Reagan Revolution in 1976 instead of 1980

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

PoD- Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms convince Reagan in 1976 that picking Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania would be political suicide. Reagan picks Jesse Helms instead. There is no bolt of Mississippi from the Reagan camp and the party leadership can support Reagan knowing that Helms has good credentials to back Reagan. In the first round of voting Ford still leads but not enough to win; Reagan wins second round.

Can Reagan beat Carter?

THE OBSERVER · Aug 2, 2015

Yes, but I'm not sure he'll survive 1980.

Turquoise Blue · Aug 2, 2015

If there's Reagan in 1976, there's a Democrat in 1980. If most OTL things out of the President's control happens in ATL, this plus the President's perceived radicalism and voter fatigue at 12 years of GOP rule, it'll be a strong election for Dems. Expect a crowded primary.

Indicus · Aug 2, 2015

Turquoise Blue said:
If there's Reagan in 1976, there's a Democrat in 1980. If most OTL things out of the President's control happens in ATL, this plus the President's perceived radicalism and voter fatigue at 12 years of GOP rule, it'll be a strong election for Dems. Expect a crowded primary.

Also, the Democrat in the Whitehouse will be less likely to end détente and so the USSR will still exist, having possibly liberalized under Gorbachev (if he is not butterflied away).

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

Turquoise Blue said:
If there's Reagan in 1976, there's a Democrat in 1980. If most OTL things out of the President's control happens in ATL, this plus the President's perceived radicalism and voter fatigue at 12 years of GOP rule, it'll be a strong election for Dems. Expect a crowded primary.

Any ideas on who runs? Who wins? It is rare, but not unheard of for someone to run twice after having lost the first time (Nixon is most famous for having lost to Kennedy then ran again in 1968 and won, Cleveland won, lost, then won again) so perhaps Carter runs again? Ted Kennedy certainly runs, since he in OTL ran in a primary in 1980 against Carter as sitting president. Perhaps given the state of the economy Kennedy makes a good case for that conservatism and Reaganomics are a failure and that we need to go back to Kennedy-style liberalism?

Do we see anyone in the Republican party challenging Reagan in a primary a la Kennedy against Carter in OTL 1980? Perhaps George HW Bush with support from Dick Cheney? Remember in OTL Ronald Reagan HATED Dick Cheney and Cheney was one of very few people in Nixon's administration that were not brought into Reagan's.

David T · Aug 2, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
PoD- Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms convince Reagan in 1976 that picking Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania would be political suicide. Reagan picks Jesse Helms instead. There is no bolt of Mississippi from the Reagan camp and the party leadership can support Reagan knowing that Helms has good credentials to back Reagan. In the first round of voting Ford still leads but not enough to win; Reagan wins second round.

Can Reagan beat Carter?

With Helms as running mate? No. Moderate Republicans--and in 1976 there were quite a few of them--will vote en masse for Carter. For that matter, choosing Helms would *even at the GOP convention* probably be a net negative since it would alienate some conservative-but-not-*that*-conservative delegates who might otherwise consider voting for Reagan.

von kressenstein · Aug 2, 2015

fjihr said:
Also, the Democrat in the Whitehouse will be less likely to end détente and so the USSR will still exist, having possibly liberalized under Gorbachev (if he is not butterflied away).

Gorbachev is still a bit away... I'm not sure you get an isolationist USA out Dem rule. economic policy take time to kick in... So the 80's are still the 80s

Iran and Arab discontent is still likely.. Some one needs to bridge the soviet gap not sure it would end as well with a soviet union going down with a bang instead just quitly into the long night.

Certain it can limp along.. but once it starts to liberalize the pent up feelings will be the same.

If Regan plays tough in 76... like he did in 80...

1 iran might not happen or at least the same... If it does .. Does Regan invade?
2 evil empire speech earlier.. Thus scaring the soviets more..
3. Military home makeover sooner.. Lick the wounds and press forward
4. Increased military spending ends stagflation.. But debt skyrockets...
Early 80's 4 years earlier.
5. Gawd hope tho kills disco
6. I think he wins a second term in 80
But dems do massive takeover in 84...

Soviet union might last .. Might not.. If Regan spends American pride and finances to build us power . You could either wind,up in nuclear ending or what we got.. lots of optiins

TFSmith121 · Aug 2, 2015

And along with the lunacy of Helms as vp, there's

David T said:
With Helms as running mate? No. Moderate Republicans--and in 1976 there were quite a few of them--will vote en masse for Carter. For that matter, choosing Helms would *even at the GOP convention* probably be a net negative since it would alienate some conservative-but-not-*that*-conservative delegates who might otherwise consider voting for Reagan.

And along with the lunacy of Helms as vp, there's also the minor problem that this is the first presidential since '72, Watergate, Agnew's resignation, Nixon's resignation, the fall of Saigon, and the accidental presidency of Ford.

The country wanted a Democrat; 57 electoral college votes is an insurmountable lead, and although a Reagan-Helms ticket sounds like it would peel away Democratic votes in the south, it is also going to cost Republican votes in the north...

Best,

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

von kressenstein said:
Gorbachev is still a bit away... I'm not sure you get an isolationist USA out Dem rule. economic policy take time to kick in... So the 80's are still the 80s

Iran and Arab discontent is still likely.. Some one needs to bridge the soviet gap not sure it would end as well with a soviet union going down with a bang instead just quitly into the long night.

Certain it can limp along.. but once it starts to liberalize the pent up feelings will be the same.

If Regan plays tough in 76... like he did in 80...

1 iran might not happen or at least the same... If it does .. Does Regan invade?
2 evil empire speech earlier.. Thus scaring the soviets more..
3. Military home makeover sooner.. Lick the wounds and press forward
4. Increased military spending ends stagflation.. But debt skyrockets...
Early 80's 4 years earlier.
5. Gawd hope tho kills disco
6. I think he wins a second term in 80
But dems do massive takeover in 84...

Soviet union might last .. Might not.. If Regan spends American pride and finances to build us power . You could either wind,up in nuclear ending or what we got.. lots of optiins

I don't think Reagan will be able to pull off the massive military spending in 1976, we just got out of Vietnam and no one is going to want to see a huge increase in military spending or an invasion of Iran or warmongering Evil Empire talk.

Paul V McNutt · Aug 2, 2015

Reagan would have lost in 1976. He is of the president's party in bad economic times. cCarter can make an issue of Reagsn's unpopular views like his opposition to Medicare.

Brundlefly · Aug 2, 2015

The end of détente was also a response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, so I'd also say that SDI/"star wars" wouldn't have happened until the early 1980s. In Iran, Reagan probably would have backed the Shah throughout his Presidency, but I doubt that he'd let the US get involved in 1979. But with the hostage crisis, the Soviets in Afghanistan and Communist Vietnam hitting it off with China and Cambodia, the Democrats would have succeeded in 1980 with a more hawkish candidate, possibly Henry Jackson.

As for economic policy, monetarism was already en vogue due to the experiments in Chile and Thatcherism. So "Reagonomics" would have happened a few years earlier.

Emperor Julian · Aug 2, 2015

Helms is too extreme. How about James Buckley, Conservative Senator from New York?

Visigoethe · Aug 2, 2015

If Helms was Reagan's running mate almost all moderate Republicans would bolt to either Jimmy Carter or Charles Mathias who most likely would've gone Independent in the case of a Reagan nomination and most certainly with Helms as the running mate.

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

Emperor Julian said:
Helms is too extreme. How about James Buckley, Conservative Senator from New York?

Buckley and his brother were both considered in OTL and preferred by Thurmond and Helms. If either Buckley works for you, I'd love to hear what you think the results are of a Reagan nomination and whether they win against Carter.

Octosteel · Aug 2, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
Any ideas on who runs? Who wins? It is rare, but not unheard of for someone to run twice after having lost the first time (Nixon is most famous for having lost to Kennedy then ran again in 1968 and won, Cleveland won, lost, then won again) so perhaps Carter runs again? Ted Kennedy certainly runs, since he in OTL ran in a primary in 1980 against Carter as sitting president. Perhaps given the state of the economy Kennedy makes a good case for that conservatism and Reaganomics are a failure and that we need to go back to Kennedy-style liberalism?

Do we see anyone in the Republican party challenging Reagan in a primary a la Kennedy against Carter in OTL 1980? Perhaps George HW Bush with support from Dick Cheney? Remember in OTL Ronald Reagan HATED Dick Cheney and Cheney was one of very few people in Nixon's administration that were not brought into Reagan's.

I don't know why you keep thinking Kennedy would most certainly run. He only ran in 1980 to "save American liberalism" and a lot of people thought Carter couldn't win. Notice he never ran again, not in 1984, not in 1988, never again.

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

Octosteel said:
I don't know why you keep thinking Kennedy would most certainly run. He only ran in 1980 to "save American liberalism" and a lot of people thought Carter couldn't win. Notice he never ran again, not in 1984, not in 1988, never again.

You don't think a Reagan administration from 1976 and the prospects of a second term is not enough for Kennedy to run in 1980 as in OTL to "save American liberalism"?

Yes, I think if Kennedy ran in OTL that nothing in this ATL butterflies that away. I think it's ridiculous to constantly think that it is so easy to butterfly Kennedy's 1980 campaign with the slightest of a butterfly flap.

Emperor Julian · Aug 2, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
You don't think a Reagan administration from 1976 and the prospects of a second term is not enough for Kennedy to run in 1980 as in OTL to "save American liberalism"?

Yes, I think if Kennedy ran in OTL that nothing in this ATL butterflies that away. I think it's ridiculous to constantly think that it is so easy to butterfly Kennedy's 1980 campaign with the slightest of a butterfly flap.

Because he wanted to save American liberalism from a fellow Democrat. He had enough faith in 1976, 1984, and 1988 that his party would nominate an acceptable liberal Democrat, or at least have the option of voting for an acceptable liberal in the primaries, so he didn't run. In 1980, he knew that if he didn't run, the only alternatives that the Democrats would have would be Carter and Jerry Brown. So unless come 1979 in this TL, and no liberal looks to be running for President, Kennedy will have no reason to feel the need to run to represent the liberals.

Octosteel · Aug 2, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
You don't think a Reagan administration from 1976 and the prospects of a second term is not enough for Kennedy to run in 1980 as in OTL to "save American liberalism"?

Yes, I think if Kennedy ran in OTL that nothing in this ATL butterflies that away. I think it's ridiculous to constantly think that it is so easy to butterfly Kennedy's 1980 campaign with the slightest of a butterfly flap.

I think you're completely over exaggerating Kennedy's wish to run. If he wanted to run so badly, why didn't he run in 1972 when people were begging him to? Why not 1976 when he would have been the front runner and the Democrats had the best shot since 1964 of winning? Instead, he ran against an incumbent Democratic President. That was the only time he ever ran. He did to push a more liberal agenda on Carter. The man loved the Senate. I think you are doing exactly what most people did back then, not look at Ted Kennedy as the man he was but rather as an amalgamation of John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy when the fact of the matter is that he was neither.

von kressenstein · Aug 2, 2015

Napoleonrules said:
I don't think Reagan will be able to pull off the massive military spending in 1976, we just got out of Vietnam and no one is going to want to see a huge increase in military spending or an invasion of Iran or warmongering Evil Empire talk.

not so sure.. America was licking its wounds.. Reagan was a strange diverse cookie after all you know..

but lets just say for giggles.. things go normal at first.. you have some cuts .. but nothing to serious.. but then say towards the end.. Iran happens.. and it turns into full on support. followed by soviet invasion of Afghanistan .. and actually thinking about.. say full on intervention in iran and the soviets think twice and DONT invade.. saving them 9 years of war they didn't need financially .. the shaw was our man in iran.. our investments and british of course.. but I am not sure the republicans would let it go with out some sort of a mild fight.

but during his initial term I think he would be trying to spin Vietnam.. trying to heal some of the wounds.. but I could see the hand forced with iran..

this I think would also go a long way to curbing some radicalism in the middle east if both iran and Afghanistan can remain somewhat stable ..

yes I know Afghanistan was never what we would call stable... but..

at least not in full on crap tastic war

I just cant see the republicans letting the military and foreign policy take a dive into the crapper .. Vietnam or not..

Napoleonrules · Aug 2, 2015

von kressenstein said:
not so sure.. America was licking its wounds.. Reagan was a strange diverse cookie after all you know..

but lets just say for giggles.. things go normal at first.. you have some cuts .. but nothing to serious.. but then say towards the end.. Iran happens.. and it turns into full on support. followed by soviet invasion of Afghanistan .. and actually thinking about.. say full on intervention in iran and the soviets think twice and DONT invade.. saving them 9 years of war they didn't need financially .. the shaw was our man in iran.. our investments and british of course.. but I am not sure the republicans would let it go with out some sort of a mild fight.

but during his initial term I think he would be trying to spin Vietnam.. trying to heal some of the wounds.. but I could see the hand forced with iran..

this I think would also go a long way to curbing some radicalism in the middle east if both iran and Afghanistan can remain somewhat stable ..

yes I know Afghanistan was never what we would call stable... but..

at least not in full on crap tastic war

I just cant see the republicans letting the military and foreign policy take a dive into the crapper .. Vietnam or not..

Oh I like this vein of thought and not considered we could butterfly away an invasion of Afghanistan. While the US has had Vietnam, the Soviet Union may not go through their equivalent... can this cause more butterflies to make the Soviet Union to survive past through the 1990s? It would be fun to be able to say "An earlier Reagan causes the USSR to survive longer"