was there a CA Senate seat up that year?), he will wrap up a term in time for the '84 Presidential election ...

EDIT: wups, no '78 CA Senate. If Reagan drops out soon enough, run for Senate in '76?

 

[Vidal]

I know there has been (at least one) timeline done on "Ford beats Carter", but I can't see it. Ford is the guy who pardoned Nixon, he isn't going to win.


Again, I have to disagree. If Reagan really bombed out, I think he will give up in disgust, thinking he lost his touch with the nation (he has, after all, been a movie star and Governor of California, so this rejection has got to hurt). I wonder if he would turn to a run for the Senate? Then he would have a national presence, but only has to run in one state where he is very popular. And maybe, he thinks, if he wins a Senate seat in '78 (was there a CA Senate seat up that year?), he will wrap up a term in time for the '84 Presidential election ...

I’m not disagreeing that Reagan may be less motivated to run if he underperformed in 76. I’m just saying I think it’s possible that if he does decide to run the strategy is better thought out and he performs better