WI: Reagan wins the 1976 Republican Nomination?

[Bomster]

IOTL, the 1976 GOP Nomination was undecided all the way up to the convention itself, with Ford having a slight edge over Ronald Reagan. Reagan, making a bold gamble to try to win over support, made the presumptuous move of naming a running mate, specifically Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a liberal Republican Senator. This move backfired, offending Southerners and possibly shifting the Mississippi slate to Ford and eventually the nomination itself. Apparently Reagan’s other choice for VP was Governor James Rhodes of Ohio, who wasn’t exactly the most desirable choice, but potentially a less offensive one than Schweiker turned out to be. Could this have tipped the nomination to Reagan? How could Reagan have won the nomination?

Additionally, had Reagan won the nomination, how would he fare as the GOP nominee against Democrat Jimmy Carter? On one hand, Reagan is “the Great Communicator”, and might have been able to claw his way to victory despite his right-wing stances. Reagan also defeated Carter in 1980 as well, when Carter was the incumbent, albeit an unpopular one. On the other hand, polls indicate Reagan doing worse than Ford did across the country, and Reagan wouldn’t enjoy the benefits of incumbency. If Reagan wins, what does his presidency look like from 1977-1981? And if he loses, how does that affect the GOP moving forward now that the Reagan Revolution lost its figurehead? Can Reagan make the argument that Watergate made any Republican unelectable in 1976, or would the Ford-wing of the party be resurgent in 1980?

 

[Nelson Mikeson]

Since Reagan lost pretty narrowly, just shutting his mouth about his running mate would help win won the 100 delegates necessary. Now, Reagan's charisma would definitely improve the Republican's chances, but unlike 1980 he would be hurt by Republican association with Watergate, stagflation and the defeat in Vietnam and his defeat of Ford might turn some away from him for "betraying the party's President", however, Reagan can also more easily distance himself from Ford's association with stagflation. Taking into account that it was a close race OTL, I'm going to assume Reagan's charisma wins in the end and he defeats Carter by roughly the same margin Carter defeated Ford OTL.

Reagan's Presidency would be a mess, as while earlier Reagonomics may fix inflation, they would have trouble quickly reducing unemployment(look at Thatcher's first term as PM), so the economy might get slightly better than OTL in 1980, but would still drag down Reagan. And I'm going to guess Reagan would play less "diplomacy and human rights across the globe" like Carter(so no Camp David Accord or return of the Panama Canal), but would focus on the struggle against Communism and ranting about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan(although his anti-nuclear agenda would still probably allow SALT II to be signed) and of course once the Iran Hostage Crisis starts, Reagan's done. Anderson would probably pull a Ted Kennedy against him and then still run as an independent. Speaking off, Ted Kennedy likely defeats Reagan in 1980 decisively, although not by OTL Reagan's standards, as crowds would still shout "Mary Jo Kopechne" at him, more like Clinton's defeat of Bush in 1992. With this, Reganistic libertarianism is most likely butterflied away, as Ted Kennedy would implement some sort of single-payer healthcare system and Republicans would eventually accept it, but Republicans were drifting towards social conservatism before 1976, so they would likely be slightly more liberal economically, but still social conservative.

My prediction:

Ted Kennedy 1980-1988
Lloyd Bentsen 1988-1992
Jack Kemp 1992-2000

 

[colonel]

Assuming Reagan wins in 1976 the hostage crisis doesn’t necessarily play out the same way. Reagan is likely to order a rescue earlier, and much less likely to micromanage once it starts. If there is a successful rescue and Ted Kennedy is nominated by the Democrats, Reagan wins again in 1980. Kennedy was an awful candidate who couldn’t even articulate why he was running.

 

[arrowiv]

I have posted this on similar Reagan-wins-in-'76 timelines: I can see him handling Iran quite differently such as convincing the Shah to abdicate or support a military coup. He would probably cancel any Panama Canal treaty and could even recognize the Ian Smith government in Rhodesia (no Jimmy Carter in 1976 also means no Andy Young, Mugabe's leading American supporter-apologist). It would also be interesting how relations with the UK would be under Reagan as Thatcher did not become PM until 1979.

 

[We'll Get Em Next Time]

Since Reagan lost pretty narrowly, just shutting his mouth about his running mate would help win won the 100 delegates necessary. Now, Reagan's charisma would definitely improve the Republican's chances, but unlike 1980 he would be hurt by Republican association with Watergate, stagflation and the defeat in Vietnam and his defeat of Ford might turn some away from him for "betraying the party's President", however, Reagan can also more easily distance himself from Ford's association with stagflation. Taking into account that it was a close race OTL, I'm going to assume Reagan's charisma wins in the end and he defeats Carter by roughly the same margin Carter defeated Ford OTL.

Reagan's Presidency would be a mess, as while earlier Reagonomics may fix inflation, they would have trouble quickly reducing unemployment(look at Thatcher's first term as PM), so the economy might get slightly better than OTL in 1980, but would still drag down Reagan. And I'm going to guess Reagan would play less "diplomacy and human rights across the globe" like Carter(so no Camp David Accord or return of the Panama Canal), but would focus on the struggle against Communism and ranting about the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan(although his anti-nuclear agenda would still probably allow SALT II to be signed) and of course once the Iran Hostage Crisis starts, Reagan's done. Anderson would probably pull a Ted Kennedy against him and then still run as an independent. Speaking off, Ted Kennedy likely defeats Reagan in 1980 decisively, although not by OTL Reagan's standards, as crowds would still shout "Mary Jo Kopechne" at him, more like Clinton's defeat of Bush in 1992. With this, Reganistic libertarianism is most likely butterflied away, as Ted Kennedy would implement some sort of single-payer healthcare system and Republicans would eventually accept it, but Republicans were drifting towards social conservatism before 1976, so they would likely be slightly more liberal economically, but still social conservative.

My prediction:

Ted Kennedy 1980-1988
Lloyd Bentsen 1988-1992
Jack Kemp 1992-2000

Carter's human rights focus in foreign policy led to him putting pressure on the Shah to liberalise. If Reagan's in office, that won't happen. At the very least Reagan would react to events in Iran very differently to Carter.

I doubt EMK would win an open 1980 Dem Primary.

 

[David T]

On Reagan's choice of a running mate, an old post of mine:

***

You have to remember that the choice of Schweiker was a desperation move, at a time when Ford was ahead in delegates--indeed, he was very close to being over the top. (Hence, the unusual conduct of a non-incumbent announcing his running mate in advance.) Really, it was between Schweiker and Governor James Rhodes of Ohio:

"Previously, Sears had reviewed the situation with Laxalt after talking it over with Black and Keene. All parties agreed that something needed to be done, but the pickings in the GOP were pretty slim. Choices for a running mate came down to Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio and Schweiker--although some conservatives felt a case could have been made for Senator James Buckley of New York.

"Rhodes controlled the ninety-seven Ohio delegates and most likely could have delivered them while not antagonizing Reagan's conservative delegates. All parties agreed that if winning the convention were the only goal, Rhodes would have made sense. But no one wanted to run a general election with the curmudgeonly and controversial Rhodes. Jules Witcover described him as 'slightly unsavory' in *Marathon* and Sears dryly told Witcover his feeling about the choice of Rhodes: 'You've got to have some responsibility in this business.'"
https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA272

One should remember that Schweiker was not all *that* liberal, especially on non-economic issues (and on economic issues he was after all from a heavily unionized state)--in particular, he was pro-gun and anti-abortion. It was therefore plausible to think that he would not alienate conservatives too much. And Sears definitely thought Reagan had to reach out to moderates to win both the nomination and the election. He had tried to get William Ruckelshaus (a Catholic and a moderate from Indiana--and of course, along with Elilot Richardson, the man who had refused to fire Archibald Cox...) on the ticket--but Reagan already controlled the Indiana delegation, at least on the first ballot.

But Sears' real first choice is shocking--Nelson Rockefeller! When asked what the reaction of Helms and other conservatives would be, Sears replied "They would have come off the ceiling in a day or two." Sears added, "I thought very strongly that he [Rockefeller] would have liked the irony of it, and he had firm control of his delegates. And, Mrs. Reagan liked him a lot. But you couldn't trust that others wouldn't talk him out of it, and you couldn't take that chance."

"Although Rockefeller controlled Dick Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum controlled the vast majority of the New York delegation, it is unknown whether delegates would have gone along with them and supported Reagan had Rockefeller joined the ticket. Still, it was no secret that Rockefeller and Rosenbaum were angry and dismayed over the treatment afforded Rockefeller by Ford and the President Ford Committee. The question is whether Reagan could hold his conservative delegates in the face of such a selection..." https://books.google.com/books?id=fPWPDH-0TZYC&pg=PA273

(If the problem was not knowing whether Rocky would accept, one would think that the Reagan camp could have sent a trusted go-between to at least sound Rocky out about it. And after all, given that Ford was not going to keep him on the ticket, this is probably Rocky's only chance not to have his political career ended. How likely is it that he would be talked out of *that*?)

Also, on foreign policy, Rocky might not be that distant from Reagan. "[Stu] Spencer, in a 2000 interview with the author, also described Rockefeller as 'the toughest anti-Communist I ever saw. Much more than Reagan, much more than Barry. I said to him, 'Why?' He said, 'If you were a Rockefeller, wouldn't you be?'" https://books.google.com/books?id=yjuOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT649

That being said, while Rockefeller was not as hated by conservatives in 1976 as he was in 1964, Sears' thinking that Helms, etc. "would have come off the ceiling in a day or two" may have been too optimistic.

 

[David T]

On a Carter-Reagan race in 1976, an old post of mine:

***

As in OTL, it would have been close, but IMO Carter would still have won. My reasons for believing this are:

(1) The GOP would still be bitterly divided--it would just be the other half of it that would be dissatisfied compared to OTL.

(2) Reagan's best states in the primaries were in the West and South. But while he would probably have done better in the popular vote in the West, he could not get any more electoral votes there than Ford did, for a simple reason--Ford swept the entire West in November (with the single exception of Hawaii, whose multiracial population would probably not be more favorable to Reagan than to Ford). Maybe Reagan defeats Carter in California by six points rather than Ford's two points. Maybe he carries Nevada by seven points instead of Ford's four points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976 But that means nothing in the Electoral College. Indeed, there is one western state that Ford very narrowly carried that Reagan might well have lost: Oregon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Oregon,_1976 Note that Ford had defeated Reagan in the Oregon primary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_1976 Also, Oregon was one of the few states where Eugene McCarthy's vote made the difference, and I can easily see some McCarthy voters who thought there was little difference between Carter and Ford, but might hesitate to cast a third-party vote if that would help a more conservative Republican than Ford...

(3) What about the South? First of all, remember that Reagan did not win all the southern primaries: Ford defeated him in FL, TN, and KY. Second, Carter, as the first major-party presidential candidate from the Deep South since before the ACW, generally won decisive, not narrow victories over Ford in the South. He lost VA and OK (and I assume he would have done so against Reagan as well) but the only southern states he carried by less than 5.78 points were MS and TX. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976 Note that if Reagan carries both TX and MS but loses OR, he will still fall short of 270 electoral votes.

But might Reagan have carried some southern states Carter won decisively in OTL? I doubt that. One piece of evidence of Carter's appeal in the South against Reagan is that even in 1980 when Carter had of course become a very unpopular president, he came very close to beating Reagan in southern state after southern state: Reagan (who of course lost Carter's home state of GA) won TN, AR, AL, MS, KY, and SC by 1.53 percent or less, and NC by 2.12 points. He did win LA by 5.45 points but by then Carter's energy policies were very unpopular there. (And of course he won FL by a landslide but the Mariel boatlift crisis and the unpopularity of Carter's Middle East policy among Jewish voters doomed Carter in that state in 1980.) Indeed, it is ironic that although the South was Anderson's weakest section in 1980, it is the section where he might have cost Carter a few states...

(4) In the Northeast and Midwest, I cannot see Reagan carrying any state that Ford didn't win, and indeed he might have lost some major states that Ford won narrowly in OTL: Illinois (where Ford easily defeated Reagan in the primary) and NJ. And just maybe even MI--yes, Carter lost it by over five points in OTL, but after all it was Ford's home state.

So could Reagan have defeated Carter in 1976? Sure--in a close race, anything is possible. Would he have done so? I doubt it.

 

[NedStark]

Carter's human rights focus in foreign policy led to him putting pressure on the Shah to liberalise. If Reagan's in office, that won't happen. At the very least Reagan would react to events in Iran very differently to Carter.

I doubt EMK would win an open 1980 Dem Primary.

The weak economic condition would have still dragged Reagan down. 1980 was simply too early for any meaningful economic turnaround.

 

[marktaha]

Still.Carter in 1976 with Reagan's "extremist" reputation and a divided GOP.

 

[We'll Get Em Next Time]

The weak economic condition would have still dragged Reagan down. 1980 was simply too early for any meaningful economic turnaround.

I fully agree Reagan is very likely to lose 1980, mainly because of fatigue with the Republicans constantly fucking up since Watergate. I don't think 1980 was intrinsically unwinnable for Carter or another first term Democrat, but that's another discussion.

 

[bguy]

The weak economic condition would have still dragged Reagan down. 1980 was simply too early for any meaningful economic turnaround.

Would the economy be as bad in 1980 if the Iranian Revolution is avoided though? No Iranian Revolution means no 1979 Oil Crisis.

 

[dw93]

Carter flips states in the midwest like Illinois, Ford's homestate of Michigan, and possibly Iowa and Maine. Best case for Reagan he wins Mississippi and Texas that Carter narrowly carried against Ford on top of Fords other OTL states, but even then Carter winning Michigan and Illinois still gives Carter a greater win than OTL.

 

[peeter]

Carter flips states in the midwest like Illinois, Ford's homestate of Michigan, and possibly Iowa and Maine. Best case for Reagan he wins Mississippi and Texas that Carter narrowly carried against Ford on top of Fords other OTL states, but even then Carter winning Michigan and Illinois still gives Carter a greater win than OTL.

Carter would win New Jersey too

 

[Bomster]

What do you guys think of this electoral map?

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Not enough states for Carter.

 

[Mynock]

What do you guys think of this electoral map?

Seems reasonably fair, I don't think Carter can expect anything other than a mild improvement over his OTL result barring something blowing up in the Reagan campaign.

 

[Bomster]

Seems reasonably fair, I don't think Carter can expect anything other than a mild improvement over his OTL result barring something blowing up in the Reagan campaign.

Like on one hand Reagan might be perceived as too extreme and he lacks the advantages of incumbency unlike President Ford, on the other hand Carter wasn’t the greatest campaigner (need I remind all of us of Playboy?) while Reagan was “The Great Communicator” and has lots of charisma.