Would Ted Kennedy Have Become President Without Chappaquiddick?

[Amadeus]

Infamously, an inebriated Senator Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick island in July 1969 - leading to the death of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. While Kennedy retained his seat in the Senate until his death in 2009, the incident dashed his hopes of being elected President. I personally have walked on the bridge where the tragedy occurred: it's a narrow, wooden bridge over dark and ominous waters. It is not surprising that a drunk driver, having lost control of the wheel, would run their car through the railing and into the water.

But what if the incident had not occurred? Let's say that Kennedy doesn't have as much to drink on the night of the incident, and instead he safely drives across the bridge - sparing Mary Jo's life. Would Kennedy have been elected President if not for the Chappaquiddick Scandal?

 

[Johnrankins]

Infamously, an inebriated Senator Ted Kennedy drove off a bridge on Chappaquiddick island in July 1969 - leading to the death of 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne. While Kennedy retained his seat in the Senate until his death in 2009, the incident dashed his hopes of being elected President. I personally have walked on the bridge where the tragedy occurred: it's a narrow, wooden bridge over dark and ominous waters. It is not surprising that a drunk driver, having lost control of the wheel, would run their car through the railing and into the water.

But what if the incident had not occurred? Let's say that Kennedy doesn't have as much to drink on the night of the incident, and instead he safely drives across the bridge - sparing Mary Jo's life. Would Kennedy have been elected President if not for the Chappaquiddick Scandal?

Probably not, he wasn't very popular outside of Massachusetts, NY and California. That is a nice start but it isn't enough. He would have lost the entire south, the entire west and probably the entire Midwest outside of Minnesota.
,

 

[David T]

The only real possibility would be 1976. It is certaiinly plausible that Kennedy could have won the nomination that year, but is far from clear to me that he would have defeated Ford in November. Carter defeated Ford in a large number of southern and border states that had not recently gone Democratic in presidential elections and that would not do so again for many years (or in some cases, never--at least up to now.) Kennedy could not be expected to win these states. So the question is whether he could have done so much better than Carter in the North and West to offset his weakness in the South and border states. I rather doubt it, especially when one considers that there are "south-like" areas in many of the nothern states (e.g., southern Illinois and southern Ohio) where Kennedy would probably do less well than Carter. Kennedy would likely carry states like NY and MA far more decisively than Carter, but that means nothing in the Electoral College.

 

[marktaha]

He'd have run and lost in 1972 .1976 - walked it to nomination but l believe that people would have seen through him as it were during the campaign.

 

[naraic]

The only real possibility would be 1976. It is certaiinly plausible that Kennedy could have won the nomination that year, but is far from clear to me that he would have defeated Ford in November. Carter defeated Ford in a large number of southern and border states that had not recently gone Democratic in presidential elections and that would not do so again for many years (or in some cases, never--at least up to now.) Kennedy could not be expected to win these states. So the question is whether he could have done so much better than Carter in the North and West to offset his weakness in the South and border states. I rather doubt it, especially when one considers that there are "south-like" areas in many of the nothern states (e.g., southern Illinois and southern Ohio) where Kennedy would probably do less well than Carter. Kennedy would likely carry states like NY and MA far more decisively than Carter, but that means nothing in the Electoral College.

If Kennedy ran in 1976 give Kennedy a decent chance at taking California off Ford. He would lose a number of other states that Carter historically took.

To say that his advantages wouldn't win him electoral college votes is wrong. Not sure it would win him enough electoral college votes.

 

[David T]

If Kennedy ran in 1976 give Kennedy a decent chance at taking California off Ford. He would lose a number of other states that Carter historically took.

To say that his advantages wouldn't win him electoral college votes is wrong. Not sure it would win him enough electoral college votes.

There was certainly a skepticism toward Carter (perhaps based in part on suspicion of his Evangleical piety) in the Bay Area--in Marin County he did worse than McGovern!-- and Kennedy would almost certainly have done better than Carter there. OTOH, Kennedy might do worse than Carter in areas of the state largely settled by white southerners, like the Central Valley (Carter's 45.57% in Kern County was a better showing than any other Democratic presidential candidate made there after 1964) and some blue-collar parts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. So it's not clear to me that Kennedy would have carried CA, though it certainly is plausible. But that by itself would probably not be enough to make up for his losses in the South and border states. If he could also carry OR, WA, IL, NJ, and CT, that would be a different story.

 

[dcharles]

The only real possibility would be 1976. It is certaiinly plausible that Kennedy could have won the nomination that year, but is far from clear to me that he would have defeated Ford in November. Carter defeated Ford in a large number of southern and border states that had not recently gone Democratic in presidential elections and that would not do so again for many years (or in some cases, never--at least up to now.) Kennedy could not be expected to win these states. So the question is whether he could have done so much better than Carter in the North and West to offset his weakness in the South and border states. I rather doubt it, especially when one considers that there are "south-like" areas in many of the nothern states (e.g., southern Illinois and southern Ohio) where Kennedy would probably do less well than Carter. Kennedy would likely carry states like NY and MA far more decisively than Carter, but that means nothing in the Electoral College.

But it seems that part of his weakness in those states during the 70s stemmed from the infamy of Chappaquiddick. Ted K was noticeably weaker in the Midwest and South than his two older brothers. Although the reasons for that are complicated, at least part of it has to do with his image as a cowardly and decadent aristocrat who played by a different set of rules than the rest of us. A lot of that image comes from Chappaquiddick.

I don't think that you can take it for granted that Ted, sans Chappaquiddick, is as much of a niche candidate as he was OTL.

 

[Mark E.]

Had Ford won in 1976, events in Iran and Panama, as well as double-digit inflation would have been the same, making a Republican virtually unelectable in 1980. The space shuttle was in the works and a Kennedy/Glenn ticket could have won a popularity contest. After 12 years of GOP leadership, the electorate would want a change. Bring back early sixties pride, so to speak. When inflation stopped in 1983, re-election would be guaranteed.

 

[NedStark]

How about Ford/Reagan 76 and non-Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy in 1980?

 

[Amadeus]

How about Ford/Reagan 76 and non-Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy in 1980?

In that event Kennedy would win, though I wonder if Kennedy still sits out 1976 sans Chappaquiddick.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . Carter defeated Ford in a large number of southern and border states that had not recently gone Democratic in presidential elections and that would not do so again for many years (or in some cases, never--at least up to now.) . . .

But it seems that part of his weakness in those states during the 70s stemmed from the infamy of Chappaquiddick. Ted K was noticeably weaker in the Midwest and South than his two older brothers. . .

But didn’t Carter squander a big lead in the general, in large part because he was being so vague on the issues? Yes, he did so squander.

In large part, the voters were having buyer’s remorse toward Carter when he was the presumptive next president.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . as well as double-digit inflation would have been the same, making a Republican virtually unelectable in 1980. . .

For the 1980 campaign, the Republicans talked about the “misery index.” Its a mash-up statistic of Inflation + Unemployment. And it’s a pretty good mash-up, although I think one point of unemployment should count for somewhat more than one point of inflation.

In a similar way, the baseball stat OPS is a pretty good mash-up. This stands for On-base Plus Slugging.

 

[ejpsan]

Ted Kennedy unlike his brothers was content to stay in the Senate and he was very well liked by his fellow Senators across party and ideological lines.
Basically the only reason he ran in 1980 was that he thought President Carter was not moving far enough and fast enough on health care to his satisfaction.
Kennedy was basically used by polling companies as the go to person when doing head to head match ups vs GOP potential candidates before the primaries started.

 

[Chewbacca]

An amusing example of this scenario is in the Apple TV series "For All Mankind". In it, Kennedy wins in 1972 due to, in no small part, Nixon 'losing' the Space Race to the Soviets. Chappaquiddick never happened because Kennedy had to fly back to DC for emergency meetings after the Soviet moon landing, thereby missing the party that led to the crash. He proceeds to lose to Reagan in 1976, resulting in a much different 70's/80's portion of the Cold War.

 

[gladiator8085]

For the 1980 campaign, the Republicans talked about the “misery index.” Its a mash-up statistic of Inflation + Unemployment. And it’s a pretty good mash-up, although I think one point of unemployment should count for somewhat more than one point of inflation.

In a similar way, the baseball stat OPS is a pretty good mash-up. This stands for On-base Plus Slugging.

All the Republicans did in the 1980 campaign was use the same misery index against Carter that Carter had used against Ford in 1976.

 

[David T]

But it seems that part of his weakness in those states during the 70s stemmed from the infamy of Chappaquiddick. Ted K was noticeably weaker in the Midwest and South than his two older brothers.

Teddy's older brothers were not popular in the South--at least after JFK came out for a strog civil rights bill in 1963 .

 

[David T]

Had Ford won in 1976, events in Iran and Panama, as well as double-digit inflation would have been the same, making a Republican virtually unelectable in 1980. The space shuttle was in the works and a Kennedy/Glenn ticket could have won a popularity contest. After 12 years of GOP leadership, the electorate would want a change. Bring back early sixties pride, so to speak. When inflation stopped in 1983, re-election would be guaranteed.

If a non-Chappauqidick Teddy had declined to run in 1976, and Ford beat Carter, I agree that Teddy would be favored to get the Demcoratic nomination and win the presidency in 1980.

However, if Teddy did run in 1976 (and without Chppaquiddick I think it is less likely that he would pass up the chance to run that year) and lost (and while he might win in 1976, a narrow loss is certainly plausible) would the Demcorats still want to nominate him again in 1980, however strong the argument that this time he could win? It is possible---Bryan, Stevenson, and Dewey were renomiinated four years after losing--but OTOH, I can see the Democrats saying "we keep on losing with northern liberals--maybe we should try a southern moderate this time..."

 

[Amadeus]

If a non-Chappauqidick Teddy had declined to run in 1976, and Ford beat Carter, I agree that Teddy would be favored to get the Demcoratic nomination and win the presidecny in 1980.

However, if Teddy did run in 1976 (and withoutt Chppaquiddick I think it is less likely that he would pass up the chance to run that year) and lost (and while he might win in 1976, a narrow loss is certainly plausible) would the Demcorats still want to nominate him again in 1980, however strong the arugment that this time he could win? It is possible---Bryan, Stevenson, and Dewey were renomiinated four years after losing--but OTOH, I can see the Demcorats saying "we keep on losing with northern liberals--maybe we shoudl trey a southern moderate this time..."

Alternatively, Kennedy wins in 1976 - but fails to overcome the problems that plagued Carter's presidency - and in 1980 Kennedy becomes the youngest ex-President in history when Ronald Reagan defeats him.

 

[David T]

I've always felt that 1968 was his best chance--and not *only* because it was before Chappaquiddick. After RFK's assassination, it was obvious that Humphrey had a huge lead in delegates--yet also obvious that Humphrey's nomination would seriously divide the party. For that reason, there was a "draft Teddy" movement supported by, among others, Mayor Daley--though it is possible (as some have suspected) that this was just a ploy by Daley to get Kennedy to accept the *vice* presidential nomination on a Humphrey-led ticket. Kennedy was apparently acceptable to some Humphrey and McCarthy supporters who had not liked his brother Robert. Indeed, Eugene McCarthy himself said that while he would not support Kennedy on the first ballot--he still wanted his own name placed in nomination--he would be willing subsequently to withdraw in Teddy's favor--something, he added, he would never have done for Robert.

To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

"So suppose some previously Humphrey-leaning bosses decide to support Teddy in 1968, and Kennedy decides to run (to 'fulfill his brothers' dreams') and gets the nomination. Note that he would have three advantages in 1968 over any subsequent candidacy: (1) No Chappaquiddick, (2) a conservative vote divided between Nixon and Wallace, and (3) the magic of the Kennedy name had not faded as much as it would subsequently--indeed RFK's assassination would somewhat revive it (the 'martyrdom' factor). As for the 'youth and inexperience' issue, he could always say 'Mr. Nixon said the same thing about my brother Jack in 1960--that he was too young and inexperienced...'

"Granted, Teddy would do poorly in the South but then Humphrey didn't carry anything there except Texas. Wealthy antiwar liberals would support him financially in a way they refused to do for Humphrey--yet Teddy was not (at least at the time) anathema to traditonal Democrats to the degree that McGovern would be, and had good relations with organized labor. It's not inconceivable he could carry such narrow Nixon states (in OTL) as New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio and California."

 

[GSpectre]

Didn't Kennedy have issues with mass media? I seem to remember reading from his failed insurgent campaigns against Carter that he had issues with it. He was Aparently he'll on wheels with retail politics, and the face to face stuff, but he came across badly on tv or over the radio.