How do you think would this affect American politics? What would Carter and Democrats do during the 1980s?
Udall loses to Ford in 1976, Carter 1980?
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
It was a close election anyway. Udall was more liberal than Carter, and maybe more so than the median for the American electorate.
In addition, Udall might be bloodied up if he and Carter have a longer, more contested series of primaries before the result is determined.
In addition, Udall might be bloodied up if he and Carter have a longer, more contested series of primaries before the result is determined.
I think Udall would beat Ford.76 was a Democratic year and the only reason that election was close was that Carter damn near snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Udall would play the General much smarter. If you want a Democrat who isn't Carter to lose to Ford, Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, IMHO, are the candidates (Kennedy for his baggage, Brown for his eccentricity).
(1) There is no proof the *Playboy* interview hurt Carter. His poll numbers were always bound to go down from their artificial summertime post-Democratic-national-convention highs. And if anyone would be offended by the interview, you would think it would be southerners, yet Carter carried ten of the eleven ex-Confederate states as well as all the border states except Oklahoma.
(2) How Udall could lose would be extremely simple--have him lose the southern states that Carter won and that every northern Democratic presidential candidate from Humphrey to HRC lost in OTL. And then *don't* have him do sufficiently better in the North and West to make up for it. In Illinois, for example, Udall might do better than Carter in the lakefront wards of Chicago--but much worse in southern Illinois. He might do better than Carter in New York state--but since Carter carried that state, it would mean nothing in the Electoral College. It's far from clear Udall would even carry AZ, generally a very Republican state in those days (Udall had never run in *all* of AZ). I do think he would have had a better chance than Carter to win CA, but that might not be enough to offset the southern and border states he would lose. And even in CA, while he would probably do better than Carter in the Bay area, he might do worse in the Central Valley areas settled by Texans and Oklahomans...
Last edited:
So now, a liberal loses in 1976. In another thread, about a 1980s Democratic Revolution (this is a follow-up question) a Ford presidency's characteristics had been somewhat outlined, although I am still interested in more ideas.
What would Carter do differently than Reagan in the 1980s?
What would Carter do differently than Reagan in the 1980s?
No deregulation, S and L scandal, or Iran-Contra. Junk bonds probably still happen, though.
If Carter gets knocked out in the primaries in '76, would he even attempt '80?
Where is Kennedy in all of this? He's still going to sit out '76, does he run in '80? No sitting democrat president means Kennedy might not need to attempt to save the party.
Who's running on the republican side? Ford would be term limited out, so Reagan, or would he avoid this sure disaster for the GOP? Bush, Kemp, Dole? Dole would be VP at this point so he'd probably be seen as the guy, unless the GOP is trying to distance itself from the economic collapse that will be hung on Ford ITTL.
Where is Kennedy in all of this? He's still going to sit out '76, does he run in '80? No sitting democrat president means Kennedy might not need to attempt to save the party.
Who's running on the republican side? Ford would be term limited out, so Reagan, or would he avoid this sure disaster for the GOP? Bush, Kemp, Dole? Dole would be VP at this point so he'd probably be seen as the guy, unless the GOP is trying to distance itself from the economic collapse that will be hung on Ford ITTL.
Wait, I though Ford could run for a second term... LBJ could have done so in 1968 had he been popular. What changed?
I thought of this some time ago: Humphrey, McGovern and Udall were liberals and lost to Republicans, so maybe they nominate a Southern Moderate, e.g. Carter, in order to win?
I don't think Carter would've ran again if he were taken out in 76, nor do I think he'd be nominated if he were to run again. Best case for him is a cabinet position or a Senate Seat. As for Kennedy, honestly his best chance at being President IMHO, was 76 and even then he's the one candidate I can see Ford beating, as Kennedy had a lot of baggage. As for 1980 after four more years of Ford, it'd be Dole vs. Reagan (Reagan was 69 in 1980, which was much older then than it is now, so 80 was his last shot), and given the fact that Dole was a weak candidate anytime he ran and given the fact that Reagan damn near beat Ford in 76, and given the fact that Ford isn't gonna be popular at all come 1980 TTL, Reagan looks likely to be the nominee.
LBJ was able to run in 1968 because he only served a year and a month of Kennedy's term, whereas Ford wouldn't be eligible in 1980 if he were to win in 1976 because he served more than two years of Nixon's second term. According to the 22nd Amendment, a President can only serve a maximum of 10 years, 8 years of his own + a maximum of two years of the previous President's (who could no longer serve due to death, resignation, impeachment, etc...) term
Maybe Carter decides not to run in 76?
The main problem there is that in 1980, rather than being a one-year out-of-office governor with no name recognition, he'd be a five-year out-of-office governor with no name recognition. Is there anything he could do at that time to boost his profile? There'd be no open senate seats unless Sam Nunn or Herman Talmadge decided to retire.
The main problem there is that in 1980, rather than being a one-year out-of-office governor with no name recognition, he'd be a five-year out-of-office governor with no name recognition. Is there anything he could do at that time to boost his profile? There'd be no open senate seats unless Sam Nunn or Herman Talmadge decided to retire.
Last edited:
A House seat would probably be a step down for a guy who was once Governor. If not a Senate Seat, I think he'd get a cabinet position in another Democratic administration.
This might be true. However, when we look at TTL, we have a Carter that is pivoting off of being governor towards a presidential run in 1980. As was stated, without additional POD's such as Senators Nunn or Talmadge retiring, no senate seat is available for Carter in his home state. No cabinet seat is going to be offered because there won't be another democratic president until 1980, and Carter will want that president to be himself. I'm no expert on Carter, but I seriously doubt the man is going to attempt to move to another state for a senate seat. So, he needs to do something to keep his name in politics during this 5 year gap. A house seat is the thing I could come up with that's going to be readily available for the man at the time.
I wonder if Udall could be negatively affected if his Mormonism became an issue, especially in the Southern and border states Dems would be sacrificing by choosing him over Carter?
He'd probably do what Kennedy did and pick a southern running mate. Carter could end up being running mate ITTL.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I'm pretty sure Georgia allows non-consecutive terms as governor. Carter could run again in 1978. He could even be a little bit cagey with voters, saying to the effect, 'and if the governor were to run for president, probably not the worse thing in the world for the state of Georgia!' [wink]
And Jimmy's always learning new things and trying new things. Hope upon hope, that he gets interested in a business book on delegation, then pretty much reads every reasonable book on delegation out there, and takes to it with all the energy of a new convert.
And Jimmy's always learning new things and trying new things. Hope upon hope, that he gets interested in a business book on delegation, then pretty much reads every reasonable book on delegation out there, and takes to it with all the energy of a new convert.
I think he would, at least if he had come close to winning the nomination. His supporters would have a plausible argument: "See, Udall's defeat shows that only a southern moderate like Carter can win--we've lost three times in a row now with northern liberals."
After all, Carter lost the race for governor of Georgia in 1966, and that didn't prevent him from running (and winning) in 1970.
I think Udall's nominal Mormonism would not be a major issue. His big handicap in the South is simply that he is a liberal and non-southerner.