WI: Reagan Was Elected President in 1976?

In OTL, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford both fought very hard for the republican nomination in 1976. So that made me wonder...

1) How could Reagan get the nomination over Ford?

2)How would the Election race have gone down between Ford and Carter in '76? Would Reagan have been able to win?

3) Assuming Reagan wins, how would his Presidency have been? Would he still face all the problems Carter did? Would he have been re-elected in 1980?

I'm curious to hear everyones thoughts...

1) Very easily, actually. Don't piss off the conservatives by promising to name Schweiker as his running mate, and then, well, name Schweiker as his running mate.

2) I think Reagan would probably have been defeated quite easily, actually. It'd be much easier for Carter to paint him as a dangerous extremist than four years later.

3) If he wins, he'll go down. The economy was not the fault of Jimmy Carter, and it wouldn't be the fault of Ronald Reagan either.

2) The map might look something like this, and I still think Reagan can swing most of the South in his column.



(R) Ronald Reagan/Richard Schweiker: 324 EV, 52.3%
(D) James Carter/ Walter Mondale: 214 EV, 46.7%

Incumbent President: Gerald Ford (R)
President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)

3) If Reagan wins in '80, it depends who the Democrats nominate. If they nominate Scoop Jackson (always the best Dem nominee for ATL '76 and '80), then he might lose. Ted Kennedy can be painted as an immoral tax-and-spend liberal. Reagan would have to push through Carter's domestic reforms (perhaps without energy) but would have the much tougher foreign policy that he conducted IOTL.

Would Reagan have had any ability to conduct a tough foreign policy?

I dunno. I'm seriously, seriously skeptical.

He'd try, rather than apologizing for the pre and post-Carter foreign policy SOP of supporting the incumbent pro-Western regimes, regardless of their aversion to democracy. There would be much less pressure on SA and the Philippines to democratize. SA has some butterflies, but Marcos' regime goes when the dying old man kicks the can sometime before 1990.

Nah, I can't see it. The Iranian revolution was going to happen, I can't see Reagan getting better intelligence from the CIA than Carter did, and the truth was that they misread it totally.

As for what follows from that. If anything, Reagan would cling more tenaciously to the Shah. He'd definitely let the Shah in for medical treatment. The hostage crisis would have happened. Reagan might have gone for a more aggressive reaction, but this era of the post Vietnam US military was 'stumblebums R us'. So I don't think that it would have gone better there, and likely would have gone worse.

He might have saved the Somozas with a massive military operation, but at best, that would have just turned Central America into a bloodbath earlier. The Somozas were corrupt, incompetent and had no support anywhere.

And Marcos? Marcos was screwed. He was a corrupt incompetent kleptocrat. More support from Reagan would have simply lead to an overreach.

The trouble is, Reagan just doesn't have any good tools available to him. This is the post-Vietnam era, the American military is wrecked, demoralized and held in wide contempt. The revelations of Watergate, the Tower Commission, the Vietnam experience etc. left no real capacity or support for any more robust foreign policy.

As for South Africa, well there wasn't much choice there. Getting in bed and staying in bed with a violently racist regime would have paid massively negative dividends at home and abroad, and would have basically handed the country over to the communists. I can't see Reagan being willing to do that.

The truth is that Reagan was never nearly as bold as he pretended to be internationally. He talked a good game, but push come to shove, he turned his tale and ran.... As per the marine bombing in Lebanon.

1976 Election

How could Reagan get elected in 1976? The mood of the country was so
much against the Republicans they would've needed Lincoln.
I know there are diehards who think Reagan could've beaten LINCOLN,
but seriously Carter hadn't become a four-letter word yet. Too many
lessons fresh in the peoples' minds about overreach and Reagan would
in the election have embodied it.
How about a 1968 victory? If he wins then, NO Watergate, though
Vietnam becomes a major wildcard.

usertron2020 said:

How could Reagan get elected in 1976? The mood of the country was so
much against the Republicans they would've needed Lincoln.
I know there are diehards who think Reagan could've beaten LINCOLN,
but seriously Carter hadn't become a four-letter word yet. Too many
lessons fresh in the peoples' minds about overreach and Reagan would
in the election have embodied it.
How about a 1968 victory? If he wins then, NO Watergate, though
Vietnam becomes a major wildcard.

Click to expand...

I don´t just see why you assume the Republicans couldn´t win in 1976. Facts say otherwise. Just see the results. It was no democratic landslide, it was a very close race. Let some thousand voters switch side in Ohio and some other state and Ford would have been reelected. I think a Reagan victory in 1976 is possible.

Let's all remember that Ford ran what was probably the best political campaign ever.

You are right

freivolk said:

I don´t just see why you assume the Republicans couldn´t win in 1976. Facts say otherwise. Just see the results. It was no democratic landslide, it was a very close race. Let some thousand voters switch side in Ohio and some other state and Ford would have been reelected. I think a Reagan victory in 1976 is possible.

Click to expand...

I believe I engaged in far too much hyperbole. But you must be honest,
it WAS the Democrats' year and if they didn't have long coattails for
Congress it is probably because the Dems didn't have that much to gain
as the majority that had held almost uninterrupted since 1932 hadn't
been smashed by Reagan yet. The Southern Strategy was still halfway
to go.

The Dem numbers by this time in Congress were bloated, but few yet
realized it. You had so many issues running against the incumbent
party in the White House it is a testament to Ford's campaign that he
did as well as he did(48-52). It is also an indictment of Carter's campaign
that he lost so much ground up to election day. He ran a campaign that
went like gangbusters up to the nomination, then he seemed to think that
Ford would be a pushover and he almost paid the price.

Reagan, even in 1980, was even with Carter until in the last 24 hours
there was a last minute rush of undecideds to Reagan (Thanks to a
deliberate meddling by Iran with their usual threats about the hostages
3 days before the election). Khomeini had a pathology about Carter that
rivaled Professor Moriarty's for Sherlock Holmes. Reagan's landslide was 51-42-7 but it was
a nationwide electoral college landslide that broke the back of the
southern democratic congressional caucus.
These conditions simply didn't exist in 1976. I see people
showing figures, maps, statistics, surveys, and so on with absolute
sincerity. But does anybody remember Karl Rove in the last 24 hours
before the '06 elections? He went to every show on Fox News to tell
all his comrades not to worry. That everybody else's numbers might
say that the Republicans might lose a good amount of seats, but not
HIS numbers. And many people on Fox reacted with relief to his
news. After all, Karl Rove may be evil, but he is an evil GENIUS. Even
his enemies don't deny that.
Well, we all know what happened. Sometimes the experts get so
caught up in the numbers game they don't realize the importance
of the abstract. Meaning national mood, feelings, general discontent,
and the overwhelming sense of "Throw the bums out".
Could Reagan get a 1976 White House victory? Sure, if he
had stayed a Democrat

RogueBeaver said:

2) The map might look something like this, and I still think Reagan can swing most of the South in his column.

(R) Ronald Reagan/Richard Schweiker: 324 EV, 52.3%
(D) James Carter/ Walter Mondale: 214 EV, 46.7%

Incumbent President: Gerald Ford (R)
President-elect: Ronald Reagan (R)

3) If Reagan wins in '80, it depends who the Democrats nominate. If they nominate Scoop Jackson (always the best Dem nominee for ATL '76 and '80), then he might lose. Ted Kennedy can be painted as an immoral tax-and-spend liberal. Reagan would have to push through Carter's domestic reforms (perhaps without energy) but would have the much tougher foreign policy that he conducted IOTL.

Click to expand...

Reagan, if elected in 1976, would probably be screwed for 1980. Reagan got very lucky based on the man himself: Paul Volcker, who handled the economy masterfully (or at least in a way that fixed it). I don't think Reagan would appoint him independently of Carter already having done so. A much forgotten fact was that Carter wasn't too great a difference from Reagan on certain economic matters. Carter began decentralization, was a sort of Clinton-like centrist at most, and gave the wealthy a tax cut; non of this stimulated the economy all too much, at least in time for Carter to take any credit for it before Reagan would continue it and stake his claim. So it stands to reason non of it would stimulate the economy much better/immediately if Reagan did the same.

If Reagan goes down, then anyone can really beat him in 1980 in my opinion. Scoop Jackson would have foreign defense credentials of "hawkishness" to challenge Reagan, but would be an old school New Dealer besides (the "Ante-Neo-Conservative"). Ted Kennedy could beat Reagan too. Remember, "Liberal" was a four letter word because Reagan managed to make it one in 8 years, coupled with the GOP Revolution of 1994, and the failures of Mondale and Dukakis which would otherwise give the Democrats strength to defend Liberalism rather than trying to play politics by running with Centrists and Blue Dogs. So Liberalism will not be bad here beyond Nixon era semi-slandering. But Kennedy was under a tremendous amount of stress as the patriarch of the entire Kennedy clan following JFK's and RFK's deaths, so I don't think he'll make it.

I can't help wonder if, were Reagan elected in 1976, Gary Hart would be the 40th President. He'd have only served one Senate term by 1980, but his relative youth could help against an unpopular, and elderly, Reagan.

So who could be a potential 1980 Democratic nominee if Ted Kennedy and Scoop are eliminated? As for Gary Hart, "where's the beef". Not to mention he was the McGovern campaign manager in 1972, despite his centrism as a Senator. Also too unknown and too inexperienced. Any POTUS regardless of party elected in 1976 running in 1980 will be extremely lucky to get more than 300 EV.

RogueBeaver said:

So who could be a potential 1980 Democratic nominee if Ted Kennedy and Scoop are eliminated? As for Gary Hart, "where's the beef". Not to mention he was the McGovern campaign manager in 1972, despite his centrism as a Senator.

Click to expand...

He was pretty much the closest thing to a President-in-waiting the United States had in a long time though. If it wasn't for 'monkey business' he'd probably have won easily in '88.

I think Lee Atwater would've found out about Donna Rice, and hammered home the family values theme even more than OTL '88.

freivolk said:

I don´t just see why you assume the Republicans couldn´t win in 1976. Facts say otherwise. Just see the results. It was no democratic landslide, it was a very close race. Let some thousand voters switch side in Ohio and some other state and Ford would have been reelected. I think a Reagan victory in 1976 is possible.

Click to expand...

Ford was a moderate, though...

If Reagan had won in 76 he could be dogged by recession for the first full term and half of the second, if he gets re-elected. In OTL the Republicans lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterms. Reagan bounced back when the economy started to lift soon after. An earlier Reagan administration may or may not be able to turn the economy around earlier, but there's no way he could do it within a year. This would cost him political capital and likely limit his effectiveness.

LorienTheYounger said:

Ford was a moderate, though...

Click to expand...

Yes, and like we know, moderates like Ford and Dole are more electable as rightwings like Reagan and Bush II.

usertron2020 said:

I believe I engaged in far too much hyperbole. But you must be honest,
it WAS the Democrats' year and if they didn't have long coattails for
Congress it is probably because the Dems didn't have that much to gain
as the majority that had held almost uninterrupted since 1932 hadn't
been smashed by Reagan yet. The Southern Strategy was still halfway
to go.

The Dem numbers by this time in Congress were bloated, but few yet
realized it. You had so many issues running against the incumbent
party in the White House it is a testament to Ford's campaign that he
did as well as he did(48-52). It is also an indictment of Carter's campaign
that he lost so much ground up to election day. He ran a campaign that
went like gangbusters up to the nomination, then he seemed to think that
Ford would be a pushover and he almost paid the price.

Reagan, even in 1980, was even with Carter until in the last 24 hours
there was a last minute rush of undecideds to Reagan (Thanks to a
deliberate meddling by Iran with their usual threats about the hostages
3 days before the election). Khomeini had a pathology about Carter that
rivaled Professor Moriarty's for Sherlock Holmes. Reagan's landslide was 51-42-7 but it was
a nationwide electoral college landslide that broke the back of the
southern democratic congressional caucus.
These conditions simply didn't exist in 1976. I see people
showing figures, maps, statistics, surveys, and so on with absolute
sincerity. But does anybody remember Karl Rove in the last 24 hours
before the '06 elections? He went to every show on Fox News to tell
all his comrades not to worry. That everybody else's numbers might
say that the Republicans might lose a good amount of seats, but not
HIS numbers. And many people on Fox reacted with relief to his
news. After all, Karl Rove may be evil, but he is an evil GENIUS. Even
his enemies don't deny that.
Well, we all know what happened. Sometimes the experts get so
caught up in the numbers game they don't realize the importance
of the abstract. Meaning national mood, feelings, general discontent,
and the overwhelming sense of "Throw the bums out".
Could Reagan get a 1976 White House victory? Sure, if he
had stayed a Democrat

Click to expand...

I just don´t see 1976 as the year of the Democrats. 1974 was definitly their year, but 1976?
They needed a southern candidate, who reestablished the "solid South" for a short time, to win.
I don´t say that Reagans chances would be good, but they were also not so bad. Like Ford he would win the West. He would propably make worth then Ford in the North-east, but better in the South.

Reagan would likely have to do a lot of resource building before he could do much of anything else, when it comes to the US military. This was a really low point in US military capabilities. However, if Reagan is elected at all, it's going to have to be on the same terms that Carter was in OTL: basically, the US public was sick and tired of monkey business overseas and the US economy slowly shredding, and wanted someone who would deal first and foremost with problems here at home. To get elected, Reagan would have to promise to deal with that first. It was Carter's misfortune to have a whole heap of foreign policy disasters land in his lap on his term, and Reagan would have to handle them in his own way. I imagine he'd be a lot more bombastic vs. Iran, but it's debatable just what could be done to them (maybe carrier strikes?). In Afghanistan, I imagine that US equipment would be forthcoming faster and in greater quantities right from the start.
I have to wonder too if Reagan would ever do anything like the Egypt/Israel peace treaty...