That Wacky Redhead

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

Well, according to Wikipedia (I know, I know), Parliament repealed the secret ballot with the Representation of the People Act 1983, due to a clerical technicality.

Yeah, that's just bias on the part of whoever wrote that part--note that it claims the secret ballot is technically not in place because the ballots are numbered so in theory a voter could be linked to their vote if the secret records listing the numbers were stolen. Which is daft: it's like saying "voter fraud takes place in (country) because people could potentially steal the ballot boxes!"

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by NCW8

Not many British series on either list.

I'm reminded of "The Sweeney" & "The Professionals"...but it's been too long since I've heard either.

[Richter10]

Originally Posted by e of pi

It's interesting analysis, but I don't think Brainbin's planning to run there much, focusing more on Western and specifically US media and culture.

Fair enough. But I think that this is put is this TL's alley:
http://io9.com/5943656/douglas-adams...-of-technology

[stevep]

Originally Posted by phx1138

I'm reminded of "The Sweeney" & "The Professionals"...but it's been too long since I've heard either.

phx1138

Can't remember where you live but presumably not in Britain? If you have access to Freeview they are repeating a lot of them on ITV3 or ITV4. Heard a few Sweeny the other week as they had a session on it and had forgotten the old theme. Happy days.

Steve

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by stevep

phx1138

Can't remember where you live but presumably not in Britain? If you have access to Freeview they are repeating a lot of them on ITV3 or ITV4. Heard a few Sweeny the other week as they had a session on it and had forgotten the old theme. Happy days.

Steve

Nope, Canada, & these haven't been broadcast since CBC Late Nite did more than 20yr ago...

[Brainbin]

“You’re gonna get Ree-gan in 1976, wise guy!”

– Archie Bunker, Those Were the Days (in the episode “Richard’s Appendix”, originally aired December 2, 1972) [1]

Of the twenty-two United States Congresses elected since the end of Republican Party dominance in 1932, the GOP had controlled only three: those elected in 1946 (the 80th); in 1952 (the 83rd); and the present 94th Congress, elected in 1974. In all three cases, they had seized control as the result of a backlash against the unpopular Democratic administration in power at the time; though on the first two occasions, the Democrats proved surprisingly resilient, and were able to make up for lost ground most effectively (by winning back Congress in the following term). However, as the nation celebrated the bicentennial year of the Declaration of Independence in 1976, it was becoming increasingly clear that in the elections to be held that November, the Republicans had become increasingly entrenched in both the House and the Senate, and stood an excellent chance of winning the Presidency as well – though, as always, that particular race would be the hardest to call, and not until well into the campaign…

The lame-duck term of Hubert H. Humphrey’s Presidency continued to be dominated by the Oil Crisis and ensuing recession, and the many foreign adventures conducted by various government agencies, ranging from relatively benign (Ethiopia) to potentially as catastrophic as another Suez (Cyprus), though fortunately the only lasting damage done in that case was the relationship with Greece (earning the enmity of the not-insignificant Greek-American electorate). [2] However, and despite Humphrey’s own personal inclinations to the contrary, his administration would not recognize the PRC as the legitimate Chinese state during his Presidency or, therefore, during the lifetime of Chairman Mao (who died in 1976, less than two months before the election). And as for Humphrey, neither a young man nor in the best of health, he suffered a major personal setback in the summer of 1975, after a serious heart-attack rendered him unable to execute his duties for over a month. As a result, the first-ever invocation of Amendment XXV to the United States Constitution took place. Under section 3, his Vice-President, Edmund Muskie, became the first Acting President of the United States. [3] Though his tenure in the position before Humphrey had sufficiently recuperated to return to office was largely uneventful, it did provide him with a powerful edge in the campaign season that followed.

A different amendment to the United States Constitution, XXII, prevented Humphrey from seeking a third term as President, though it was vanishingly unlikely that he would have sought one even if he could, given his own constitution, and his considerable unpopularity within certain corners of his own party, as well as with the broader electorate. However, Vice-President Muskie was perhaps the most singularly accomplished candidate in either party, and the only one with Presidential experience, so it was expected that he would have a clear path to the Democratic nomination in 1976. Unfortunately for him, that expectation did not coincide with reality. At the very least, the anti-Humphrey faction of the Democrats refused to let his coronation go unchallenged, particularly not with their own head, Sen. Scoop Jackson, harbouring Presidential aspirations of his own. No spring chicken himself, he knew that 1976 was his last real shot at the White House. Virtually the entire Democratic Party lined up behind one or the other (with many luminaries, in particular, sitting the fight out largely in exchange for promises of plum appointments by both sides): a Battle of the Titans was on. The Republicans, not to be outdone by their rivals, found themselves with a crowded nomination contest of their own, despite the presence of a strong frontrunner in former California Gov. Ronald Reagan.

The GOP had, since the beginning of the 20th century, been polarized between its progressive and its conservative wings; these were embodied in recent decades by Nelson Rockefeller (and his “Rockefeller Republicans”) on the left, and Barry Goldwater on the right. Both then-General Eisenhower and Vice-President Nixon had secured the GOP nomination as unity candidates; Rockefeller was allowed to represent the party in 1972 largely because it did not appear likely that he would win, and his lengthy career as Governor of New York seemed ready to wind down (he would retire in 1974); previously, he had engaged in his own Battle of the Titans with Goldwater for the 1964 nomination (which Goldwater would win, for what little good that did him). Reagan was an active supporter and disciple of Goldwater, and was deemed the man to carry his torch into the 1970s and even the 1980s, despite his own advanced age. He had passed on 1972, correctly determining that Humphrey’s popularity at the time would carry him to a win – though one much narrower than he (or indeed, anyone else) could have predicted; and perhaps avoidable, had Reagan (a staunch conservative) been the Republican candidate, which would have attracted some of the votes that instead went to the far-right American Party, led by another Governor, George Wallace of Alabama.

Other major Republican candidates included Maryland Senator Charles Mathias (eventually emerging as the champion of the liberal wing of the party), former Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller (attempting to carry the Rockefeller Republican torch, though many Republicans uncomfortable with his dynastic ties to his elder brother supported Mathias instead), Michigan Senator George Romney (in his third and final Presidential campaign – having entered the Senate specifically to gain foreign policy cachet for such a run), and Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke, the first major African-American candidate for President (beating the Democrats to the punch). [4] Minor candidates included right-wing Rep. Sam Steiger of Arizona (who passed on the chance to run for Senate), former Illinois Governor Richard B. Ogilvie, and freshman Senator C.R. Lewis of Alaska. Meanwhile, Governor Spiro T. Agnew, who was under criminal investigation throughout his run (charges were filed in early 1977), and perennial candidate former Gov. Harold Stassen of Minnesota, running in his seventh campaign for that office (his first had been in 1944), were considered “joke” candidates. [5]

Edward Brooke hit a major snag in his historic campaign when rumours quickly began circulating that he was having an extramarital affair with none other than Baba Wawa, host of the Today Show on NBC. [6] The interracial element to this affair felt positively timely (it coincided with the prime of the similarly-themed sitcom Moving on Up, and for extra piquancy, Brooke himself was also married to a white woman, whom he divorced as a result of the scandal), but it was difficult to assess the impact that it would have on his campaign. Some observers suggested that it boosted his public image and popular appeal, though others dismissed this out-of-hand. How could a sex scandal help a politician get elected? This trifling dalliance was fortunately diminished somewhat by the veritable wave of corruption scandals that engulfed Spiro T. Agnew, which capsized his candidacy before it had even begun in earnest. He would subsequently finish dead last among all of his fellow candidates, even after far-right freshman Senator C.R. Lewis and long-irrelevant perennial candidate Harold Stassen. And of the ten candidates for the Republican nomination, only five would carry any states: Reagan, Mathias, Brooke, Romney, and Rockefeller. Ogilvie lost Illinois to Reagan, just as Steiger lost Arizona, Lewis lost Alaska, and Stassen lost Minnesota; Agnew lost Maryland to Mathias (as it had also been his home state). Rockefeller won only his home state of Arkansas; Romney won only Michigan and Utah, just as he had done in the 1972 primaries. Brooke carried all six New England states, but lost New York (in which he had invested heavily) by splitting the liberal/moderate vote with Mathias and Rockefeller, allowing Reagan to come up the middle (and effectively secure the nomination). Reagan chose Mathias as his running-mate, in an effort to embrace the Republican Big Tent and bridge the gap between the Rockefeller and Goldwater wings of the party; Reagan personally would have preferred to choose someone more like Pennsylvania Sen. Richard Schweiker as his running-mate, but circumstances forced him to choose one of his liberal opponents. Romney was eliminated on account of his age; he was older than Reagan, himself already a senior citizen, and there was a desire to put someone on the ticket who was born after World War I. Brooke, an early favourite, was eliminated from contention not due to his race, but for his sex scandal; Reagan, a past divorcé, did not need a philanderer on his ticket as well, for that would not sit well with the family values types he needed to secure victory in November.

The Republican National Convention, held in Kansas City, Missouri, was a star-studded affair. Morale was high, as the desire to remove the Democrats from the White House after four consecutive terms had been mounting to a fever pitch. Indeed, it helped to drive party unity in ways that no ideological compromise or personal friendships could have done. In the ultimate sign of “healing old divisions”, both Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater appeared on stage together at the convention as Reagan and Mathias accepted the nominations of their party (Rockefeller to Mathias’s left, and Goldwater to Reagan’s right), burying the hatchet from their own bitterly-fought contest in 1964. Richard Nixon, who had been nominated for the Presidency twice (in 1960 and 1968) as opposed to the one time apiece that the other two had been nominated, also appeared on stage with them, at centre, though upstage from Reagan and Mathias. (The nominees’ wives also flanked their husbands). Pictures taken of these elder statesmen, assembled on stage together for the first and last time, became known as the “Family Portrait”. [7] Nixon, who had largely stayed true to his most recent promise to remain in seclusion following his latest high-profile defeat (and, in doing so, had notably not appeared at the 1972 convention), appeared at this convention for two reasons: his friendship with Reagan, and his presentation of the Eisenhower tribute, the centrepiece of the GOP convention. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the only Republican President in the last forty years, was at this time undergoing a major historical re-evaluation that would eventually see him recognized as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the Union. [8] Indeed, some have argued that this effort began on the floor of the RNC in Kansas City, though this was not the case. In any event, Nixon, an eloquent speaker, warmly commemorated his former running-mate, in addition to providing a stirring endorsement of Reagan, emerging as the real star at Kansas City. But Nixon, never one without a chip on his shoulder, responded to eager reporters hoping to interview him after such a tour de force with just one phrase: “Out of my way, vultures.” [9]

Scoop Jackson, despite trenchant support within his faction of the Democratic Party (including from LA Councilman George Takei, who appeared in advertising with Jackson and helped him to narrowly carry California in the state primaries, just as he had helped Humphrey to win the Golden State in the previous Presidential election), soon found that he was unable to develop much traction with the grassroots of the Democratic Party. Though former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark was the most prominent candidate running to the left of Muskie, in general the party’s liberal wing chose to support the Vice-President, largely in order to prevent Jackson from wresting the nomination from him. Clark, for his part, dropped out in order to run for the Congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Bella Abzug, who was in turn running for Senate against Conservative (and Republican) Sen. James L. Buckley. She would lose that contest, but Clark would win her seat. Still, Time magazine captured the impression of the nation when it memorably featured Reagan, Muskie, and Jackson sharing their front cover, indicating that one of them would be the next President of the United States. [10] However, what might have firmly put Jackson out of contention in the end was his seeming lack of confidence in his own campaign: he filed to run for re-election to Senate in his native Washington as well as for President, and increasingly focused on that campaign as the season wore on. Though Jackson swept the West Coast and Great Plains states, it wouldn’t be nearly enough. He conceded just weeks before the Democratic National Convention in August. Scoop Jackson was not the type to run on the bottom of any ticket, so being chosen as Muskie’s running-mate was out of the question; but rumours abounded that he had been promised the plum position of Secretary of State in exchange for rolling over and endorsing Muskie at the convention in New York City, which he did. Takei, one of Jackson’s most high-profile supporters, also spoke briefly at the convention – which fueled fleeting speculation that this municipal legislator might have been on the long-list for Vice-President; but Muskie made a far more sound strategic decision in Arkansas Sen. Dale Bumpers, one of the party’s very few rising stars in the formerly Solid South. The geographic composition of the ticket echoed Kennedy/Johnson, and evoking the image of Camelot was a recurring theme at the Democratic convention, as it had been throughout the Presidency of Hubert H. Humphrey – naturally, those outside of the party faithful had long since begun to tire of it. It also didn’t help that Humphrey, unsurprisingly given his poor health, was a no-show, in a direct contrast to the star-studded Republican convention.

Meanwhile, what had rapidly become the third party in the United States, the American Party, faced something of a power vacuum of its own. Putative leader George Wallace declined to run for a third time for the exact same reason that Reagan passed on 1972, though in reverse; he knew that the Gipper would steal many of the votes that might otherwise head his way. However, he also knew that running three times (especially consecutively) was a sign of desperation. “You can get away with it if your name is Roosevelt,” as Wallace himself would later reflect on the situation, referring to Theodore (who ran for a third time in 1912, and would have run – and likely won – for a fourth in 1920, had he lived), and Franklin (who ran and won in 1940 and 1944, to become the longest-serving US President). For that reason, he passed the torch to his presumptive successor, Georgia Sen. Lester Maddox, leader of the tiny American caucus in the Senate, and senior-most AIP member in Congress. But as with both Reagan and Muskie, the path to nomination was not nearly as idyllic as it first seemed. Maddox, an old-school segregationist, was challenged by North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms, who believed that the future of the party lay in an entirely different direction. Helms did surprisingly well in the primaries located outside of the South, where matters of desegregation were less of an issue than more the “universal” concerns of nativism and populism. However, and unsurprisingly, the primary system weighted Southern states more heavily – well, technically, “those states with representation by members of the American Party”, and though a few rogue AIP members found themselves on county commissions or even in the state house outside of their heartland, but that couldn’t possibly counteract the sheer volume of delegates in states like Georgia, Louisiana, and (of course) Alabama – all of which went heavily for Maddox. However, and inspired by Reagan, Maddox extended the olive branch to Helms, who joined him on the American Party ticket. Wallace, for his part, was not particularly thrilled with Maddox or Helms, but in forming the party, he had made his own bed, and now he had to sleep in it. Or so it would seem…

The biggest scandal to break during the campaign was definitely a smear of the Republicans, a former aide to 1972 Vice-Presidential candidate Gov. Daniel J. Evans of Washington named Theodore Robert “Ted” Bundy – who had already caused a minor stir during that campaign by stalking and eavesdropping on Humphrey supporters – was arrested for the rape and murder of multiple young women. [11] His crimes were so gruesome, so numerous, and so deviously calculated, that a new term, “serial murderer”, was coined specifically to describe him. Evans was shut out of involvement with the Republican campaign, even in his native Washington, as Bundy had originally come to work as an aide to the 1972 GOP ticket through his own campaign apparatus. By contrast, once Jackson had conceded to Muskie, he campaigned heavily for his former rival in the Evergreen State, as letting bygones be bygones certainly wasn’t limited to Republicans. This rare combination gave the Democrats a much-needed edge in that part of the country. Bundy, for his part, became perhaps the most notorious cause celebre of the mid-to-late-1970s; the multitude of crime-fighting programs on the air would feel the shockwaves of an infamous criminal like Bundy for many years to come, as did the sensationalist “true-crime” tabloids, which made him their cover story in issue after issue.

The Republicans made big gains in the Senate on Reagan’s coattails; 11 of the 16 freshman Senators to be elected were from the GOP, and only one Democrat defeated a Republican incumbent (Paul Sarbanes won over John Glenn Beall, Jr., in Maryland). Of those Republican freshmen, many were members of the lower house who had decided to make the leap to Senate, including George Bush of Texas (defeating his 1964 opponent, Sen. Ralph Yarborough, in a rematch) [12], William Cohen of Maine [13], Dick Cheney of Wyoming [14], and Barry Goldwater, Jr., of California [15], who in serving alongside his father became part of only the second father-and-son team in the Senate (following Henry Dodge of Wisconsin and Augustus Caesar Dodge of Iowa, over a century earlier). Sen. Hugh Scott, the Majority Leader of the upper chamber, had initially planned on retiring on 1976, but ran for re-election anyway in order to remain in his senior position. [16] Two of the most intriguing Senate contests, however, were a pair of four-way face-offs in the Old Confederacy. In Mississippi, hotshot AIP Rep. Trent Lott saw an excellent chance to win a seat from Democrat John C. Stennis. But so too did the Republicans, as the Magnolia State was far and away their strongest in the Deep South. However, the contest for the nomination proved tricky when the black candidate, Charles Evers, narrowly edged out his white opponent, who then ran as an independent. Evers, propelled largely by the African-American vote, then rose up the middle of the crowded field to become the first black Senator to represent the Deep South since Reconstruction. [17] (Interestingly, both Reconstruction-era Senators of colour were also Republicans from Mississippi). Meanwhile, in Virginia, independent Sen. Harry F. Byrd was defeated by Democrat Elmo Zumwalt (one of only two Democratic freshmen in the upper house to topple an incumbent); Zumwalt had also risen up the middle, over a prominent AIP candidate along with Republican Roger MacBride, who was from the party’s increasingly robust libertarian wing (and, therefore, a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan, helping him to carry the Old Dominion – which he did, overwhelmingly). [18] Meanwhile, the lower chamber saw relatively little movement, only slightly widening the already-significant Republican lead in the lower chamber. However, the American Party failed to gain a single seat from either of the two major parties in the election – considered a sure sign that the party had plateaued, as third parties so often did.

Map of Presidential election results. Blue denotes states won by Reagan/Mathias; Red denotes those won by Muskie/Bumpers; Gold denotes those won by Maddox/Helms.

Turnout for the election was over 60%, or just above 90 million. [19] Reagan and Mathias carried 39 states out of 50, which translated to 450 electoral votes out of 538; Muskie and Bumpers won only nine states, and a mere 67 electoral votes. Maddox and Helms won the remaining two states and 21 electoral votes. Reagan won with the support of 45.8 million electors (for 50.81% of the vote), and in doing so headed the first ticket for the GOP to win the White House since Eisenhower/Nixon was re-elected in 1956; they also won a majority of the popular vote (the first for any candidate since “Landslide Lyndon” turned the trick in 1964). 37.1 million electors backed Muskie (for 41.16%), near rock bottom in terms of popular vote share, with their electoral vote tally the worst of any Democratic ticket in the twentieth century. However, the presence of Bumpers on the ticket allowed the Democrats to narrowly win his native Arkansas in a three-way race – it would be the only state won by the Democrats in the formerly Solid South, and the only one in the Union in which the Republicans would finish third (the GOP had not carried the state since Ulysses S. Grant had won it in 1872), proving truly vexing for the party. The mere 6.34 million votes (representing just over 7%) for Maddox was an absolute decline, even considering the lower turnout of the previous election. Miscellaneous small-party candidates received the remaining 1% of the vote, none of whom were notable enough to bear detailed mention. Bumpers was also the only VP candidate to carry his home state – Mathias would lose his native Maryland to Muskie (as Spiro T. Agnew, the running-mate to Richard Nixon in 1968, also lost Maryland, to Humphrey), and Helms would lose North Carolina to Reagan. This was less surprising, as the AIP had not carried the state in either of George Wallace’s runs for the White House.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, the GOP won 62 seats, compared to 34 for the Democrats, 3 for the AIP, and only one remaining independent (John Sparkman of Alabama, who notionally still caucused with the Democratic Party). In the House, the GOP won 259 seats, the Democrats won 158, and the Americans held 18. 1977 would prove a decisive year for the Reagan administration. The 95th Congress had a three-fifth majority of Republicans in the Senate, and a House margin of 100 seats over the opposition Democrats. The Republicans had not held such absolute, unfettered control of government in nearly a half-century. Ronald Wilson Reagan (who, unlike his three predecessors, very rarely used his middle name, ending the trend of three-initial Presidents) was inaugurated as the 38th President of the United States on January 20, 1977. It was the last public event attended by his ailing predecessor, Hubert H. Humphrey, who was visibly infirm and barely able to stand at the inauguration ceremony. [20] He would die less than two months later, on March 16, and his state funeral would mark the first significant event of Reagan’s most tumultuous tenure in office…

---

[1] Archie made the same prescient quip to the Meathead IOTL, though (obviously) referring to 1980 (in the episode “The Baby Contest”, originally aired December 11, 1976).

[2] See this update for more details on the Ethiopian and Cypriot situations. In short, the deposal of Haile Selassie and (indirectly) the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus have both been butterflied, though not without some resentment within the international community at the American cloak-and-dagger operations that prevented them from happening.

[3] By this stage IOTL, Amendment XXV had been invoked three times: to appoint Gerald Ford to the Vice-Presidency; to allow Ford to succeed Richard Nixon upon his resignation from the Presidency; and to appoint Nelson Rockefeller to the Vice-Presidency. However, Section 3 would not be invoked until 1985 IOTL.

[4] Democratic Rep. Shirley Chisholm, who IOTL ran for President in 1972, and became the first major African-American candidate to do so, obviously declined to challenge the incumbent President Humphrey, and also declined to run in the Battle of the Titans that was 1976. Being a supporter of Humphrey, she thus supports Muskie by proxy. Sen. Brooke (the highest-ranking man of colour in Congress) runs hoping to use the still-formidable Yankee Republican base as a launching point for his campaign.

[5] Agnew, having lost on the GOP Presidential ticket in 1968, ran for re-election as Governor of Maryland in 1970 and won comfortably due to his considerable popularity. Following Reagan’s lead, he declined to run for President in 1972, hoping to serve out his second term, but then became embroiled in corruption scandals, leaving office in disgrace. In running for the nomination in 1976, he is hoping to re-establish his good name; he will not prove successful. Stassen, meanwhile, famously sought the GOP nomination for President a whopping twelve times IOTL, helping to define the term “perennial candidate” in the process. By this stage ITTL, he has actually run once more than IOTL, as Stassen (with uncharacteristic insight) declined to challenge the incumbent President Nixon in 1972; but he had no such compunction challenging Rockefeller.

[6] Oh yes, she’s back! And believe it or not, this is per OTL, or at least, so Wawa claims (Brooke has never commented either way).

[7] The “Family Portrait” is loosely analogous with this picture taken at the OTL Republican National Convention.

[8] As IOTL, more or less, though on a slightly accelerated scale, and with a certain zeal that was not present in our history. However, Eisenhower – as opposed to the object of Republican veneration IOTL, who is, fittingly enough, Ronald Reagan – will be widely admired even by Democrats, essentially a Harry S. Truman figure in reverse. However, by contrast, Truman himself (whose upstanding nature cannot be contrasted with the vile corruption of a President Nixon) and John F. Kennedy (whose Camelot legacy has been so thoroughly tapped by the Humphrey administration that it has become a spent force) are viewed less positively ITTL, even by Democrats.

[9] The only living Republican Presidential candidate who does not appear in Kansas City ITTL is former Gov. Alf Landon (ironically, from Kansas), who was the hapless opponent to FDR in 1936. The discontinuity that his presence would create is undesirable for all involved, and though Landon is actually fairly well-known (at least, more so than any losing Presidential candidate from forty years ago has any right to be) as a touring speaker, he is not invited to attend. More than one editorial cartoonist would notice this discrepancy and make light of it: “What about me?” and “Nobody wants me – again” would both appear in newspaper captions following the convention.

[10] Analogous to this OTL cover of Time magazine; Reagan appears alone, on the right, whereas Muskie and Jackson appear close together on the left.

[11] Bundy was indeed fleetingly mentioned in the 1972 elections update, but his presence seems to have gone unnoticed. The stalking and eavesdropping was extrapolated from OTL events in which he worked for the Evans gubernatorial campaign in 1972 – he was quite active in Washington state politics in the early 1970s. Bundy was (of course) described by the term “serial killer” IOTL, but this precise term was not nailed down until after his “heyday”; murderer more accurately describes the nature of his crimes.

[12] Bush ran for (and lost) that same Senate in 1970 IOTL, though not in a rematch with Yarborough, as Lloyd Bentsen wrested the party nomination from him. However, since Yarborough was a close Humphrey ally, this connection allowed him to hold on ITTL, only to lose to Rep. Bush (by then a member of the House leadership) in the following election. Replacing Bush in his House seat (TX-7, a suburban Houston district) is James Baker.

[13] Replacing Democratic Sen. William Hathaway, who was appointed to replace Edmund Muskie in 1968, and then won a term in his own right in 1970.

[14] Unable to work in the Nixon administration ITTL, Cheney moved to Cheyenne instead, running for the state’s lone Congressional seat in 1972 (defeating Democratic incumbent Teno Roncalio in the process). He then defeated incumbent Sen. Gale McGee (who lost to Malcolm Wallop IOTL; here, Wallop won Cheney’s vacated seat).

[15] Goldwater, naturally, is a huge Reagan booster, which helped him to secure the Senate nomination for the GOP ITTL. The OTL nominee (and winner), S.I. Hayakawa, was elected to California’s 5th congressional district, which covers Marin County and parts of San Francisco, in 1974 ITTL (he was re-elected in 1976).

[16] Scott, the Senate Minority Leader at this stage IOTL, with no possible hope for seeing the majority, retired in 1976 (alongside his rival, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield).

[17] Lott joined the American Party, not the Republicans, in 1972 ITTL (again, due to the absence of Nixon). Evers, a Republican IOTL, ran for Senate as an independent in 1978; ITTL, he actually runs as a Republican, undeterred by any Southern Strategy (though there is still some friction within the party, leading to the split), and manages to win in the four-way (with less than a third of the vote). Note that Rep. Thad Cochran, his OTL opponent, is a member of the Republican Party.

[18] And MacBride isn’t the only one - Rep. Ed Clark turfed Rep. Jeffery Cohelan in CA-8 in 1974, and Rep. Ron Paul won election to TX-22 that same year.

[19] Turnout is obviously much higher ITTL because people have not lost faith in their government, and (in general) have three candidates they are genuinely excited about.

[20] Humphrey lived until January 13, 1978 - ten months later - IOTL. Given how the Presidency tends to age its office-holders, it’s probably a bit of a stretch to keep him alive for an entire two terms, but we’ll assume that his “Happy Warrior” temperament (and a severe lightening of the load in the later years of his second term) got him through.

---

Special thanks to vultan for his assistance and very helpful suggestions in the writing of this update!

Thus concludes the 1975-76 cycle! I hope you all enjoyed that detailed coverage of the 1976 US elections! I decided to try to write this appendix in the style of my conventional updates, so I hope that none of you miss the red highlights. For those of you who dislike politics, I once again apologize for this intrusion; I can say with reasonable confidence that this will be the most explicitly and unabashedly political update in the entire timeline (though others may probably come close). For those of you who guessed that Reagan would be elected President (which is - oh yes, that’s right - all of you), my congratulations! You were right all along. No No-Prizes, though; I'm afraid we're all out

[Thande]

Excellent appendix update. In some ways in AH it takes more skill to take something that superficially looks OTL and put a different spin on it ("President Ronald Reagan") than to do something completely different. Look forward to seeing the effects on American culture.

“You’re gonna get Ree-gan in 1976, wise guy!”

– Archie Bunker, Those Were the Days (in the episode “Richard’s Appendix”, originally aired December 2, 1972) [1]

It's interesting to try and pin down just when people started pronouncing Reagan's name the way Reagan himself did ("Ray Gun", as some people punned). I was just listening to the Ashes to Ashes soundtrack the other day and the 1981 song (We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang references the recently-elected Reagan but pronounces his name "Ree-gan", as you have here. Clearly it took time for the pronunciation to sink in.

Under section 3, his Vice-President, Edmund Muskie, became the first Acting President of the United States

I realise this is under a new amendment, but haven't there been Acting Presidents before, like John Tyler? Or is this 'officially' creating a position that in the past was just assumed?

[Andrew T]

Fantastic job, Brainbin! You've made alt-'76 here utterly -- almost eerily -- plausible. Mac Mathias is still remembered fondly here in reliably Democratic Maryland and hits every one of the Vice Presidential criteria that were in use at this time (geographical/regional, age, and ideological balance) and also passes the "gravitas" test.

Similarly, Dale Bumpers is an inspired choice for Muskie's VP; he's a plausible President in his own right, young, charismatic, obviously a rising star in the party, and from the South (which I imagine will continue to tantalize Democrats ITTL just as IOTL). Remember that as late as 1988, Michael Dukakis was talking about winning Texas as key to his electoral strategy (!); my guess is that Democrats are going to take at least as long ITTL as IOTL to figure out where to maximize their electoral return for their campaigning buck.

The size of Reagan's '76 landslide here feels about right, and -- with the Republicans having huge majorities in Congress -- sets up a pretty fun parallel to OTL's 2008. My guess is that Reagan's brand of economic conservatism will be a harder sell in TTL for any number of reasons: a) greater racial integration and social equality, which generally correlates well with social and political liberalism; b) a more peaceful 70s, which means that national security/defense buildup arguments are going to resonate less well with the electorate; c) religious Right groups like the Moral Majority have had less time to organize and probably have more divided loyalties given the regional viability of the AIP; they've also had zero opportunity to interact with a national campaign, unlike IOTL; and d) Reagan will take office during a time of relative economic prosperity trending downwards as opposed to the reverse, and so people will be less likely to want to gamble on radical new tax policy.

FWIW, Arthur Laffer was said to have publicly explained the Laffer curve in 1974, so that probably already exists, although Laffer's work in drafting California's Proposition 13 didn't happen until 1978 IOTL. Nevertheless, I imagine that Reagan is still a supply-sider ITTL.

Finally: we're about to enter the age of the personal computer! IOTL, 1977 saw the release of the Apple II and TRS-80 Model I, although things didn't really pick up until 1979 with the release of the Apple II+, the TRS-80 Model II, and the Atari 400 and 800.

[jpj1421]

Reagan in 76 with a massive Republican Congress? Eww.

Great update as always, though.

[NCW8]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

The size of Reagan's '76 landslide here feels about right, and -- with the Republicans having huge majorities in Congress -- sets up a pretty fun parallel to OTL's 2008. My guess is that Reagan's brand of economic conservatism will be a harder sell in TTL for any number of reasons: a) greater racial integration and social equality, which generally correlates well with social and political liberalism; b) a more peaceful 70s, which means that national security/defense buildup arguments are going to resonate less well with the electorate; c) religious Right groups like the Moral Majority have had less time to organize and probably have more divided loyalties given the regional viability of the AIP; they've also had zero opportunity to interact with a national campaign, unlike IOTL; and d) Reagan will take office during a time of relative economic prosperity trending downwards as opposed to the reverse, and so people will be less likely to want to gamble on radical new tax policy.

It' probably too soon for anything like the Strategic Defense Initiative to be proposed. With more spending on space exploration, something like the Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy will, if anything, be slower to form than in OTL.

Diplomatically, without Maggie, he's not going to have as much support from the British Government as he enjoyed in OTL. Taking everything together, there's a possibility that he could become the Jimmy Carter of TTL. At least he won't be attacked by a rabbit.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Finally: we're about to enter the age of the personal computer! IOTL, 1977 saw the release of the Apple II and TRS-80 Model I, although things didn't really pick up until 1979 with the release of the Apple II+, the TRS-80 Model II, and the Atari 400 and 800.

Not forgetting the ZX80 in the UK. I didn't have one of those myself - my first computer was the far more sophisticated ZX Spectrum that came out a couple of years later ( the one with whole 48 K of RAM !)

Cheers,
Nigel.

[Andrew T]

Originally Posted by NCW8

It's probably too soon for anything like the Strategic Defense Initiative to be proposed.

I don't know about that -- the technology to make anything like SDI viable is just as non-existent in 1977 (ITTL) as in 1983 (IOTL)!

[PW MAX]

Another great update, another great read. Still very much looking forward to the 1980s in this world, only a few more years till I'm born! Unless I've been butterflied away somehow...

[Unknown]

Love the humiliation of Agnew. BTW, have you read Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail 1972? (Agnew becomes president in that TL.)

[anon_user]

Originally Posted by Thande

I realise this is under a new amendment, but haven't there been Acting Presidents before, like John Tyler? Or is this 'officially' creating a position that in the past was just assumed?

Nope - Tyler presented himself as the President, and set the precedent for vice-presidents becoming Presidents (rather than Acting Presidents) when their running-mates died in office.
***
Was George Takei a Scoop Jackson Democrat in OTL, too?

Definitely happy to see a Marylander who isn't a corrupt embarrassment to my home state in the Vice-Presidency.

[stevep]

Guys

On whether Reagan becomes a 1 or 2 terms possibly the big issue would be whether you still get the Iranian rebellion and following coup by the reactionary clerics and the accompaningly oil shock? [Mind you the period up until Reagan's election OTL was the period of maximum public interest in finding alternatives to the oil question and Reagan's supply-sider/fre-market outlook went strongly against that. So unless he has a major change in his outlook, which I suspect is unlikely, that could end sooner, which could make any oil shock worse].

Steve

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by anon_user

Was George Takei a Scoop Jackson Democrat in OTL, too?

Nope. OTL, he ran for LA councilman, but lost.

[phx1138]

Originally Posted by Brainbin

[FONT=Verdana]“You’re gonna get Ree-gan in 1976, wise guy!”

As usual, an excellent piece of work. I'm no particular fan of politics, so I don't have the knowledge to say how this differs. I am, as always, deeply impressed with your grasp of the details & niceties.

I didn't realize Ted Bundy was so closely connected to the Republicans. I have to wonder if it might not have wider repercussions.

One thought: with Reagan (and having just seen "The Big Sleep" on cable at the time, I insisted on calling him "Rusty") as PotUS, I don't imagine the Iran Hostage Crisis happens. At the least, Eagle Claw succeeds, I'd guess. (Tho OTL it was such a clusterfuck, with every service insisting on having a piece, it's no wonder it didn't work.)

Originally Posted by PW MAX

Another great update, another great read. Still very much looking forward to the 1980s in this world, only a few more years till I'm born! Unless I've been butterflied away somehow...

Did anybody hear that?

And just for laughs:

Syndicate "Trek"?

[NCW8]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

I don't know about that -- the technology to make anything like SDI viable is just as non-existent in 1977 (ITTL) as in 1983 (IOTL)!

Well, yes, but the availability of the technology didn't prevent Pournelle et al proposing the SDI in OTL as a way to channel some of the growing defence spending into space research. Since this seems to be better funded ITTL anyway, they're likely to come up with such suggestions later than OTL rather than sooner. In other words, not in Reagan's first term (and of course he might not get a second).

Cheers,
Nigel.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by stevep

Guys

On whether Reagan becomes a 1 or 2 terms possibly the big issue would be whether you still get the Iranian rebellion and following coup by the reactionary clerics and the accompaningly oil shock? [Mind you the period up until Reagan's election OTL was the period of maximum public interest in finding alternatives to the oil question and Reagan's supply-sider/fre-market outlook went strongly against that. So unless he has a major change in his outlook, which I suspect is unlikely, that could end sooner, which could make any oil shock worse].

Steve

Hmm; perhaps Brainbin could do something that relates to the general pop culture focus of this TL. When I did an abortive TL about an alternate Iran crisis, I actually used a popular Iranian TV series as part of it. That show is a dom com set during the British occupation of southern Iran in WW2, with the patriarch of the family being a paranoid Anglophobe who thinks he's the reincarnation of Napoleon. In my TL I was using the idea that the Shah had got paranoid about being poisoned by British doctors, and the Iranian public were mocking him by comparing him to this character from the show.

[Brainbin]

Thank you all so much for your incredibly warm replies toward my latest update! This one was a long time coming, and it was fun to write, for all the right reasons. Not that I'm planning on shifting the focus of this timeline by any means (the next proper update is going to be a back-to-basics overview post, with some fun and entirely pop-culture-related twists), but the thing about culture is that contextualization never hurts. As always, responses to pre-update posts first...

Originally Posted by NCW8

Not many British series on either list.

I don't have anything against British theme songs; the ones I've heard are all fine, but I don't know. I haven't heard that many, so I'll share a few that I've heard and do like:

• Doctor Who: Classic series only. The modern versions strike me as way too overwrought. They perfected the mix of the original recording during the Pertwee/Baker years (fittingly enough), but I also quite enjoyed the Davison/Baker version (but not the McCoy version).
• Red Dwarf: All three versions. They all strike that same ineffable chord which appeals to me in a theme song.
• Are You Being Served: A skewed take on the expository theme song which perfectly captures the monotony and routine of working at Grace Bros.
• Keeping Up Appearances: I know, it's one of those shows that foreigners love but natives hate. Well, I still think the theme perfectly demonstrates the essence of Our Hyacinth (helped along by the visuals, of course - Routledge is a brilliant physical comedienne).
• Fawlty Towers: But then again, KUA is merely following in the footsteps of Fawlty Towers in the "deceptively-sophisticated" tradition.

Originally Posted by Thande

Yeah, that's just bias on the part of whoever wrote that part--note that it claims the secret ballot is technically not in place because the ballots are numbered so in theory a voter could be linked to their vote if the secret records listing the numbers were stolen. Which is daft: it's like saying "voter fraud takes place in (country) because people could potentially steal the ballot boxes!"

Fair enough. I can't say I'm surprised - the secret ballot has always represented so much more than what it actually is, after all

Originally Posted by Richter10

Fair enough. But I think that this is put is this TL's alley:
http://io9.com/5943656/douglas-adams...-of-technology

This is an intriguing possibility, but remember that ITTL, Henson is working out of Desilu, not Elstree, which makes it far less likely that he would encounter Adams.

Originally Posted by Thande

Excellent appendix update. In some ways in AH it takes more skill to take something that superficially looks OTL and put a different spin on it ("President Ronald Reagan") than to do something completely different. Look forward to seeing the effects on American culture.

Thank you, Thande My challenge is actually twofold - not only do I have Reagan's OTL Presidency as a point of comparison, but also the well-worn "Reagan in 1976" cliche here on AH.com. I like to think that, since I'm presenting it from a fairly novel perspective, that might make the difference.

Originally Posted by Thande

It's interesting to try and pin down just when people started pronouncing Reagan's name the way Reagan himself did ("Ray Gun", as some people punned). I was just listening to the Ashes to Ashes soundtrack the other day and the 1981 song (We Don't Need This) Fascist Groove Thang references the recently-elected Reagan but pronounces his name "Ree-gan", as you have here. Clearly it took time for the pronunciation to sink in.

Ree-gan is the "correct" pronunciation, and the one that Reagan himself used for most of his film career (apparently, switching it to Ray-gun was the doing of his second wife, Nancy Davis, who thought it sounded too much like an "Irish cop"). There's actually a very specific reason that Archie would pronounce it Ree-gan; because his accent was based on the working-class Irish-Americans whom O'Connor knew growing up (and he himself was Irish-American, to boot).

Originally Posted by Thande

I realise this is under a new amendment, but haven't there been Acting Presidents before, like John Tyler? Or is this 'officially' creating a position that in the past was just assumed?

Tyler created the precedent of the Vice-President assuming the role of President (as opposed to that of Acting President) upon the death of the previous office-holder; which proved useful, as it happened eight times before the passage of Amendment XXV (on the four latter occasions, the new President would then successfully run for the office in his own right). Section 1 codifies the "Tyler Precedent"; IOTL, only Section 4 has never been invoked.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Fantastic job, Brainbin! You've made alt-'76 here utterly -- almost eerily -- plausible. Mac Mathias is still remembered fondly here in reliably Democratic Maryland and hits every one of the Vice Presidential criteria that were in use at this time (geographical/regional, age, and ideological balance) and also passes the "gravitas" test.

Thank you very much for your compliments, Andrew! Interestingly, the 1976 GOP ticket also re-creates the geographical composition of the 1968 GOP ticket, which did not occur to me until after it had already been decided. But I also liked Mathias because - in addition to representing the sheer breadth of the "big tent" attitude dominant in the party at the time - Mathias uses Reagan's OTL strategy for 1980 and avoids his OTL choice for 1976, which was made in very different circumstances.

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Similarly, Dale Bumpers is an inspired choice for Muskie's VP; he's a plausible President in his own right, young, charismatic, obviously a rising star in the party, and from the South (which I imagine will continue to tantalize Democrats ITTL just as IOTL). Remember that as late as 1988, Michael Dukakis was talking about winning Texas as key to his electoral strategy (!); my guess is that Democrats are going to take at least as long ITTL as IOTL to figure out where to maximize their electoral return for their campaigning buck.

Since much of the South is now a three-way contest (virtually all of the votes for Maddox came from the Old Confederacy - Reagan naturally sucked up the Midwestern white working-class voters who backed Wallace in the previous two elections), the Democrats definitely think they still have a chance down there, enough to counterbalance the lack of a Southerner heading the ticket in 1976. Bumpers looked good for VP for - again - geographic reasons (as I mentioned in the update itself, it echoes the Camelot ticket), and the fact that he's one of the very few Young Turk types in that region (amidst the way over-the-hill Democratic bench there). What clinched it for Bumpers, though, was that it kept Arkansas out of Republican hands, lengthening a century-long streak (which was broken in 1972, IOTL). How could I resist keeping that kind of tradition in place?

Originally Posted by Andrew T

The size of Reagan's '76 landslide here feels about right, and -- with the Republicans having huge majorities in Congress -- sets up a pretty fun parallel to OTL's 2008. My guess is that Reagan's brand of economic conservatism will be a harder sell in TTL for any number of reasons: a) greater racial integration and social equality, which generally correlates well with social and political liberalism; b) a more peaceful 70s, which means that national security/defense buildup arguments are going to resonate less well with the electorate; c) religious Right groups like the Moral Majority have had less time to organize and probably have more divided loyalties given the regional viability of the AIP; they've also had zero opportunity to interact with a national campaign, unlike IOTL; and d) Reagan will take office during a time of relative economic prosperity trending downwards as opposed to the reverse, and so people will be less likely to want to gamble on radical new tax policy.

I admit, I noticed the parallels to OTL 2008 as the situation was taking shape ITTL. Obviously, I can't go into any kind of detail about what I'm planning for Reagan's first (and possibly one and only) term, but it's looking very eventful so far, both in foreign and domestic policy terms, in contrast to the relatively quiet Humphrey lame-duck term. Obviously, the still-robust liberal wing of the party will dig in their heels in many respects, but at least they've effectively eliminated one of that faction's loudest voices in the Senate, by putting Mathias on the Presidential ticket. I mean, we all remember how well it worked with Theodore Roosevelt, right?

Originally Posted by Andrew T

FWIW, Arthur Laffer was said to have publicly explained the Laffer curve in 1974, so that probably already exists, although Laffer's work in drafting California's Proposition 13 didn't happen until 1978 IOTL. Nevertheless, I imagine that Reagan is still a supply-sider ITTL.

Reagan is still a practitioner of "voodoo economics", yes. Remember that the Oil Crisis and the ensuing recession was the culmination of forty years of Keynesian policies, so there will be some appetite for trying something new, even if the changes are this drastic (though whether that appetite will lead to action is another matter entirely).

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Finally: we're about to enter the age of the personal computer! IOTL, 1977 saw the release of the Apple II and TRS-80 Model I, although things didn't really pick up until 1979 with the release of the Apple II+, the TRS-80 Model II, and the Atari 400 and 800.

We'll hear about breakthroughs in electronics in the next few cycles, don't you worry about that!

Originally Posted by jpj1421

Reagan in 76 with a massive Republican Congress? Eww.

Thank you for that probing political insight

Originally Posted by jpj1421

Great update as always, though.

And thank you for the compliment!

I don't think it's going to be a great spoiler to say that *SDI research will happen under Reagan.

Originally Posted by PW MAX

Another great update, another great read. Still very much looking forward to the 1980s in this world, only a few more years till I'm born! Unless I've been butterflied away somehow...

Glad you're still reading, PW MAX! I really appreciate that you check in every few months to let me know (You are welcome to post more often, of course). And yes, alas, you are butterflied, but if it's any consolation, so am I! One of the many reasons that I'm not going past 1986 is to avoid the creation of a paradox!

Originally Posted by Unknown

Love the humiliation of Agnew. BTW, have you read Fear, Loathing and Gumbo on the Campaign Trail 1972? (Agnew becomes president in that TL.)

I've read the earlier parts of it, yes - I think around to when Agnew became President. Before I became a regular poster, I would usually read timelines right through until I "caught up", wherever that might be. But Agnew, much like Ted Kennedy, is someone who would invariably find himself in a very specific kind of trouble until he was "caught".

Originally Posted by anon_user

Was George Takei a Scoop Jackson Democrat in OTL, too?

I'll be honest here: I don't know. He was (and remains) a Democrat, obviously, but I'm extrapolating that he would have supported Scoop Jackson based on his appearance in The Green Berets IOTL (and ITTL) - it was the only major Hollywood film that was supportive of American involvement in the overseas quagmire, leading me to believe that Takei presumably had some esteem for the notion of a strong foreign policy. Even with regards to one of his pet causes - raising awareness of Japanese internment during WWII - he has often mentioned that many Japanese-Americans supported the war effort and would have fought for the USA had they not been prevented from doing so.

Originally Posted by anon_user

Definitely happy to see a Marylander who isn't a corrupt embarrassment to my home state in the Vice-Presidency.

To be honest, I'm surprised at how well Mathias has gone over as Vice-President! We'll have to see how Reagan deals with him...

Originally Posted by stevep

On whether Reagan becomes a 1 or 2 terms possibly the big issue would be whether you still get the Iranian rebellion and following coup by the reactionary clerics and the accompaningly oil shock? [Mind you the period up until Reagan's election OTL was the period of maximum public interest in finding alternatives to the oil question and Reagan's supply-sider/fre-market outlook went strongly against that. So unless he has a major change in his outlook, which I suspect is unlikely, that could end sooner, which could make any oil shock worse].

Alternative energy is already on the agenda ITTL, thanks to the Oil Crisis of 1973 - this has resulted in NASA investing in space-based solar power (or "microwave") prototypes. The major OTL alternative bandied about at this time - nuclear - is also an option, though Humphrey has been fairly lukewarm about it. But will Reagan be?

Originally Posted by phx1138

As usual, an excellent piece of work. I'm no particular fan of politics, so I don't have the knowledge to say how this differs. I am, as always, deeply impressed with your grasp of the details & niceties.

Thank you very much, phx! Not to worry, we'll be back to the nitty-gritty of television production before you know it!

Originally Posted by phx1138

I didn't realize Ted Bundy was so closely connected to the Republicans. I have to wonder if it might not have wider repercussions.

There's not really much more mileage they can get out of it now. The only reason it was a "big deal" IOTL is because Bundy was working for a Presidential campaign in 1972 rather than a gubernatorial one (the eavesdropping incident was lifted directly from OTL). And he'll be incarcerated by 1978, so it's a thing of the past.

A lot of you seem to be asking after an event that happens about 13 years after the POD. We'll just have to wait and see what happens there!

A very special "More to Come", coming up next!