Reagan wins GOP nomination in 1976-How Well Does He Do?

[Superman]

In 1976, President Gerald Ford encountered a strong primary challenge from former California governor and future president Ronald Reagan. Though Ford ultimately won the primary, he went on to lose the general election to Jimmy Carter (who would in turn lose his reelection bid to Reagan). However, the general election was itself very close, with Carter only winning with 50.1% of the popular vote.

If Reagan had won the Republican nomination in 1976, how well would he be able to do against Carter? Would he be able to distance himself even further from Watergate than Ford had, and do better? Or would his age and general distrust with the Republicans hurt him anyways? And if Reagan does win, how does he handle the issues that Carter had to deal with in OTL?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

He is of the president's party in bad economic times. He has taken unpopular views. jJimmy Carter does not have to play defense.

 

[TFSmith121]

The Republicans would have had a hard time getting

reanimated Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt elected in '76...

I always thought this would be an entertaining opening image for a Nixon-Reagan Administration alternate history:

Of course, since they were both Californians, unless Reagan moved back to Illinois or something, it wouldn't happen, but still...

Reagan replaces Agnew, Nixon resigns, Reagan gets crushed by Carter ... who does the GOP run in 1980?

Ford?

Bush?

Rockefeller died in '79...

Best,

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

reanimated Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt elected in '76...

I always thought this would be an entertaining opening image for a Nixon-Reagan Administration alternate history:



Of course, since they were both Californians, unless Reagan moved back to Illinois or something, it wouldn't happen, but still...

Reagan replaces Agnew, Nixon resigns, Reagan gets crushed by Carter ... who does the GOP run in 1980?

Ford?

Bush?

Rockefeller died in '79...

Best,

John Connally would be my bet.

 

[Plumber]

Reagan was constantly insisting Nixon was completely innocent of Watergate in public until the smoking gun. He'll probably be hurt by that around as much as Ford was by the pardon.

 

[Superman]

Reagan was constantly insisting Nixon was completely innocent of Watergate in public until the smoking gun. He'll probably be hurt by that around as much as Ford was by the pardon.

But Ford still did pretty good for himself, all things considered. Carter didn't win by that much. It's not inconceivable that Reagan could win, is it?


Also, what effect would that have on Republican Party unity if a sitting president was primaried out of running for reelection?

 

[Sabot Cat]

But Ford still did pretty good for himself, all things considered. Carter didn't win by that much. It's not inconceivable that Reagan could win, is it?


Also, what effect would that have on Republican Party unity if a sitting president was primaried out of running for reelection?

People would regard it as a fluke because of Gerald Ford not attaining the incumbency in a conventional way.

 

[Realpolitik]

John Connally would be my bet.

Connally is never going to get confirmed by Congress being an ex-Democrat, and Nixon knows it, much as he desperately wants Connally to be his successor(he once told Haldeman that the only people in the GOP capable of handling the job after he left were Connally and Rockefeller, and Nixon and Rockefeller have some bad history and do not like or trust each other). He has far too many skeletons in the closet.

Assuming that Watergate never happens, my constant prediction is that Nixon will nominate somebody like Volpe or Morton or GHWB. Someone nice, moderate, "clean"(given how Agnew left), non-controversial and preferably useful in foreign policy-a departure from Agnew, especially since Nixon doesn't need to care about the Republican base anymore and is trying for the "statesman of the New American Majority" image. Something more appropriate for the more "normal" world of early 1973, with emphasis on second term plans, than 1969, with the need for "law and order".

Rockefeller and Reagan are not interested in the job and don't want to subordinate themselves so directly to Nixon.

Reagan was constantly insisting Nixon was completely innocent of Watergate in public until the smoking gun. He'll probably be hurt by that around as much as Ford was by the pardon.

Didn't hurt him OTL. He could just say he was betrayed, like the rest of Nixon's supporters.

 

[SlideAway]

Reagan would do worse than Ford. Right up until his election in 1980, Reagan was perceived by much of the population as too extreme. Part of the reason Ford did so well was that he was well-placed to complete in the Midwest and he was perceived as a fairly moderate, likable incumbent.

Reagan would not have done as well as Ford in the Midwest and Northeast in 1976, and while he would have done better than Carter in the south, Carter still probably sweeps most of that region.

Overall, Reagan probably loses by a wider margin - probably something like 52-46 nationally, with Carter pulling some 350+ electoral votes.

 

[Realpolitik]

Reagan would do worse than Ford. Right up until his election in 1980, Reagan was perceived by much of the population as too extreme. Part of the reason Ford did so well was that he was well-placed to complete in the Midwest and he was perceived as a fairly moderate, likable incumbent.

Reagan would not have done as well as Ford in the Midwest and Northeast in 1976, and while he would have done better than Carter in the south, Carter still probably sweeps most of that region.

Overall, Reagan probably loses by a wider margin - probably something like 52-46 nationally, with Carter pulling some 350+ electoral votes.

I've always been of that opinion myself. The fact that 1976 was close speaks to Carter's weakness in general elections and him owing to Watergate his Presidency, not to any Republican-not to be confused with conservative-strength.

Reagan needed specific conditions to come to power. Namely, a disgust with American weakness and with the Democrats and with "anti-anti-Communism" and 60s/70s liberalism. Iran really helped this. This was bubbling beneath the surface and solidifying, but needed the right conditions to come to the surface. Not to mention the economy sucks and people blame the Republicans for that.

 

[John Farson]

Reagan would do worse than Ford. Right up until his election in 1980, Reagan was perceived by much of the population as too extreme. Part of the reason Ford did so well was that he was well-placed to complete in the Midwest and he was perceived as a fairly moderate, likable incumbent.

Reagan would not have done as well as Ford in the Midwest and Northeast in 1976, and while he would have done better than Carter in the south, Carter still probably sweeps most of that region.

Overall, Reagan probably loses by a wider margin - probably something like 52-46 nationally, with Carter pulling some 350+ electoral votes.

Presumably after such a defeat Reagan would be less of a viable candidate in 1980, should he run again? It's one thing to narrowly lose the primaries to the incumbent president, it's another to lose the election with that kind of margin.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Connally is never going to get confirmed by Congress being an ex-Democrat, and Nixon knows it, much as he desperately wants Connally to be his successor(he once told Haldeman that the only people in the GOP capable of handling the job after he left were Connally and Rockefeller, and Nixon and Rockefeller have some bad history and do not like or trust each other). He has far too many skeletons in the closet.

Assuming that Watergate never happens, my constant prediction is that Nixon will nominate somebody like Volpe or Morton or GHWB. Someone nice, moderate, "clean"(given how Agnew left), non-controversial and preferably useful in foreign policy-a departure from Agnew, especially since Nixon doesn't need to care about the Republican base anymore and is trying for the "statesman of the New American Majority" image. Something more appropriate for the more "normal" world of early 1973, with emphasis on second term plans, than 1969, with the need for "law and order".

Rockefeller and Reagan are not interested in the job and don't want to subordinate themselves so directly to Nixon.

My post was about Connally as Republican nominee in 1980 if the Republicans lose '76. The man wasn't doing to bad up until the South Carolina primary and with Reagan out of the way if he were the '76 nominee I think the contest would be down to either Connally or Bush.

 

[Realpolitik]

My post was about Connally as Republican nominee in 1980 if the Republicans lose '76. The man wasn't doing to bad up until the South Carolina primary.

Oops, sorry.


Yes, but I think by 1980 OTL, Reagan was going to get the nomination. Connally isn't going to beat him.

 

[SlideAway]

Presumably after such a defeat Reagan would be less of a viable candidate in 1980, should he run again? It's one thing to narrowly lose the primaries to the incumbent president, it's another to lose the election with that kind of margin.

Probably. I mean, I wouldn't rule out a Reagan comeback, given his grassroots support, but it would be a lot more difficult after a 1976 defeat (especially a somewhat-wide one). As I said in the other thread going on right now (about Ford in 1980) - this POD might actually be the best one to enable a Ford comeback. OTL he left office with approvals in the mid-50s, and the party may well conclude they botched it by nominating Reagan instead of Ford.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

IIRC, the Reagan campaign was floundering early on in 79-80 until William Casey took over as campaign manager. Meese, Deaver & Co werent quite ready to make the jump from state to national. How he does in 76 would be heavily dependent upon who he has running the campaign. This is true for all candidates but I think moreso for Reagan, who was rather detached from the details of things...

 

[Emperor Julian]

Of course, since they were both Californians, unless Reagan moved back to Illinois or something, it wouldn't happen, but still...

I believe that technically, Nixon was living in New York at the time of the elections, so he wouldn't have the constitutional electoral vote issue to worry about.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

Oops, sorry.


Yes, but I think by 1980 OTL, Reagan was going to get the nomination. Connally isn't going to beat him.

Well, this was also under the assumption Reagan was the '76 nominee.

I think Reagan could probably do better than Ford, since he'll have the advantage of being an outsider like Carter does but he'll also scare off Ford loyalists for campaigning against the sitting President and other Republican moderates for his views.

 

[David T]

Well, this was also under the assumption Reagan was the '76 nominee.

I think Reagan could probably do better than Ford, since he'll have the advantage of being an outsider like Carter does but he'll also scare off Ford loyalists for campaigning against the sitting President and other Republican moderates for his views.

The most important thing to remember is that Carter won most of the southern and border states *by large margins.* (And incidentally he was to come very close to beating Reagan in most of these states even in 1980. In Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Carolinas Reagan's margin of victory was about two percentage points or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980 Does anyone seriously doubt that Carter would have done at least a little bit better in those states against Reagan in 1976 than he did in 1980?) Of the southern states where Carter beat Ford, only Mississippi and Texas were carried by less than 5.3 percentage points. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1976.txt (And in Florida, where the margin was 5.3 percent, Ford had defeated Reagan in the primary.) True, if Reagan carried these two states--and every state carried by Ford--he would just barely win with 274 electoral votes. But a loss in even a single Ford state--say, Ford's own state of Michigan, or such narrow Ford states as Illinois (where Ford had defeated Reagan in the GOP primary 59-40) or New Jersey or Iowa or Maine--would be enough to defeat him.

True, in the West Reagan would run better than Ford. But since Ford carried every western state except Hawaii (and there is no reason to think Reagan would carry it--he even lost it in 1980), this would not help him at all in the Electoral College. Indeed, Reagan might even lose one Ford state in the West--Oregon, where Ford had defeated him in the primary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

BTW, let's not forget that Eugene McCarthy's vote was greater than Ford's margin of victory in Oregon, Iowa, and Maine. In all likelihood many liberals who thought it was safe to cast a protest vote for McCarthy because Ford wasn't all that conservative would have felt differently if Reagan were the GOP nominee.

 

[Realpolitik]

The most important thing to remember is that Carter won most of the southern and border states *by large margins.* (And incidentally he was to come very close to beating Reagan in most of these states even in 1980. In Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Carolinas Reagan's margin of victory was about two percentage points or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980 Does anyone seriously doubt that Carter would have done at least a little bit better in those states against Reagan in 1976 than he did in 1980?) Of the southern states where Carter beat Ford, only Mississippi and Texas were carried by less than 5.3 percentage points. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1976.txt (And in Florida, where the margin was 5.3 percent, Ford had defeated Reagan in the primary.) True, if Reagan carried these two states--and every state carried by Ford--he would just barely win with 274 electoral votes. But a loss in even a single Ford state--say, Ford's own state of Michigan, or such narrow Ford states as Illinois (where Ford had defeated Reagan in the GOP primary 59-40) or New Jersey or Iowa or Maine--would be enough to defeat him.

True, in the West Reagan would run better than Ford. But since Ford carried every western state except Hawaii (and there is no reason to think Reagan would carry it--he even lost it in 1980), this would not help him at all in the Electoral College. Indeed, Reagan might even lose one Ford state in the West--Oregon, where Ford had defeated him in the primary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

BTW, let's not forget that Eugene McCarthy's vote was greater than Ford's margin of victory in Oregon, Iowa, and Maine. In all likelihood many liberals who thought it was safe to cast a protest vote for McCarthy because Ford wasn't all that conservative would have felt differently if Reagan were the GOP nominee.

And that's all leaving out the fact that Carter was basically a proto New Democrat, just with a more morality "cleaning up Washington" based message. He'd beat Reagan in 1976.

 

[Gaius Julius Magnus]

The most important thing to remember is that Carter won most of the southern and border states *by large margins.* (And incidentally he was to come very close to beating Reagan in most of these states even in 1980. In Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Carolinas Reagan's margin of victory was about two percentage points or less. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980 Does anyone seriously doubt that Carter would have done at least a little bit better in those states against Reagan in 1976 than he did in 1980?) Of the southern states where Carter beat Ford, only Mississippi and Texas were carried by less than 5.3 percentage points. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1976.txt (And in Florida, where the margin was 5.3 percent, Ford had defeated Reagan in the primary.) True, if Reagan carried these two states--and every state carried by Ford--he would just barely win with 274 electoral votes. But a loss in even a single Ford state--say, Ford's own state of Michigan, or such narrow Ford states as Illinois (where Ford had defeated Reagan in the GOP primary 59-40) or New Jersey or Iowa or Maine--would be enough to defeat him.

True, in the West Reagan would run better than Ford. But since Ford carried every western state except Hawaii (and there is no reason to think Reagan would carry it--he even lost it in 1980), this would not help him at all in the Electoral College. Indeed, Reagan might even lose one Ford state in the West--Oregon, where Ford had defeated him in the primary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976

BTW, let's not forget that Eugene McCarthy's vote was greater than Ford's margin of victory in Oregon, Iowa, and Maine. In all likelihood many liberals who thought it was safe to cast a protest vote for McCarthy because Ford wasn't all that conservative would have felt differently if Reagan were the GOP nominee.

So we could potentially see a greater Carter victory seeing as how New England and the industrial Great Lakes region won't go for a hardliner Conservative from the west over a moderate from the area.

And that's all leaving out the fact that Carter was basically a proto New Democrat, just with a more morality "cleaning up Washington" based message. He'd beat Reagan in 1976.

I think Carter would be best described as a bridge like figure between the New Dealers and New Democrats. He doesn't fit neatly in either camp but shares some qualities of both.